Loyalty

Richard Cohen wonders why ex-Surgeon General Richard Carmona didn't just quit. I wonder, too:

In his own way, Carmona is the poster boy for the Bush administration -- a low-level Colin Powell, another non-quitter, a saluter who went along with the program and now talks more in defense of his own reputation than he ever spoke as an internal critic or, more likely, secret doubter. Such loyalty -- not to principle, conscience or integrity but to the boss -- is as much an essential ingredient for failure as are incorrect intelligence reports or fervid ideology. What Carmona and others like him too often forget is that when it comes to loyalty, they owe it not to the president but to you and me. Last time I looked, we were still the boss.

It's very strange times we've been living through.

Comments

Last time I looked, we were still the boss.

look again

Posted by cleek | July 17, 2007 12:17 PM

Earlier in the piece, Cohen describes Bush as "passive to the point of being inert" in the face of this kind of interference. After six years, Cohen still believes that this stuff goes on because W. is too dumb or too lazy to do anything about it and not because he wants it to? This is just delusional. As Brad DeLong is always saying, the Cossacks work for the Czar.

Posted by David J. Balan | July 17, 2007 12:22 PM

Of course Cohen's next column will be some OTOH bs about how Harry Reid is just as incompetent and polarizing as Bush. But to give credit where it is due: Cohen isn't just right, he is making a very important point.

Posted by kth | July 17, 2007 12:23 PM

richard cohen still works for donald graham and fred hiatt, so who is he to talk?

as to serious matters, i happen to be one of the few people i know who ever left a job on principle (the Czar, in this case, was a highly destructive influence on achieving the goals of the organization, and i saw no point in enabling). i've often wondered why it is so rare in america, and my primary conclusion is that we are such a "winning" oriented culture that there are enormous psychological barriers to conceding that no, i'm not going to "win" in this scenario. we'd all like to believe that we can, in fact, make things better.

(and then there's the extreme narcissism that we saw, for instance, in colin powell: "i must stick around because otherwise the crazies will go even further." we know how well that worked, but denial....)

Posted by howard | July 17, 2007 12:33 PM

It's very strange times we've been living through.

Strange indeed, when Cohen writes a column that actually makes sense. Perhaps the end is near.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 17, 2007 12:38 PM

David points out the flaw in an otherwise rather good Richard Cohen column. (Five words that I haven't strung together any time in recent memory.) This is happening not because Bush is passive -- it's because he demands a completely politicized environment. Cohen's contrary take reminds me of tales of Russian peasants allegedly saying "if only Stalin knew what were happening, he'd stop it."

There is an equally disturbing counterpart to the trend of which Cohen speaks and that is the fact that no one is ever fired for incompetence or failure either. Heads never roll and people never stand on principle. (Yes, Colin Powell we're all looking at you.)

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | July 17, 2007 12:42 PM

To hell with quitting! Why didn't he act in such a way so that he would be fired? He should have given the speeches he wanted to give. He should have refused to say what he was told. There was always the chance that they wouldn't have the guts to fire him, and then he might have done some good.

Posted by Njorl | July 17, 2007 12:44 PM

"There is an equally disturbing counterpart to the trend of which Cohen speaks and that is the fact that no one is ever fired for incompetence or failure either."

What about all those incompetent US attorneys who just got fired?

incompetence - noun, failure to engage in unethical behavior at the behest of some one who can fire you.

Posted by Njorl | July 17, 2007 12:48 PM

Njorl,

Right and right. He should have dared the bastards to fire him. And then he would have been canned for incompetence.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | July 17, 2007 1:34 PM

More to the point, why doesn't Richard Cohen just quit. In his own way, he's is the poster boy for the Washington Post -- a low-rent Fred Hiatt, another non-quitter, a saluter who went along with the program and now talks more in defense of his own reputation than he ever spoke as an internal critic or, more likely, secret doubter. Such loyalty -- not to principle, conscience or integrity but to the boss -- is as much an essential ingredient for failure as are incorrect editorials or fervid ideology. What Cohen and others like him too often forget is that when it comes to loyalty, they owe it not to their editors but to the papers readers. Last time I looked, we were still the boss.

Posted by KH | July 17, 2007 1:39 PM

And how do we explain all the journalists who pretended to be convinced by the administration's case for war?

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 1:47 PM

Two problems here.

First the SG should have just made his speeches and took the consequences, if any. He is either a medical and scientific advisor or he is not.

I feel the same way about Hansen. There is something odd about seeing ranking people holding press conferences to say they are not allowed to speak.

Second problem. We probably should not have a Surgeons-General post at all. The SG is sort of a all-wise? Offical Uncle offering advice whether asked or not. He/she also has some administrative functions which probably should be permanent non-political work.

