Comments on: The Strength of Strong Ties

By: atopian.org

atopian.org — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:38:03 +0000

Challenge yourself!

Finished all my exams, so I should blog a little more frequently again now.
I also came across the excellent http://www.crookedtimber.org/, the similarly good http://left2right.typepad.com/ and the provoking http://rightreason.ektopos.com/.

By: Tracy

Tracy — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:03:35 +0000

I read an article in the The Economist once defending the awarding of knighthoods and titles to political supporters on the basis that it was far better than the alternative ways Governments might reward their political supporters. Perhaps the US should bring in an honours system with special letters the honouree can put after their name and maybe some other reward, like their name being recorded on a plaque somewhere in the White House? The honourees could have the right to be addressed by the letters after their name in all government correspondence and on their passport or something.

Of course the Government would have to give out enough honours to people who did something useful that the honour system would not be hopelessly degraded. But I think Americans could cope with that.

By: cbisquit

cbisquit — Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:24:29 +0000

I don’t think Cowen’s argument was that only connected people get jobs, but that qualified persons will in almost every situation have at least some connections by the time they are Ehrenreich’s age. Exceptions are and should be made for younger people entering an industry but it can’t speak well for you if you’ve managed to amass multipe decades of professional experience without making any impression on anyone.

By: cm

cm — Sun, 11 Sep 2005 06:14:12 +0000

zizka: It even goes so far as friendship-making having the sole purpose of building a network with some people. But I’m probably not telling you anything new.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:47:06 +0000

I like that, AYKB. And he’d have really cute nicknames for each of the players, too.

By: 'As you know' Bob

'As you know' Bob — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:01:08 +0000

Now, let’s imagine Bush without his network. He’d be lucky to be managing a McDonalds right now. Maybe assistant night manager at WalMart or something.

For some reason, every time I’ve indulged in this little mental exercise, it’s used-car salesman that springs to mind first.

With his passions for bike-riding and clearing brush, I always thought he’d be well suited to be a groundsman for the Texas Rangers baseball team.

As long as he stayed sober, that it.

By: Troutsky

Troutsky — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:44:39 +0000

It would be a great undercover journalistic project to begin giving large sums of money to one party or the other then to see how far you could leverage that into some powerful position once that party comes to power. Plenty of research has already been done on the importance of the family tree,university connections etc.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:32:57 +0000

Exactly, Bob. They are perfectly competent, or else they wouldn’t be there. The gods are just, and the American public get precisely what they deserve.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:21:06 +0000

Michael Brown was a “bagman”, passing out checks to politically useful recipients based on someone else’s decisions (Rove?). Loyalty, a certain lack of imagination and ambition, a complete lack of moral judgement and qualms, a placidity that made it obviously useless to argue or complain to this underling, and equally pointless to charm or cajole this messenger for a larger payoff. A decent understanding of what was required for the apparent legality of bribes.

He was totally qualified for the job as designed by his superiors.

By: mythago

mythago — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:11:22 +0000

dan pretty much put his finger on it—nobody wants to get rid of social networks, partly because most of us benefit from them sooner or later, and partly because they are useful. When a trusted employee vouches for a job applicant, that information is probably more useful than a random reference: your employee is putting his or her own credibility on the line. That kind of networking doesn’t and shouldn’t substitute for the ability to do the job—my employer might well believe me completely that Bob is a good worker and a reliable guy, but if Bob doesn’t have the right job skills, he nevertheless won’t be hired.

As dan says, that’s very different from patronage, where the social networking goes beyond giving initial credibility and turns into an obligation to hire despite a manifest lack of ability to do the job.

By: anciano

anciano — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:45:25 +0000

While we are talking about managerial disasters, what about Paul Bremer? He made the situation in Iraq far worse than it needed to be. What about Donald Rumsfeld who has a good resume and his certainty that people like Gen. Shinseki must be wrong? Why are Americans so tolerant of incompetence in people responsible for national security? Is there something about our schools and our culture that tells us – I can’t judge those things, I have to depend on somebody higher up?

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:09:30 +0000

Now, let’s imagine Bush without his network. He’d be lucky to be managing a McDonalds right now. Maybe assistant night manager at WalMart or something.

For some reason, every time I’ve indulged in this little mental exercise, it’s used-car salesman that springs to mind first.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:00:25 +0000

“Daddy’s friends can’t keep an F-102 in the air”.
-Neither could Bush, though, or very well. He did crash his plane, got low ratings, and was grounded after all, so I’m not so sure this is much of an endorsment!

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:08:15 +0000

I think Slocum is right. Without his inherited networks Bush would do well as middle-to-upper management in business. Many businessmen are as anti-intellectual as Dubya, and Bush is shrewd about things he cares about. Unfortunately he cares mostly about campaigning rather than governing. (I’ve seen it proposed that he and Rove are equal partners on electoral strategy, though Rove is the nuts-and-bolts guy).

For Bush governing consists of lowering taxes, reducing regulation, starting wars, and rewarding friends. The administration part is supposed to take care of itself, and to conservative ideologues most government activity is useless or harmful anyway.

By: Slocum

Slocum — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:20:36 +0000

Now, let’s imagine Bush without his network. He’d be lucky to be managing a McDonalds right now. Maybe assistant night manager at WalMart or something.

Well, now maybe you want to claim that it’s possible to graduate from Andover, Yale, and Harvard on connections and back-slapping alone. But an uneducatable moron just can’t learn to fly jet fighters. Daddy’s friends can’t keep an F-102 in the air.