So USAID director Randall Tobias resigned suddenly yesterday.
For readers who don't follow American news or politics, Tobias was a pretty important figure. Not only was he director of USAID, but he was "Director of Foreign Assistance" -- a post created especially for him. He was supposed to be in charge of all US foreign aid, which is a huge portfolio... USAID is just the single biggest piece.
Tobias resigned after being linked to a DC-area prostitution ring. He first claimed that he used the $300/hour call girls for massages only -- no sex! He added, strangely enough, that he was using mostly Central American girls. Then, a day later, he just resigned.
The local USAID community was abuzz with the news today. It would be fair to say that a consensus opinion has emerged.
I don't think I've ever seen such a unanimous combination of schadenfreude, mockery and bitterness.
A couple of things. One, USAID people tend Democrat, by about 2-1. Not too surprising if you think about what they do. So, there is that.
(I should note here that I'm not a USAID employee. But I spend a lot of time around people who are.)
Two, there's the hypocrisy aspect. Tobias took overtly conservative positions, including pushing abstinence education and opposing outreach to sex workers to fight AIDS. To add an additional wrinkle, it's not like he was a real social conservative. He was a corporate executive type, a former CEO of Eli Lilly. It was generally believed that he was just carrying out administration policy without having strong feelings about it one way or the other. Some people think this makes him a bigger hypocrite than if he'd been a devout conservative.
Three, it makes everyone look a little bad. Even if you're ompletely laissez-faire about what people do in their own time, USAID is supposed to be presenting America's best face to the world. USAID also spends a lot of time end effort fighting human trafficking, which is a huge problem in a lot of different places. And USAID is trying to reach out to the world's poorest, the people who live on $2 a day or less. So, having the head of USAID spending his spare time boinking Guatemalan girls at $300 per hour just looks so incredibly bad. You can be completely libertarian on the sex-for-hire issue and still see that.
But there's still a bit more than that. What's come out in the last day or so is that people really hated Tobias. Even after you discount the piling-on factor -- which is significant; it's human nature to deliver a kick or two to the toppled statue -- even after that, it's clear that a lot of AID folks really disliked Tobias, as a leader and as a person.
Not sure I want to go into more detail than that. But it's been interesting to see how fast and unanimous the consensus has been.
(If you have a few minutes, and find this sort of thing interesting, here's an article from the Boston Globe about some recent political wrangles over USAID. Written about six months ago, but makes interesting reading in light of recent events.)
I was going to ask. His added "Central American" comment especially had me going Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Like, is it a DC fetish? Code for transsexuals? They play nun and Contra?
OK, Packers are up for their draft pick. Gotta go.
Posted by: Carlos | April 29, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Thanks for posting, Doug. A timely reminder that while Australia is the country most like the USA there are still cultural differences.
Firstly I take it that prostitution is still illegal in Washington DC, that Randall Tobias was implicated in a criminal act rather than making a legal payment for the services of a sex worker.
Secondly
It was generally believed that he was just carrying out administration policy without having strong feelings about it one way or the other.
A civil servant carrying out the wishes of a conservative government without letting his own political views intrude? In my particular culture this would be seen as commendable.
Nevertheless you make a good point:
So, having the head of USAID spending his spare time boinking Guatemalan girls at $300 per hour just looks so incredibly bad. You can be completely libertarian on the sex-for-hire issue and still see that.
What if Randall had different responsibilities? Say, administering the Administration's global warming initiatives? Is the boinking still a bad look from a US perspective?
Posted by: Syd Webb | April 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Second point first: Obviously this is subjective, but I would say yes. If Tobias had been in charge of international wildlife conservation, this wouldn't have had quite the same resonance.
Prostitution is illegal almost everywhere in the US except for some counties in Nevada. Enforcement does vary from place to place.
The thing about Tobias not being a social conservative is that most informed observers who are not social conservatives consider these policies useless if not actively destructive. And if this is indeed the case, then you have to ask which is worse -- know and don't care, or don't care to know.
Doug M.
Posted by: Doug M. | April 29, 2007 at 07:38 PM
Syd Webb:
Also, Tobias wasn't a civil servant, not in US parlance and I don't think in Australian either. He was a political appointee.
Posted by: James Angove | April 30, 2007 at 09:01 PM
One nice thing about reading the Globe article is mentally adding "former" before the phrase "Senator Rick Santorum." I think I'll do it again, just because it feels so nice.
And here's the Globe again on what pushing abstinence means in real terms:
"And USAID required groups to sign an anti-prostitution pledge despite concerns over its constitutionality. The pledge required all organizations receiving USAID money overseas to renounce prostitution, which some groups interpreted as abandoning efforts to prevent prostitutes from spreading AIDS.
