Prior to the Presidency of James Garfield, the US Civil Service was plagued with patronage jobs. The worst offender of which was Senator Conkling from New York. To maintain his privilege and influence, Senator Conkling negotiated with Garfield during the run up to the elections to take on Chester Arthur as the Vice Presidential nominee.
Chester Arthur was a creature of the patronage system that was run by Conkling. He was nothing but a product of 'machine politics.' Chester Arthur previously had been forced out on corruption charges earlier.
Then, in 1881, in a tragic turn of events, within a few months of becoming President, James Garfield was assassinated. Chester Arthur naturally became President, as his successor.
Senator Conkling then became delighted with this turn of events, since he presumed that things were now in his favor. He went to see Chester Arthur fully expecting him to be in his sway. In a dramatic change in personality and behavior, Chester Arthur, 'takes charge'! He not only threw Conkling out, but also went on to pass the signature bill of his term, the Civil Service Reform Act that put an end to patronage jobs and introduced a system of merit.
The President after much agony succumbed to the infection that was allowed to spread. As a result of this, the public was outraged and so was the medical community.
The Medical Association in the U.S. then adopted the new procedures for sterilizing surgical equipment and the police force and others took up Graham Bell's invention of detecting lodged bullets in the body!
The above is a telling anecdote from an obscure period in history, of how people can be resistant to change. It also demonstrates how successful people (the President's doctor!) can be resistant to change. And indeed, the cause of the subsequent change in attitudes in the story above and the adoption of the two new innovations was, what we in today's parlance might describe as a 'burning platform'.
Also, we can glean an implication that leadership can emerge from surprising quarters - the right person, at the right time, can help the society make big strides. An example is when Nixon went to China in the 70s, or when President Clinton reformed 'welfare as we knew it' in the 90s. in each case the person most associated with that topic, (Nixon was the biggest communist-fighter around and Clinton was, as a Democrat, an ostensible defender of social programs) was able to instigate the change.
Chester Arthur, the machine politician who never held elective office, knew most about patronage jobs. And when he got a chance, he was able to turn things around.
How interesting is this?!
4 comments:
This is indeed a very interesting story (saw Millard discuss this on BookTV).
So you might also find this following piece of interest as it relates to all three major themes of your piece: The Two Europes by Francis Fukuyama. In it he explores why it is that countries like Greece and Italy lag the northern countries. He puts his finger on something that I’d not considered – their inability to move past government by patronage. Or, rather, Frank’s larger classification of the phenomenon that also includes patronage – what he calls “clientelism”
Clientelism occurs when political parties use public resources, and particularly government offices, as a means of rewarding political supporters. Politicians provide not programmatic public policies, but individual benefits like a job in the post office, an intervention on behalf of a relative in trouble with the government, or sometimes an outright payment of money or goods.
However one attributes the causal nature of the problem, it also raises the question you posed in your piece – will there ever be a leader able to pull Italy and Greece past their historic ‘clientelism’? But the answer to that question will turn on one’s views as to what needs to change – some policies, or the culture?
Yes, change takes place with 'vision of
statesmen,' or by compulsion or even by
accident.
Well written. Enjoyed reading.
a very nice write-up on early American innovation and change!
I am fascinated by people taking (or not) calculated risks at 'tipping points'. Chester Arthur took the chance and it paid off, while the President's Doctor shied away from what was (in hindsight atleast) an easy risk-reward decision.
Post a Comment