Continuity of Government

By DHinMI

In the comments to this post about the absence of any FEMA-led plan for dealing with the bodies in Louisiana (and presumably Mississippi), demtom asked this question:

If the folks who worked FEMA under Clinton had plans for things like this, and their successors don't -- can we issue a call for the predecessors to step in and take over? They can't have forgotten everything they knew in four years. And even if it takes them a while to get back up to speed, won't they be further along than a bunch of people who aren't even thinking about it?

I know; I'm starting to sound like a disgruntled street-mutterer. But that's how far this situation has reduced me. I just want to try something, anything, that will make things a little better, a little faster.

Part of me is just astounded that the Bush administration has so completely screwed up everything concerning Katrina.  I have wondered why this administration can't execute disaster relief anywhere near as competently one would have expected the Clinton administration to have (when there isn't an election at stake).  But then it hit me: of course they wouldn't continue the competence of the Clinton administration in something like disaster relief, because the Bush administration rejects everything championed or emphasized by the Clinton administration.

From the moment they took office, the Bush administration has portrayed itself as the anti-Clinton administration.  It began with all the blather about meetings started on time by punctual staffers with heavily starched white shirts, crisp suits and none of the mythical stolen White House silver at home in their kitchen drawers.  On almost every policy area, they made a big show about how they were rejecting the Clinton emphases and accomplishments--they were going to get tough with China and Korea, quit coddling Russia, pay greater attention to Latin America, not try to negotiate with Arafat, resist nation building, cut taxes, and restore dignity to the White House.  Of course some of these promises were easily tossed aside, like getting tough with China or Russia (at least after Bush looked into Poot Poot's soul).  They've completely ignored Latin America.  And dignity in the White House...well, if you're reading this blog, you probably didn't expect much in that category anyway.

But all those changes were of the very public variety.  What was happening in the day-to-day administration of the federal government was an even greater rejection of everything accomplished by the Clinton-Gore administration.  Of course the obvious example was the complete neglect of counter-terrorism prior to 9-11.  But much like how they took away the power of people like Richard Clarke and dismissed the amassed knowledge and insights of people like Clarke and Michael Scheuer, the administration appears to have also destroyed much of the institutional capacity to deal with disasters built up by FEMA during the Clinton years. 

In crucial but less visible areas of responsible governance--counter-terrorism, emergency preparedness, disaster prevention (through agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers), the Bush administration has rejected almost everything the Clinton administration did, often seemingly for no good reason other than it was something the Clinton administration emphasized and did well.  As we get deeper into the Bush administration, even away from the glaring lights of the big policy debates, those of us who would at least like the federal government to exhibit a modicum of skill at providing for our safety have to wonder if it wasn't just the Clinton administration that was replaced in January of 2001, but also much of our standing federal government. 

In 2002 the Brookings Institute and the American Enterprise Institute jointly launched the Continuity of Government Commission:

The commission first focused its attention on preserving Congress, and has now turned to the President and the Supreme Court. The central issue that the commission addressed is how Congress could function if a large number of members were killed or incapacitated. The problem is most acute in the House of Representatives because the Constitution requires that all vacancies be filled by special election, and it takes four months on average to fill these seats. If there were mass vacancies, the House might not even be able to meet its quorum requirement, or it might operate with a small and unrepresentative number. A second problem is that of incapacity. Because there is no precedent for filling temporary vacancies, both houses of Congress would be severely diminished, or unable to operate at all, if a large number of members were incapacitated. The events of September 11 led to several ongoing efforts to preserve the continuity of Congress. There was a similar effort in the 1950s and 1960s to deal with these same issues.

In addition, the commission will deal both with the continuity of the Supreme Court, which has a quorum requirement, and with potential reforms to the Presidential Succession Act.

It's an important issue, and I'm glad that Presidents Carter and Ford co-chaired the Commission, and that it has such an impressive roster of members.  But seeing this administration's ongoing dereliction of duty on crucial tasks like counter-terrorism, emergency preparedness and maintaining crucial physical infrastructure, one has to wonder if the capacity of the federal government to provide vital services and protections has so atrophied since the end of the Clinton administration that before the Bush administration leaves office we will have to rely on similarly illustrious commissions to help the incoming administration reconstitute an effective federal government and bureaucracy. 

This administration has so recklessly repudiated almost every policy and management practice of the Clinton administration that it's starting to appear as if we have failed to maintain a continuity of government since the year 2000.  In fact, about the only policy that this administration has retained from a previous administration is an apt example of their interests, competencies and values: Abu Ghraib.   

Comments

[DemFromCT]

Do0n't forget neglect of NIH and the CDC, which aren't the organizations they used to be under Clinton. Many senior people have left or are leaving.