The Brazilian government, which has had success in decreasing AIDS by working with prostitutes, refused to sign the pledge and lost a $40 million grant.
In an affidavit for a lawsuit over the matter, Pedro Chequer , director of Brazil's AIDS program, said his country strived to adhere to 'the established principles of the scientific method and not allow theological beliefs and dogma to interfere.' "
So yeah, I can imagine the professionals at USAID being glad to see Tobias go. Sorta like the NASA folks were glad to see the back of the guy who made sure references to the Big Bang were always accompanied by the word "theory."
I can also imagine a serious case of CEO syndrome, coupled with a mandate to ride roughshod over actual facts, made an unappealing combination.
Only 630 days to go. (On the bright side, my kids will have no recollection whatsoever of GWB as President. Yay!)
Posted by: Doug (not Muir) | May 01, 2007 at 03:23 AM
Doug (not Muir),
This last bit seems unfair. Not being a social conservative or a moralist, I can't muster up much feeling of any sort over who is f*ing whom or if there's any accompanying monetary transaction (so long as all humans involved are consenting adults.)
That said, "renouncing prostitution" does strike me as a not unreasonable request that a so-inclined moralist might make on another party in return for the moralist's money. I suppose it depends on whether you interpret "renounce" as "deplore" or as "pretend it doesn't exist despite your feelings on the matter", with the former being a simple statement of feeling while the latter is a potentially dangerous action.
Again, I'm not much of a moralist. To turn the argument around, I can imagine actions or steps that a regime overseas might take that I'd be in favor of on purely practical grounds (such as repressing folks that I find undesirable or unpleasant) that you might find reprehensible based on your own personal moral outlook. Surely you wouldn't argue that your money should be spent assisting such a regime despite your personal objections? So while I tend to agree with where you're coming down on the abstinence issue, I don't see that it boils down to anything other than varying moral codes.
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero | May 01, 2007 at 08:03 AM
Doug Muir wrote:
The thing about Tobias not being a social conservative is that most informed observers who are not social conservatives consider these policies useless if not actively destructive. And if this is indeed the case, then you have to ask which is worse -- know and don't care, or don't care to know
OK, Doug, I think I see where you're coming from.
Back to your original post. You wrote:
One, USAID people tend Democrat, by about 2-1. Not too surprising if you think about what they do. So, there is that.
...and...
It was generally believed that he was just carrying out administration policy without having strong feelings about it one way or the other. Some people think this makes him a bigger hypocrite than if he'd been a devout conservative.
So the most senior official in USAID is carrying out policies in which he doesn't believe. And all the other officials in USAID are also carrying out policies that (presumably) they don't believe. So how many hypocrites are there working for USAID?
OTOH James Angove notes:
Also, Tobias wasn't a civil servant, not in US parlance and I don't think in Australian either. He was a political appointee.
We're having an increasing number of political appointees to the top ranks of the Australian Public Service. It has been going on since 1972 and has accelerated these last 11 years. Still not quite up to 'spoils system' we hear about in the USA.
But back to James' point. Because Randall was a political appointee by the current Administration he knew what sort of policies he had to push and - if these policies clashed with his own moral agenda - he put himself in a position of hypocrisy.
Whereas the career USAID officials, many of whom would have joined the agency prior to the present administration, and most of whom have families to feed, are in a different moral position when they Just Follow Orders?
Despite my clumsy wording have I basically captured the Doug/James position?
Posted by: Syd Webb | May 02, 2007 at 03:59 AM
Syd, I'm shocked. Surely in Crikeystan they can distinguish between the type of hypocrisy which willingly serves the Führerprinzip, and the type of hypocrisy which seeks to subvert it?
I think of the role of the insurance agent Parr in the Kafkaesque recent thriller, The Incredibles. His superior, Huph, is employed in the service of a never-seen yet malign [1] higher power. But Huph, whatever his internal convictions might be, serves this power willingly, while Parr is an unwilling servant of Huph's. Both serve the power: but who is more just?
[1] Or perhaps this higher power is merely testing us.
Posted by: Carlos | May 02, 2007 at 05:25 AM
"are in a different moral position when they Just Follow Orders?"
Hum. It's such a fine line, between being arch/twee/amusing and invoking the Spirit That Mocks.
But anyway. Yes, I'd say they're in a different position. See Carlos' well-crafted response; and also, as you correctly point out, people do have families to feed. Randall Tobias, a former CEO of Eli Lilly with a pension, a mansion, and millions in the bank, is in a somewhat different position.
