Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

COLUMN: Loyalty may not be the best way to pick an administration
By Scott Girard
Kansas State Collegian (Kansas State U.)
09/04/2007

(U-WIRE) MANHATTAN, Kan. — Imagining George Bush sitting alone in his office with all of his closest friends gone is something many of us always wanted. Now that it has actually happened, I almost feel some sympathy for the guy.

During the past year, many of his top advisers have left, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Campaign Adviser Karl Rove and a bevy of other friends and cabinet members.

This rash of departures has caused some serious stress for the administration, especially because Bush's main theme with his cabinet was loyalty; he chose close friends and people he could trust. It turns out these people probably were not only far from the most qualified but also not the most loyal. This can be called a lose-lose situation.

Bush took pride in his cabinet, and he trusted them with some of the biggest and most influential decisions.

According to the book, "The Price of Loyalty," based off numerous interviews and documents from former Bush Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill, Bush and his circle of friends within his cabinet hardly debated and never had a structured policy on several issues.

Bush had several yes-men in Washington and many from Texas who never questioned his policies.

Now, most of these friends are gone. One after another, members of Bush's cabinet left, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, three different press secretaries, many Texas buddies — including one of his closest friends Alberto Gonzales — and maybe the most devastating loss, his adviser, Karl Rove. All of these men were brought in to establish a feeling of loyalty, with no questions asked.

Rove was one of the main proponents and instigators of Bush's concept of loyalty. According to a Washington Post article from Aug. 19, Rove spent six years in the administration trying to spread Bush's conservative agenda through all levels of bureaucracy and government. The way to do this was through people who were loyal to the proliferation of those ideas.

According to the article, Rove's master plan failed. Because of the many mistakes of Bush and his cabinets, people did not accept the agenda. Rove had lost one of his biggest battles, so he quit and fled back to his home.

Some of Bush's most influential cabinet members and friends have left over the past six-and-a-half years, leaving Bush all alone with more than a year left in office. He no longer has the power or the loyalty he sought in the beginning. Who would have thought loyalty was such a bad idea to build a cabinet around?

Aubrey Immelman, a former political psychologist at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University, previewed the downfall of an administration built around trust in a column she wrote for the St. Cloud Times in Minnesota on Dec. 21, 2000.

She said a cabinet of close confidants would not breed a healthy, thought-provoking administration, especially for a president like Bush who trusts his advisers to know what they are talking about. She continued by stating that building a cabinet around loyalty, not competence, was not the best decision.

She was right.

Now Bush is alone at the top. All of his friends are gone, and his agendas have failed, with few people to turn to. Many of his friends turned out to be failures, and worse yet, Bush failed to properly remove them. Because of this loyalty, Bush just prolonged his ineffective administration.

The people in charge of the country should be the best at what they do, not the best friends. Friends are great, but they might not be the best people to determine U.S. policy.

[ Back to Student Voices ]