tion, took a page from the Nixon playbook and was determined to keep appointments under tight control. To that end, Reagan, James, and Reagan's "kitchen cabinet," his close friends and political associates,
|
| | insisted on a narrow definition of loyalty to the president and had cabinet members agree to accept White House selection of their subordinates. Loyalty to the president was assured by examining the background and attitudes of potential nominees. Heavy weight was given to support for Reagan in previous campaigns and Republican primaries. There was also a relatively narrow set of ideological values concerning the role of the federal government, the military, and social issues that could be applied to prospective candidates. This rigorous ideological screening ensured that appointees would put loyalty to the president and his policies above the tugs of Congress, interest groups, and the bureaucracy. Reagan's clearly defined ideology made this type of screening possible in ways that would not have worked in the administrations of previous presidents, such as Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, or Carter, who had much broader sets of values. (Pfiffner 1987a, 72)
|
Despite the stringent litmus test applied to appointees, the New Right venomously attacked the White House, claiming it had been "denied a fair share of the spoils and that the policy jobs went to moderates and so-called pragmatists" (Bonafede 1987a, 50).
|
Like Carter before him and George Bush and Bill Clinton after him, Reagan was criticized for the length of time it took to fill his positions. Reagan's personnel director declared that "each week he received 900 resumes, 1,100 telephone calls, and about 350 pieces of mail from Congress bearing job recommendations and endorsements. 'It's like a stockbrokerage. You're dealing jobs, people, phone calls, pressure all day long"' (ibid., 51).
|
In the early Bush administration the Reaganite system of control was kept in place but not aggressively pursued. Some secretaries (notably James Baker, Nicholas Brady, and Robert Mosbacher) were given greater latitude in selecting their staff and, in general, mutual accommodation was the more likely practice. Bush's personnel chief, Chase Untermeyer, asserted the guiding principle that "No department or agency chief will have an appointee forced down his or her throat, that is, imposed by the White House. Conversely, every decision is a presidential decision" (Pfiffner 1990, 69).
|
The internal clearance process in the new administration was simple
|
|