the bureaucratic mix: the political side with its short-term orientation brings change and new blood, the career, with its long-term orientation, brings continuity and institutional memory. The contributions of each are different but complementary, at least in classic politics-administration dichotomy theory.
|
| | Political executives enunciate new directions and goals based on their interpretation of the public's will, while career executives help to translate new or modified policies into practical and effective programs. Bureaucracy needs the intermittent fillip of fresh questioning and outside redirection to counteract tendencies towards stultification and complacency, and political leadership needs the steadying anchor of institutional expertise and insiders' advice to avoid or reduce unnecessary errors and to obtain tactical sophistication. (Lorentzen 1985, 411)
|
This chapter discusses presidential relations with the bureaucracy, the Senior Executive Service (SES), and the results of bureaucrat bashing. It focuses on the key question of managing career executives and analyzes the different roles assigned politicals and careerists and the resultant tensions between them. It then turns to various models of political-career relations, including a typology of those of George Bush's administration.
|
The Administrative Presidency and Careerists: The President as Chief Bureaucrat
|
Presidents in the modern era have had decidedly mixed views of the federal bureaucracy. Relations between JFK and the permanent government, for example, were predominantly neutral in the early days of his administration but deteriorated over time.
|
| | Kennedy and his advisors viewed the civil service with a low quotient of paranoia. They did not look upon the bureaucracy as a hotbed of covert political oppositionists. Yet before long they began to think of the rest of government not so much as a political resistance movement but as an institutional resistance movement [emphasis added], "a bulwark against change" and "a force against innovation with an inexhaustible capacity to dilute, delay and obstruct presidential purpose". . . . At times the White House staff may have confused the pace of the permanent government with its intent; the bureaucracy moved slowly, but it did not necessarily move in the opposite direction, nor was it totally immune to political leadership. The staff's suspicions of the civil service, however,
|
|