The Scott McClellan book has me thinking …
Scott McClellan’s book, “What Happened. Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Corruption” has captured my attention recently. Although there has been a steady drip of Bush insiders who have chosen to tell the truth about rot at the core of our government, none has been quite so well placed as McClellan to do it.
But there’s another reason that it interests me. I realized what that reason was when I read a question posed by a major newspaper in connection with McClellan’s book. They asked, “Would you rat out your boss?”
It’s a good question. I replied in a comment to the article this way:
Bosses, in general, are incompetent because they are selected by their skill in politics, not management. (This applies to both business and government.) If you decide to rat out your boss, you better be very sure of what you’re doing because you’re playing into their strong suit. On the other hand, the chance of having great evidence is excellent because they usually screw up the job they are supposed to be doing so badly.
What about you? Would you rat out your boss? Leave a comment here!
In my former life, I was a minor player in the “boss” games but a big part of my job was coordinating with a lot of the major players. Scott McClellan did that too. I really resonate with the situation he found himself in. Much of my analysis of how “bosses” are selected comes from this experience. (Although I did work with a few very good bosses, too.)
The gravel pit theory
People often wonder, “How did that idiot get the job, anyway?” The “gravel pit theory” explains a lot. (I modestly claim authorship.)
Consider a gravel pit with piles of different sized rocks. They get those piles by screening rock and dirt that they dig out of the pit. If you pick a rock at random out of a pile that has inch sized rocks in it, you can be pretty sure that this rock is about an inch too.
That’s actually what happens to people as they make their way through life. They hit various screens and they either bounce off or go through the screen because they’re the “right size.” So, for example, if someone has gone through the process of running for dog catcher, council member, mayor, congressman, senator …. You can be pretty sure that the person has the skills to be elected to public office.
What skills, you ask? I think you know what those skills are.
Do these skills make them effective public servants? Ummmmm … no.
Occasionally, a screen in the gravel pit gets a hole in it. Years ago, Nebraska (A pretty non-standard state to begin with – they have the nation’s only unicameral legislature, for example.) elected a governor, Bob Kerrey, who clearly fell through a hole in the screen. Even though Nebraska is a conservative state, he was single and was pretty open about knowing the Hollywood actress Debra Winger like Adam knew Eve. Right there in the Governor’s mansion too! He was elected because he just happened to be a Medal of Honor war hero at the right time. (Well, that, and he’s smart, hard working, and very likable.) Nebraska couldn’t turn him down. He’s now retired from politics and serves as president of the New School, a university in New York City.
It took a while but he was finally screened out.
Too bad. It’s the nation’s loss. He briefly ran for President and I would have voted for him. He’s the only candidate in recent memory (since before I was drafted into the Army in the VietNam era) that I have actually supported at a campaign rally.
The Gravel Pit Theory: It’s another reason for voting against the guy in office every time.
To answer your question directly – yes, I have ratted out a boss and also a boss’s boss.
They were not exactly profiles in courage – I was working for a large Federal agency and ratted to the Inspector General with a promise of anonymity.
By the way, the whistle-blower protection for Federal employees is not worth much.
Part of the problem with deciding whether to rat or not is what has the boss done or not done? If he or she has broken a law, then yes, rat.
What if it is a difference of opinion on a matter of judgment? The boss makes a decision that while not illegal is not as good a course of action as the one I recommended. Rattable?
This seems to be part of the problem with the McClellan book – his opinion is different than those of others in the White House and Pentagon, but apparently in most cases it is just his opinion.
I like your gravel pit theory, but my experience with bosses in the Federal sector is they fall under the bell curve – a few very good, a few very bad, and a whole bunch in between.
I agree with your assessment of the whistle-blower protection for Federal employees. And it’s too bad. It shouldn’t be like that.
And it’s too bad that McClellan waited until now to have his epiphany. He might have had the courage of these previous Bush insiders who also have made it quite clear that we have been badly used in this horrible mistake of a war …
Paul O ‘ Neill
Secretary of the Treasury, 2001 to 2002
During interviews with author Suskind, O’Neill accuses Bush of searching for a reason to invade Iraq mere days into his presidency. “It was all about finding a way to do it,” O’Neill says. “That was the tone of it. The president saying, ‘Fine. Go find me a way to do this’.”
Richard Clarke
Chief counterterrorism adviser, 1992 to 2003
Clarke faults Bush for ignoring pre-9/11 intelligence on Al Qaeda and writes that by invading Iraq, “Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted … It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush.”
George Tenet
Director of CIA, 1997 to 2004
A chapter of “At the Center of the Storm” titled “No Authority, Direction, or Control” describes a disjointed plan for war, with “no strategy for when U.S. forces hit the ground.”
Thanks for your comment!