But hey! The SG gets to design his own uniform - he is nominally an Admiral - and we have seen some neat threads. Although none, perhaps, as impressive as the Chief Justice robes of the late Willin Rehnquist.

Posted by K | July 17, 2007 2:55 PM

I guess Bush really is the CEO president--just like most CEOs, he ignores the real owners of the company and demands that everyone in the organization support achieving his short-term goals and his continued employment rather than the long-term interests of the company. Perhaps, after his time in the boardroom ends, there will be a reckoning for Bush just as so many negligent or malfeasent CEOs of the past decade have faced class action lawsuits or prosecutions.

Posted by zaleriana | July 17, 2007 3:31 PM

Ah, if I had a job allowing me to design my robes of office! Decisions, decisions!

Full regalia of an Admiral 200 years ago, with white pantaloons, frock with tails and three-point hat? Silken robes of a highly ranked mandarin of Imperial China? Toga of a Roman consul, with a parade of 5 lictors preceeding me (I just consulted Wiki, seems that propraetor would be the most comparable rank, hence 5 lictors), a garb of an operating surgeon, with a tasteful immitation of large blood stains...

Think about the educational effect, as journalist would be explaining what are pantaloons, mandarins, lictors etc. "Today Surgeon General appears as Indian nabab. Nabab was an official of High Mughal. High Mughal was... "

Posted by piotr | July 17, 2007 6:15 PM

It was harder to resign because by the time Carmona realized this was a pattern he had already signed off on any number of indefensible decisions.

And besides, the adminstration has been trying to fill these positions with lackeys that either won't fight back or will slink away quietely later. And they've been good at finding such people.

Only two failures though: Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke who both resigned (or were fired) and spoke out and gave a lot of good info about the inner workings in the process.

Why was everybody else so weak willed?

Posted by david in norcal | July 17, 2007 7:27 PM

"as to serious matters, i happen to be one of the few people i know who ever left a job on principle (the Czar, in this case, was a highly destructive influence on achieving the goals of the organization, and i saw no point in enabling). i've often wondered why it is so rare in america, and my primary conclusion is that we are such a "winning" oriented culture that there are enormous psychological barriers to conceding that no, i'm not going to "win" in this scenario. we'd all like to believe that we can, in fact, make things better."

Are you a Boomer or younger? Part of me feels that the younger you are in America, the less wedded you are to the idea of lifetime employment. In the past, where you got your first job was where you decided to climb up the corporate ladder over your lifetime. Meanwhile, my friends will leave any job for a better one or a new opportunity because we don't feel that type of loyalty to a corporate entity is necessary, in part because we know it doesn't work the other way either.

"This is happening not because Bush is passive -- it's because he demands a completely politicized environment."

There's a good article in the recent "New Statesman" criticizing Hugo Chavez (yeah, that surprised me in a good way too) for creating an overly politicized Venezuela, in part because of a combination of narcissism and the realization that he is incompetent, so he needs constant adulation to help his own ego. In many ways, Bush is the American Chavez.

Posted by Reality Man | July 17, 2007 7:32 PM

Why was everybody else so weak willed?

Because all you have to do is shut off your brain for a few years and you get some nice cash and a silver star on your resume.

Posted by daveNYC | July 17, 2007 9:39 PM

He needed the money.
For smokes, y'know.

Posted by bartkid | July 17, 2007 11:22 PM

There's a good article in the recent "New Statesman" criticizing Hugo Chavez (yeah, that surprised me in a good way too) for creating an overly politicized Venezuela,

I don't know how closely you follow Venezuela but I was laughing at parts of that article. Evil Chavez being "overly political" and stamping all over poor little RCTV.

Prior to the 2002 coup, RCTV aired no commercials other than anti-Chavez ones. They endlessly played a loop of video showing what they claimed where Bolivarian circle gangs shooting into a crowd of unarmed anti-Chavez demonstrators (by way of ignoring the wide cameraman's perspective that showed an empty street and that they were trying to return fire from an anti-Chavez sniper hiding in a window). Then they embraced the pack of thieves Carmona brought in (who literally robbed and looted everything, broke into the safe and stole the cash) until they got chased back to Florida.

I don't know what would happen domestically if a network went on "strike" against Bush, intentionally doctored up a murder libel on movement conservatives, and supported a coup d'etat against the executive, but I'm 1000% sure the response wouldn't be to sit around and wait for the FCC licence to come up and deny it. Hell, Bush bombs journalists who don't like him now, ask Al-Jazeera (or maybe even ABC and the like).

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 18, 2007 12:31 AM