Text 12265, 97 rader
Skriven 2007-02-15 16:30:34 av Josh Hill (15708.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:09:17 -0800, Rob Perkins <rperkins@usa.net>
wrote:

>[I'll probably reply to other points, but this one deserves a shining reply
>of its own.]
>>> Buh? Support that. Cincinnatus went back to his farm.
>> 
>> Seems self-evident: capable people tend to seek the most challenging
>> jobs. Including farming, albeit I was describing working public
>> servants, not retired ones.
>
>Seeming self-evidence is acceptable for a premise, not an assertion as
>complex as "the best public servants gravitate to the federal Capitol".

I've seen so many politicians follow that progression that I truly
thought it would be self-evident. I mean, you don't see Bill Clinton
running for Mayor of New York, but you do see Rudy Giuliani running
for President of the United States, after an abortive run for the
Senate. You don't see former Gov. Pataki running for Mayor of New
York, you see him running too for President, or at least examining the
option. And so forth.

As to the ability of people in the Civil Service and of political
appointees, again, the ambitious people are more likely to want to
take on a highly visible, highly paid, highly prestigious, powerful
position. That in general is what ambitious people do in every walk of
life. The people who don't seek advancement within their chosen field
tend to be time servers. (Note "chosen field" -- I've know for example
more than a few engineers who eschew "promotions" to management
because they find the work too easy, too boring, or amoral.)

>One might from there just as easily conclude that better ones serve us at
>the U.N., which based on its own investigations, and notwithstanding the
>many people who

Most pols consider the UN less influential, important, prestigious,
and dare I say lucrative than the gov't of the US.

>Further, it ignores the dirty side of politics, which elevate incompetence
>to positions of devastating power, such as ol' "Brownie" in FEMA, and
>whichever other appointed positions were filled.

Thing is, on average, that side is worse at the state and local level.
In many cases, almost unimaginably worse, though part of that may be a
matter of the greater sophistication of Federal officials, who are
less likely to be out buying votes with bags of $20 bills.

>(I will, however, point out that things were complex enough and disastrous
>enough in Katrina that far more people than Brown should have resigned or
>been dismissed. And that FEMA was subject to organizationally disastrous
>changes when they were folded into DHS.

All true. And DHS is a disaster itself. The guy who runs it now said
when he took over that it was a disaster -- and from what I've read,
he's pretty amazingly lame himself.

>For my money, I think FEMA ought to be grouped in tightly with the USGS, the
>NOAA and NWS, and the Interior, and have their man-made disaster mandate
>removed altogether.)
>
>Finally, it comes to a simple matter of respect for satiated competence. A
>man or woman who would make an excellent Secretary of State may never
>consider pursuing it because he or she is uninterested in international
>politics quite nearly as much as running a school board or fixing the
>educational system in one state.
>
>A close relative of mine, for example, is fully capable of becoming the
>governor of a state like Idaho or Utah, and is charismatic enough to win a
>political race. But since he doesn't want to pay the price in the change of
>lifestyle required to pursue politics, he's happy with upper management
>positions in various largish phone and insurance companies around the
>country. 
>
>That sort of reasoning can certainly extend to members of a State
>bureaucracy or a National Guard.
>
>Thus, while capable people are attracted to difficult work, there is a
>spectrum of difficult work more rewarding or more compatible to those
>capable people much larger than just federal service. Perhaps in the USSR
>this was not the case, but in Western free democracies, it simply can't be
>said that the most competent people always go to the federal level, both
>because there is crushing incompetence canceling out efforts at all levels,
>and because not everyone wants a federal experience. QED.

The key word here is "always." I wasn't speaking in terms of "always,"
a premise which would I think be ridiculous, but rather of "more
likely."

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)