Also, there is a certain amount of voting with feet going on. Understand that USAID is a large organization, and does many different sorts of things. The administration's ideology has much impact in the area of family planning and AIDS, rather less in the area of building roads. So you wouldn't expect to see a mass exodus.
What we do see is a tendency of people to drift out of the most heavily affected sectors of USAID. To be specific, people with administrative and managerial backgrounds tend to move to other areas of USAID, while people with certain technical skills are more likely to move out of AID altogether.
They are, of course, replaced; Patrick Henry College and Regents University produce fresh crops of graduates every year. Some might suggest this will have a long-term effect on the organization. Some might suggest it has already.
To some extent this is a normal part of the life-cycle of American bureacracies. A new administration comes in with new policies; people who favor those policies are appointed; career bureacrats who don't like it get marginalized and eventually quit. There are people who say the current situation is more extreme, though. These people say that (1) the politicization is more overt than ever before (2) the ideology is more rigid, and (3) the policies being advanced have less connection to reality, and so are more likely to be useless or even destructive.
On the other hand, things could be worse. Unlike some federal agencies -- the Justice Department, say -- USAID is not central to the current administration's agenda. So while certain ideological tendencies have dominated, there has not been a strong and concerted drive to flush out the uncooperative, pack the ranks with ardent supporters, and turn the agency into a purely political instrument.
Anyway. A new administration would presumably go in a different direction, with a new ideology and new policies. However, there's a turning-the-aircraft-carrier aspect. So the effects of Tobias (and his predecessor, Natsios) will be felt for a long time to come.
Doug M.
Posted by: Doug M. | May 02, 2007 at 08:02 PM
Carlos wrote:
Syd, I'm shocked. Surely in Crikeystan they can distinguish between the type of hypocrisy which willingly serves the Führerprinzip, and the type of hypocrisy which seeks to subvert it?
I was thinking very much of Crickeystan in my previous posts which why I was so reluctant to criticise Randall Tobias for the mote in his eye.
It's true that there are many Crikeystani 'public servants', as we call them, who implement the policies of the government of the day without being führertrau. OTOH even the two most senior public servants - Dr Peter Shergold, Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Dr Ken Henry, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury - have given recent speeches stressing their impartiality.
Here's Peter from a speech late last year:
The establishment of trust between Ministers and senior public officials is equally vital. It needs to be based upon the willingness of both sides to engage in confidential public policy discussions robustly, but on the clear understanding that it is the responsibility of government – not the civil service – to make the decisions. It is entirely appropriate, too, that the official is responsive to the broad policy directions set by elected government.
The public servant may, on occasion, believe that the policies decided upon are wrong-headed (and should, in private, have conveyed such reservations) but it remains a matter for elected government to choose whether to proceed with them. And, no matter what one’s personal feelings, the role of the public servant is then to implement those decisions as efficiently, effectively and ethically as possible.
There is no place for self-serving obstructionism. A professional public servant needs to exhibit the energy necessary to give the government of the day every opportunity to achieve its political mandate and agenda before its performance is judged at the ballot box.
Nevertheless the public servant requires integrity, even courage, in speaking truth to power. A relationship of trust cannot be based upon subservience. If not on matters of policy, then on other occasions the public administrator must be willing to say ‘no Minister’. Our leadership needs to be premised upon an unequivocal proposition that one key role of professional public administration is to protect the individual from the arbitrary exercise of executive authority.
The limits of government power are set out in our constitution, legal systems, processes of administrative review and well-established political conventions. We share a responsibility to ensure that government wields its powers in accord with those standards. Although it is entirely appropriate, indeed necessary, to focus on the achievement of outcomes and results, we need also to recognise that public servants are the guardians of legality, due process, just means and respect for the rights of the individual citizen. It is a role we share with the legislature and the judiciary.
Ken also gave a recent speech, a secret one which some subversive saw fit to leak to the gutter press, which covered the same ground:
"At this time, there is a greater than usual risk of the development of policy proposals that are, frankly, bad,"
Carlos also wrote:
I think of the role of the insurance agent Parr in the Kafkaesque recent thriller, The Incredibles.
Thanks! I watched The Incredibles with Beatrix and Becky. The parallel between Parr's insurance company and the IRS escaped me at the time but now you mention it...
In fairness my colleagues in the IRS aren't just implementing the fiscal policies of the Higher Power. The are also administering laws passed by legislators from both sides of the political fence over past decades. And delivering services to the public - through consultation, collaboration and co-design with citizens - to make peoples experience easier, cheaper and more personalised.
As our Lord and Saviour reminds us, "By their fruits ye shall know them." I wonder whether a hypothetical impartial observer - let us call him Cob Bolker as a placeholder - would be able to distinguish between a Mr Incredible and a Huph.