[DHinMI]

And of course we've all read about the intellegence agencies.

[DHinMI]

Check out the "credentials" of the top officials at FEMA.

[Mimikatz]

In Britain they have something like permanent undersecretaries for the major ministries. (At least they do on Masterpiece Theater.) There is a permanent bureaucracy here, which always gets a bad rap but which, in fact, does provide a lot of continuity and institutional memory (if it is consulted). Maybe we need much more of that, i.e., fewer jobs subject to presidential appointment and more top career civil servants.

Probably because they are so much less interested in actual governing, in my experience incoming Republican Administrations do not pay much attention to the briefing books that are preapred by the outgoing folks or the permanent bureaucracy.

[DHinMI]

Yeah, it's not just on Masterpiece Theater. I remember that from Comparative Politics, POL 201. IIRC, they're appointed (although I'm fuzzy on how they're appointed) and they often serve in that capacity quite a long time.

[demtom]

There is occasionally good cause for non-continuity in government -- I remember reading that Hoover tried to get Roosevelt to co-sign on some policies between the election and turnover of the presidency, and FDR stayed miles away. The thing is, however, when Bush took over, the country was fat and happy; no one wanted change (which is why they voted for Gore). Bush had to practically pretend he'd hardly change a thing to get close to winning. To, following that, do a 180 on everything was a colossal act of arrogance. But, that's what they do well.

We have had SOME continuity in the past, at least in theory, with the permanent appointees at State, Justice, and throughout various agencies. But the Bush folk made it their first-term mission to have anyone not 100% in sync with the administration forced out.

Which of course is why it's so galling they're still reaching for ways to blame others for their failures.

[Jerri]

What is the plan for the bodies? Will they take dna and save for future id. Bush better not dig a hole and shove the bodies in. Bush better not have a big fire.

[Rick B]

You are describing an administration staffed by movement conservatives who really do consider themselves to be the anti-Clintons. It's not just at the top.

In addition, they reject the opinions of experts because the experts in most cases tell them that their political rhetoric is unworkable. We know this, but one side effect is that they don't have any policy-making machinery. EVERYTHING is political, and the definition of good or bad depends on how an election turns out.

So in addition to being the anti-Clintons, they have no policy mechanisms they trust to put effective anti-Clintion policies that might work into place. Not only do they not have policies for disaster management, they don't have personnel selection policies either. That is why Brown got FEMA. He knew someone, so he got the job.

Most of us who read this blog and dKos are policy wonk types. It is hard for us to understand a political operation in the White House (for Congress it is a bit easier to understand) that has effectively eliminated the creation and use of policy to rung the Executive Department, but they have done exactly that.

[DHinMI]

Jerri: They've set up a morgue in St. Gabriel, which is just south of Baton Rouge (Ascension Parish, iirc.) I just saw a segment on CNN about it, and they are taking DNA samples there. (Of course it wasn't a fed talking, but someone with the state.) But how they're going to recover the bodies, and what they're doing in Mississippi, I'm not sure anyone knows.

[DHinMI]

Yeah, Rick, you're 100% correct about all of that. A great example of their paucity of policy intent and competence was the promotion of Margaret Spellings first to Education policy director or whatever her initial title was, and then eventually to head of domestic policy. I picture her job responsibilities as getting coffee for Grover Norquist and playing with one of those things with the five metal balls lined up and suspended on strings.

[YK]

On the other hand, can you imagine an alternate world in which Bush, with uncharacteristic prudence, did not eviscerate FEMA? Hurricane Katrina strikes, and FEMA delivers a prompt and effective emergency response. Most of the people stranded in New Orleans are poor and black, but instead of being left to suffer for days, they are quickly rescued, and they attract little attention from the media. Federal authorities keep reporters out of the flooded city, except for carefully staged tours to show where progress is being made, and so many people fail to appreciate the true scope of the disaster. President Bush takes credit for the apparent success, and his approval ratings go up.

Then Rehnquist dies, and Bush quickly appoints a nutcase conservative to replace him. Cindy Sheehan is now forgotten, and the discussion on getting out of Iraq gets pushed back another six months.

Okay, this is just silly speculation, and way optimistic for Bush. But you have to imagine that, if the Bush administration were to mount a serious emergency response, it would be completely integrated with their political machinations. From that perspective, screwing this up amounts to a missed political opportunity. Who knows, Karl Rove might go and strangle Michael Brown himself.

[rj]

No doubt. Does anyone think Brownie isn't all but gone? And does anyone not think they'll voice sorrow and anger that their usually impeccable appointment process missed his complete absence of any qualification for the job? That YK's alternate scenario didn't obtain is, again (sorry -- broken record here), a reflection of how completely they disdain the very role of government, which I think may actually blind them to their own venality.