The Corporate-Style Government

Not surprisingly, today President Bush approved John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations via recess appointment, despite much criticism and concerns about his suitability for the post.

Partisan politics aside, why do I say this is no surprise?

In most large corporations, decisions are generally made via clear hierarchical control from the top down. Opinions from below might be considered, but rarely do they have much clout. Those that disagree publicly are either removed from their jobs or shunted off into dead-end positions with no further chance of advancement.

This administration is designed more like a corporate structure than any we have seen in our lifetimes. Decisions in this administration are made in a top-down fashion, without much concern for public opinion. Decisions are made much in the way that they are in a large corporation; in fact, George W. Bush is the first president with an MBA.

Since Bush took office, the White house has been described to be much more efficent and orderly than under Clinton; dissent is not tolerated... in fact it is outright punished. Questioning the decisions of superiors is generally responded to with a pink slip. For examples, see Paul O'Neill, former secretary of the treasury who criticized Bush's economic policy, or Colin Powell, who though he sacrificed his own political career for the sake of obeying the hierarchical government structure, found himself forced out of the Secretary of State position due to disagreements with the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld camp.

One need not be a direct member of the administration to suffer as a result of insubordination. Witness the payback against Joseph Wilson for pointing out inaccuracies in Bush's reasons behind going to war in Iraq- his wife was outed as a CIA agent.

This is also the case in congress; those not in league with the president or the leadership in the Republican party become rapidly "out of the loop" in decision making. Despite misgivings by Democrats and even a few influential Republicans about Bolton's qualifications, his appointment is pushed across simply because "that's what the boss wants."

Other comparisons to the corporate world come to mind. In the corporate world, there really is no such thing as privacy. All communications are subject to examination and control by the employer. This does make some sense, as often it can be considered necessary that employees be doing the work they are paid to do, and also to make sure that the company is not being misrepresented by reckless or dissatisfied individuals.

However, when this is applied to government policy, this can become quite unsettling to those who value the individual freedom which is supposed to be an integral part of what the United States is about. Witness many of the provisions of the PATRIOT act. Under the guise of looking out for terrorists, emails can now be monitored by the FBI. Library records can be searched (without the knowledge of those being investigated). Political dissent is seriously discouraged, and treated as a criminal act (during both Republican and Democratic conventions in the last election, protesters were limited to barbed-wire fenced enclosures out of site of any delegates).

Whether this trend to corporatization is part of a national cultural change remains to be seen. There has been evidence of this pattern for quite a while now... in 1992 Ross Perot got some 19% of the popular vote... he had no experience in government. His qualifications? Successfully running several companies in a top-down fashion.

Even more insidious is that the line between work and leisure is getting thinner. There is an ongoing trend within the corporate environment away from requiring people dress in business suits (tie and suitjacket), and toward "corporate casual." People now dress more like they do when away from work. It also used to be that people spent most of their social activity with people in their neighborhoods; now co-workers are more likely to provide that activity. The lines between work and leisure are getting thinner and thinner. More and more often people bring the office home, being required to cary laptop computers, cell phones and blue-tooth devices.

So when we see our governmental "CEOs" making unilateral decisions which will affect they way we deal with other companies (excuse me, countries), we should not be surprised. It could very well be that this is part of a large cultural change where work and home are no longer distinguishable.

I sure hope I'm wrong.