Shorter Syd: We are all of us guilty. But Hell has many circles.
* * * *
Doug wrote:
USAID is not central to the current administration's agenda
No kidding?
[Sometimes it is hard to know whether Doug is a wide-eyed naif or a very dry cynic.]
Posted by: Syd Wbb | May 03, 2007 at 01:27 AM
Patrick Henry College and Regents University produce fresh crops of graduates every year.
Speaking entirely dispassionately, the administration's policy of hiring graduates from an alternate educational universe is fascinating. I think information technologies will provide an appropriate feedback filter, much as it has for the NFL draft. (David Horowitz, although not quite right in the head -- honest, a friend of mine interviewed him, and his jaw dropped -- figured this out years ago.)
In large part I'm fascinated by this because there's no shortage of solid conservative schools, like Baylor or Brigham Young, or (in a different way) the University of Chicago. Instead, they chose people from a short list of diploma mills. Those places are going to raise red flags from now until 2050. Might as well claim you graduated from the Che Guevara Communal Learning Institute and Center for Interpretive Dance.
Posted by: Carlos | May 03, 2007 at 05:27 AM
Those places are going to raise red flags from now until 2050.
Can't argue with that. I would have tossed the Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University into the mix. The links between PHC and the GOP don't bother me much, obviously, but in my eyes the required ideological pledges certainly devalue what is available there.
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero | May 03, 2007 at 06:50 AM
Well, the problem with the UChicago Graduates, presuming we mean undergrads, is that on the one hand they tend to be at best "culturally" Jewish or Christian, and on the other, that they're....lacking in people skills. The professional schools tend to be more conservative than the college, but not the right kind of conservative to go over to this administration--what with the rationalism and critical thinking...
I think BYU would throw up red flags for the Admin as it draws on the magic underpants crowd, but I'm surprised that there aren't more representatives from, for example, Wheaton or Earlham Colleges, as both are Christian and conservative.
One plausible argument is that the administration was not looking for good conservatives so much as good drones to be controlled by the hive mind. Ah, well, it's a direct assault on constitutional order. Clearly, the party needs a time out until 2040 or so...
Posted by: Luke | May 03, 2007 at 07:09 AM
Bernard, Patrick Henry College reflects our USAID discussion.
Tangent: Doug and I have had a few discussions on why a certain sort of American conservative feels drawn to Orthodox Christianity. One factor, I think, is a rejection of movement Protestantism's radical demotion of theology, which the linked article makes clear. They can't go to mainline Protestant sects, whose political goals they don't share, and Catholicism's internal culture wars are difficult for an outsider to negotiate. But in Orthodoxy, ah. All the tradition, none of the liberal guilt. (Plus a helping of mysticism &/or anti-Muslim resentment, if one is so inclined.)
Of course it's exactly parallel to some moonbat sandal type really getting into Zen in 1978, annoying the hell out of his Japanese neighbors. Hey, didja read this Gary Snyder book? Deeeep.
Posted by: Carlos | May 03, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Carlos,
Orthodox Christianity. Really? I would imagine that the Orthodox church in its myriad of forms would be as un-negotiable to an outsider as Catholicism. Although I can see that the media doesn't focus on the ins-and-outs of Orthodox politics the way it does Catholic; not here in Ireland anyway, nor in any easily accessible western country. I suppose that if you see only the local branch of the Greek/Armenian/Russian church then Orthodoxy may look a lot more together and coherent than it is in reality.
And wouldn't the use of icons and ceremony be off putting for committed protestants, even if it does
have tradition (and then some) and theology (and then some more) and all the other good stuff.
Posted by: Michael Barry | May 04, 2007 at 01:31 AM
Carlos,
I don't know if the opacity of the Catholicism's disputes is any reason that people would instead turn to Orthodoxy. Hell, the Russian Orthodox Church had a mini-schism over how many fingers to use in making the Sign of the Cross. I think the bigger factor is that the Orthodox Churches offer tradition *and* anti-Catholicism. It's like having your cake and eating it too.
One of the more interesting aspects of Orthodoxy is the way that it often serves as a theological Rorschach test for Anglos of all stripes. I know that your discussion is about American conservatives, but I think that it's telling that the Archdruid of Canterbury would also be so drawn to a Church whose ideas on gender role*, sexual orientation, etc. are somewhat different from his own.
And on the discussion of annoying Anglos who show up on the doorstep, ISTR reading that the Antiochian Orthodox Church has been the best at dealing with these wayward children. I wonder how the Russians or Greeks deal with them (my guess would be with confusion, but them I really don't know).
Posted by: Andrew R. | May 04, 2007 at 02:51 AM