Isn't Cronyism A Political Reality?

[GayCanuck]

and gives a wake up call to all politicians that "pay to play" is inherently evil? We have it here in Canada on both sides and from what I've read about US politics, particularly your federal government and in states like New Jersey, it is business as usual. Although I applaud James McGreevey for taking a courageous stand in coming out of the closet, it's sort of a hollow victory for gay rights given the cronyism that seemed to infest his administration.

I don't see any party solving this one.

[SoFlaJet]

1. duh......

talk about a hanging curveball...

[rodeodance]

2. when Jr fills SAFTY spots with silly cronies--people best wake up.

[incapsulated]

3. Yes, it's always existed but...

This administration has made it a default, to the extremes of putting totally unqualified people in very powerful and important positions in the government. They don't even try to find someone suitable who is also on "their side", they just appoint their personal friends and former employees. This is Tammany Hall shit on a federal level, here.

[BOHICA06]

4. Without Cronyism or Patronage ...

politicians have no influence. There is a school of thought that the American Revolution can owe some of it origins to the nearsighted policy of the Crown that pulled back patronage decisions to England rather than leave them with the appointed Governors of the colonies. Without influence they lost power, without influence any politician looses power.

It is not evil, it is the way of things.

[Selatius]

5. It's the spoils system

This is why folks like George Washington hated political parties. Ideally, you should have a Congress of independents making decisions based upon what their principles are, not based upon party affiliation and most definitely not based upon the size of one's wallet.

[Catchawave]

6. Usually Ambassador appointments are made to

Prez pals, and other fluffy, but prestigious, jobs for helping get them elected.

[McKenzie]

7. the sub text to "Cronyism"

is the malign influence of big financial interests on the political process, if I have interpreted your "pay to play" comment correctly. This is an obvious statement, however, it is probably the real issue we need to confront - if democracy is to truly reflect the will of the people then financial interests must be removed from the democratic process. Otherwise, those without any real financial clout are disenfranchised and Cronyism becomes the basis of our political systems...and look where it has lead us.

How we achieve that should be the focus of our efforts. I don't know how it can be achieved; I say that to pre-empt responses of the "what's your solution then?" variety. What I do know is that others with far greater knowledge on the subject than me have cited that malign influence and they did so a long time ago. "business as usual" is an apt comment in the context of what we are discussing here.

[wurzel]

8. "Cronyism" is one thing. "Incompetance" is another.

Clinton provided his allies with political positions. But they were all competant as well as loyal to Clinton. I doubt Clinton had many dumb friends. Bush only cares about loyalty.

[GayCanuck]

10. True he had some brillant appointees

but I wondered about him appointing his wife, who had no medical background to head up a massive project like your horrible healthcare "system". I guess there is no bigger crony than your spouse! Frankly, if I ever ran for office here in Canada, I wouldn't appoint my partner to anything! (he can barely manage picking up after himself) LOL

[wurzel]

11. Her proposal looks brilliant today compared to what we have.

It was deliberately sabotaged by Repukes, HMOs and the Drug Corporations. Mainly by totally lying about what she was proposing. They were telling people the government would be controlling their medicine cabinets. Unbelievably stupid. But the TV ads worked because they were never challenged by the media.

[Selatius]

9. Oops, double post