shorter insight: get all those folks that have learned and avoid those who have just marked time so they can do it again.

Part of the problem (and there is a problem of knowing how to manage the monster that is the executive branch) is that in-depth studies of how things have happened the way they did are very rare (perhaps non-existent). Instead, we tend to get the Bob Woodward kind of thing that focuses on a few key actors that provide access to spin their side of the tale.

Political Science has aspired to be science, and the quants have taken the throne. Journamalism hasn't the stomach for extended research (the budgets of the media only provide for snacks at fast food restaurants and street carts).

We really have no sources of historical experience and collected wisdom that are reflective of current reality. So each administration kind of wings it on both policy making and political/governmental implementation. Ever browse a textbook on public administration?

My pet theory is that there is a size barrier on the scope of a society/government that is within the boundaries of potential competence. Something like Denmark, or Norway, not Russia, the US, nor China - nor California. Does anyone think that the Dept. of Defense is actually manageable by human beings that come and go for personal and political reasons?

It's very gloomy in Portland today, and that extends to prospects for enlightened government in DC as well. I used to think that the UK's practice of high level civil servants that provide continuity across changes in politcal power was a major step toward a solution, but, alas, even though they are much smaller than the US, the Brits have shown (for instance) that they rival us for incompetence. (see Financial Crash of 2008)

Getting sloppy with your Google Reader fans again, Ezra. =(

Your blockquote isn't working in Google Reader again. As before, the first paragraph is properly quoted and then the rest of the quote merges with the rest of the post. Dunno why.

Hertzberg, and by extension, you, are lumping a number of critiques together: among them, one is that Obama campaigned, to some degree, as the anti-Clinton (literally, when running against her) so his embrace of a number of "old Clinton hands" seems at odds with his critiques. I tend to agree, this one is overblown, and tends to overstate what Obama said and did during the campaign. But, as a matter of perception, it probably would help to have the sense of a wider circle than he has seemed to have for some positions thus far.

Another, and harder critique is that serious progressives are pointing out that choice after choice doesn't really reflect a set of progressive ideas - that's true of Geithner (and of Summers as his in-house advisor), it's true too of Clinton and of Gates. And in that sense "Clinton people" is not some overwide brush of anyone Democrat with government experience; it's a question of just how serious Obama is about change, when the "Clinton people" in question (leaving Gates aside, for a moment) are marked by their moderate, centrist approaches to governance. A number of his appointments (and this is, in many ways, to his credit) are solid, established figures. And in their solid, established ways... they mostly represent a continuance of the status quo, in some, if not many, respects. We may get an ambitious health plan and a few other big ideas... but we are also getting a kind of consistency that makes really breakthrough change harder, not easier.

I don't, myself, question a lot of his appointments. I do, though, wonder where this is headed - what his selections tell us about how he's thinking about more "under the radar" cabinet roles like HUD, Labor, and Agriculture, where continuing a status quo is in some ways very, very problematic. And, though I'm not one of them, I sympathize with the progressive dilemma - Obama's win represented, and still represents, significant promise. And part of that prmise, inn some minds, is an ambitious notion of change. It'll be hard to sustain, never mind meet the level of expectation that's been set up.

But still... Hertzberg, I think - and you, to some degree too Ezra - represent a the new orthodoxy: don't ask too many questions, don't keep raising objections, just trust in Obama. And I do. Up to a point. After that, I think the questions and the airing of concerns is necessary. And welcome. Even from the left.

weboy, the problem is that basically anyone who has executive branch experience served under Clinton. But Obama isn't appointing Janet Reno again, he's appointing one of the lower level guys. The relevant question is that for stuff we object to that they had done, how much of it came down from above and how much was initiative? Hopefully stuff like this was part of the vetting process.

The Hated Larry Summers..
Who might have discerned how NOT to do economics.
A thing more generically called...learning.
And people do it alla time.
Normal. Very possible
Often nice.

You'll also note that Bush43 hired some big-time Ford and Bush41 names and none of them "retrofied" (my own word!) his presidency. Unfortunately.

really good post. thank you

We are air max sale Online Shop,offer new branded
air max 90