Meet Scott McClellan, Rat (or A Little Despotism Goes a Long Way)

I'm not mad, I'm proud of you. You took your first pinch like a man and you learned two great things in your life. Look at me, never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut.

Jimmy Conway, Goodfellas

You see -- all our people are business men, their loyalty is based on that.

Michael Corleone, Godfather II

You could pretty much teach an entire course just based on organized crime mob business models illustrated in those two movies. Well, at least at somewhere like Nebraska. Ultimately the mob is a business; the bottom line is making money. But because it faces such overwhelming opposition from so many quarters, it relies heavily on group discipline to survive and prosper. Everyone from top to bottom has to be working toward the same end. Members going their own way detract from that single purpose and the discipline needed to achieve the mob's audacious ends. The organization's success has to be every member's overriding objective. Only such discipline has allowed organized crime to succeed. It is no coincidence that the feds only began to make serious inroads against organized crime when the RICO act federalized racketeering crimes and made it possible for prosecutors to turn lower mob members against the bosses. This seriously eroded the discipline the mafia relied upon to prosper. Yet, because the mob is also a business, it is comprised of businessmen who inherently are most interested in making money for themselves. Thus, the mob has always been racked with assasinations by lower echelon members wanting to advance, and by rats looking to reduce their own prison sentences. The ruthlessness with which the mob attacks rats reflects the threat that promotion of self-interest poses for the entire organization.

Yawn. Why the dissertation on organized crime in a posting about the former Presidential press secretary? Because politics, and a political organization, is a lot like the mob. Parties depend on organizational discipline to prosper. One candidate on his or her own might get elected on personal strength, but it takes a disciplined party organization to get candidates elected to Congress, state legislatures, county and city posts, and judgeships. After the top of the ticket, most people vote either "R" or "D", and most of the people inclined to knock on doors, stuff envelopes, make calls to voters, and do the grunt work needed to win those down ballot elections are party members, the "true believers." Candidates have an interest in sticking with the party and each other, and preserving the value of the brand name, even if they may not be totally comfortable with the party's official position. Going your own way may be fine for someone like a John McCain or a Ross Perot who can raise money, but it would never work for someone running for the Texas House from Dripping Springs. Thus, one of Ronald Reagan's most famous quotes is that the 11th commandment for Republicans should be no Republican should speak ill of another Republican. Like the mob, a political party must ruthlessly enforce discipline to ensure all oars are rowing in the same direction. With everyone working toward the same goals, the resulting success should benefit everyone. But, like the mob, a party (particularly its candidates) generally consists of people most interested in their own success. So we often witness the spectacle of a politician's fellow party members supporting them in a principled way during times of trouble, right up until they perceive they can get more votes by dumping the besieged official.

You will have by now heard how Scott McClellan, former Presidential press secretary, now professes his shock and outrage at numerous Bush decisions, and those of fellow staffers. He waited to express this principled shock and outrage, of course, for nearly two years after leaving his position, and not until being paid a huge advance to write the book. Now undoubtedly he will embark upon his publisher-sponsored book tour, and resume his new career of speaking engagements, expounding upon these "tell all" themes.

There's some real problems here. The past couple of administrations have witnessed the new phenomenon of this sort of book. It can go either way: a defense of decisions made, or criticism of and attempt to get even with fellow staffers (or even the President). To cash in to the greatest possible advantage, these people don't wait until the President's term has ended, so we are treated to the usual recriminations and counter-charges as the President tries to maintain his position and standing. From the President's perspective, this trend must make him (or her) more and more suspicious of the advice the aides offer, and more reluctant to confide in the aides. What President will speak candidly with an aide if he fears that a year or two from now the conversation will be splashed all over the news? It also means that each administration has to endure criticism not just from its natural opponents, but from disgruntled or disillusioned or score-settling aides. The public spectacle of former aides and their replacements squabbling in public over administration policies like ferrets in a sack is no way to govern.

The 24 hour news cycle and proliferation of news media has already contributed to destroying the historic tradition of Presidents (and top Cabinet secretaries) soliciting candid advice from Congress members of the opposition party, and non-government citizens such as former officials. Why would a Bill Clinton, for example, have a truly candid and searching discussion about an issue with a Newt Gingrich? Certainly Newt (or a Nancy Pelosi or a Warren Buffet) would immediately run find Anderson Cooper or Sean Hannity to give an exclusive. Yet, LBJ routinely consulted with the top Republicans over important policies. Reagan and Tip O'Neill were actually friends. This new order only makes Presidents and other top officials rely on an ever-shrinking number of "trusted" associates, something the Bush family has been particularly known for. Generally we want Presidents to receive a wide variety of advice and consult a broad spectrum of sources in making important decisions. The trend toward reliance on only the trustworthy aides is making our leaders more insulated, less available, and clearly has damaged government decision-making. It also means that leaders must fend off not only their political rivals, but their former aides.

Now, politicians used to be able to handle this sort of thing, which is why this is a relatively modern phenomenon. Bob Bullock or LBJ or Nixon or Richard Daley would have crushed someone like McClellan. By "crushed," I mean would have made it impossible for a McClellan ever to get another job, arranged for an IRS audit, maybe found it necessary to prosecute him for some conjured offense, or the like. Not pretty to see it happen, and modern-day democratic sensibilities recoil at such heavy-handedness, but you can't dispute success. Those guys kept party discipline. They didn't have to worry about some former deputy assistant secretary of the interior going on MSNBC and bitching about some recent decision. Instead of telling on the President like a 5th grade girl upset someone else is wearing the same dress, former officials would become lobbyists with ongoing incentives not to burn their former employers, or would run for a lower office with their official service as their main credential. But all the recent ethics laws have made that much more difficult, so a quick and easy way for some of these people to make money off their experience is to write a book. Reforms in Presidential nomination rules, and other restrictions on Presidential power, mirrored in states, cities, and counties, have made it more difficult for the leader to deter such back-stabbing. Bush is forced to issue feeble "angry denunciations" of McClellan's accusations, while Nixon would have had this guy in Leavenworth within two months (or worse). Now, this "old school" way is admittedly somewhat dictatorial, but look at what these politicians were able to accomplish with their ability to enforce party loyalty. The pathetic in-fighting, sniping and passive aggressiveness among current and former government officials free to spout off about anything that suits them just reinforces the overall inertia gripping government at all levels.

No one voted for staff members. Before George Bush came along, Scott McClellan was most successful at having been born to the right family-his mom was Texas Comptroller and his grandfather had been the longtime dean of the UT Law School. McClellan went from deputy communications director for the Governor to Press Secretary to the President of the United States, all due to the patronage of George Bush. Say what you want about the 2000 election, but Bush got a whole lot more votes than Scott McClellan. A staff member should advise his boss. If he (or she) disagrees with their policies, or anything else about the job, then quit. If their boss is doing something outrageous, the staffer should tell his boss and quit if there's no change. One of the more admirable things about the British political system is the principled resignation. Several Cabinet members resigned from Tony Blair's government over disagreement with the Iraq war. They did it immediately, left government, but otherwise supported the government and their party. But keeping quiet about it for two years, then getting a big payday to rat out the man who lifted you out of obscurity is plain and simple being a rat.