Swooping in under the radar of national attention, President Bush has spent the
last month making a series of low-profile, high-impact
nominations, placing industry insiders in key positions in the administration.
And in many of these cases the secretary of the Navy, for instance, or assistant
head of the EPA he has chosen people whose previous roles as defense
contractors and lobbyists put them in direct
conflict with their proposed tasks as civil servants.
Bush's recent spate of second-rung departmental selections comes at
a time when the media are focused on another round of nominations, those for
federal judgeships. Not surprisingly, those nominations, lacking American Bar
Association recommendations but carrying the support of the conservative
Federalist
Society, have drawn well-deserved flak.
But it's a sign of Bush's carrier-pigeon
approach to policymaking send out enough at the same time and some are bound to
get through.
And don't think that just because these are assistants and undersecretaries that they are
in any way less important than judges or cabinet secretaries. Each manages a specific
region or facet of a department's
duties, and are often better informed and more in control of the day-to-day than his or her
cabinet-level superiors.
The real problem with these nominations is how much of the devil is hiding
in the detail. It's easy to single out a guy like John Ashcroft for criticism, but
what about seemingly inoffensive characters who just happen to be industry
executives? As one analyst put it, "who better to know how the business runs than those
who have run the business?"
Putting aside the fact that the situation is more like letting the cop guard the donut
shop, there are some very specific nominations to be concerned with. Take that of
Gordon R. England, Bush's nominee for secretary of the Navy and, until
recently, the executive vice president of the General Dynamics Corporation. The company is the Pentagon's largest
shipbuilding contractor, claiming among its divisions the Electric Boat Corporation and the Bath Iron Works. The latter currently builds Arleigh Burke class
destroyers, which Bush has recently promised to sell to Taiwan, and is competing
to build the Burke's replacement, the DD-21 class destroyer. The problem is, England's future
boss-in-waiting, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has recommended cutting
the DD-21 program. England will be walking into a situation that tests his loyalty
to the country against that to his old employer and, more than likely, his own wallet.
Or take James R. Roche, a corporate vice president for Northrop Grumman and Bush's nominee for secretary of the Air Force.
Northrop Grumman is the manufacturer of the B-2 stealth bomber, something the company
is pushing the government to buy a whole lot more of. The Defense Department had
been slow to warm up to the idea; will it be a surprise if, after Roche is in place, that
attitude changes?
Or, finally, take Linda Fisher, a former lobbyist for Monsanto and the pick for deputy administrator of the EPA, one of
just several industry leaders and representatives chosen for environment-related
posts. Fisher's work for Monsanto included, most recently, directing its government
affairs office. Monsanto, in turn, is actively seeking curbs on government oversight in the production of
genetically engineered crops, in which it has invested heavily.
In fact, of all the myriad positions open at the Department of the Interior and the
EPA, Bush did not select a single nominee affiliated with conservation groups or the
environmental movement (he was considering John Turner of the
Conservation Fund for
assistant secretary of the Interior, but backed down under pressure from the
American
Conservative Union).
As Maria Weidner, policy advocate for the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, told the New York Times, "They are
lawyers and lobbyists who built their careers by helping industry get out of
environmental regulations. Now, assuming they're confirmed, they will be doing the
same thing, only the taxpayers will be paying for it."
To be fair, it's overly simplistic and crude to say that simply because someone was
in the past affiliated with a company, that person will necessarily continue to promote
the company's interests at the expense of the country's once in office. But the
broader implication is still true: namely, that these nominees come from
backgrounds that will shape the way they approach problems; they will look at
military procurement with a sympathy for, if not a financial interest in, the way
such decisions affect defense contractors, and they will consider environmental
regulations not as improvements in quality of life but as costs to be weighed
against their impacts on corporate profits.
Forty years ago, departing President Eisenhower warned the nation of the
growing, covert influence of the military-industrial complex. Under the Bush
Administration, however, we have seen the expansion of industry's influence into all
facets of the executive branch, and it's happening at a rate so dizzying and in a
manner so low-key that the average citizen has no idea what's going on,
until it's too late.
E-mail Clay Risen at risenc@yahoo.com.