In addition, I was quite surprised when I began my graduate training and continuing on in my academic career as a professor, how divorced the scholarship is in political science from the practice of governing. The college freshman I have the honor of teaching often have a misconception about what the Introductory American Politics class is actually from a content perspective. It is not, to their surprise, a year-long discussion about the current state of politics similar to the Sunday talk shows. It is a journey to understand how different parts of the political system interact with each other and work together. It is about learning different theories, such as Duverger’s Law or pluralism to understand politics. Furthermore, I have always found it odd that the scholarship in political science does not inform the people who are making governing decisions. In International Relations it is more likely that an academic might inform decision-makers as country experts will often have PhDs, but in American politics it is rare. At the White House there is not a staff political scientist, as there are an entire team of economists. Why is that? Largely people inside government do not understand what political scientists do nor do they have any knowledge or appreciation for the research that is performed. This is problematic on two important fronts. First, the revered Ivory Tower is irrelevant if the work it produces is not germane to the people working inside of government. Interest group scholars, for instance, could share their research with particular groups and their clients explaining why the status quo is so hard to change. Second, I think that the government could be better run with more informed lawmakers who derived knowledge from scholarship made digestible from researchers. For instance, when would lawmakers want to set up a competitive bureaucracy for a particular policy area? Under what conditions do bureaucrats have more or less discretion? How can we set up a high-quality bureaucracy that is responsive to citizen needs? Scholars have the answers to these questions, but lawmakers do not. It is incumbent, in my opinion, for both groups to have a more effective line of communication with one another. Some venues such as the Monkey Cage or 538 have tried to build this bridge, but the chasm is currently very wide, and the academy could do a better job of making important findings accessible to decision-makers. There is vanity on both sides as researchers are often disdainful of politicians, and politicians are often very disdainful of know-it-all-academics, but more interaction and conversations between the two groups would benefit everyone. Decision-makers could be better informed by research, and scholars might get more insight into the problems that decision-makers face. My experiences in government inspired this book, and I cannot imagine being a scholar of American Politics without having had that background. I am exception, however, rather than the rule.
Finally, this project is the result of years of work with the support of so many people in my life. My mentors include David Lowery, Suzanna Linn, Michael Berkaman, and Marie Hojnacki. My colleagues and friends have helped me with innumerable issues and have given wonderful advice and encouragement. I am deeply grateful to Anne Whitesell, Kevin Reuning, Mike Kenwick, Lee Hannah, Molly Ariotti, Amanda Parks, Amanda Fidalgo, and Christopher Ojeda. I thought of my White House friends during the course of this project including Anne Campbell Dudro, Lauren Vestwig Gray, Christina Wilson Altenau, Melissa Bennett, David Dunn, Terrell Halaska, Philo Hall, Anne Phelps, Aquilles Surez, Scott Evertt, Beverly Barrett, Martha Wilson Snyder, Cheryl Oldham, Vicky Schray, Emily Winland Gribble Holly Kuzmich, Diana Schact, Margaret Thompson, and Tracy Young. Other people kept encouraging me through the ups and downs of completing such a large project such as Dan White, Amy Greenberg, Elizabeth Leong, Ann Tarantino, MJ Kitt, Shamim Sinnar, Lisa Sternleib, Clare Cowen, David Atwill, Yurong (Jade) Atill, Rick Roush, and Robyn Krause Hale. I am deeply grateful to my wonderful parents, Allis Dale and John Gillmor, who encouraged a love of learning and a quest for inquiry. Growing up, many family dinner conversations involved pulling out the World Book Encyclopedia to resolve arguments. That intellectual atmosphere helped me persevere later in life. My five siblings, Sarah, Abby, Susan, John, and Matthew are a constant source of encouragement, inspiration, and friendship. I would be remiss if I did not also thank my five canine companions who, at different times over the years, faithfully sat under my desk and slept as I worked. Axon, Neuron, Cerebellum, Neville, and Dendrite kept me company and looked quizzically but empathetically at me when I tried to talk through a problem with them. Finally, I could not have even started this endeavor without the support and love of my family, especially my husband, Steve. All errors in this document are my responsibility.
Bureaucracy as a Whipping Boy for Politicians and Citizens Alike
Joseph Heller’s iconic novel, Catch-22, follows the absurdity of war through the protagonist, Captain John Yossarian, and the pernicious effect of an unfeeling, unyielding, and powerful war bureaucracy that shows no regard for human life (Mullican 1981). Though the book was written as a satire on the senselessness of war, the depiction of the War Department’s bureaucracy is a comment generally about the frustrations Americans have with bureaucratic institutions that directly affect their lives. The title of the book, Catch-22, became ingrained in American lexicon “to name a human and social phenomenon, in this instance the absurdity of institutional logic” (Mullican 1981, 42). The bureaucracy is the true enemy, and this theme is embodied in American society where public agencies and its employees are viewed as rule bound, inefficient, wasteful, duplicative, and inept (Milward and Rainey 1983; Fiorina 1989). Everyone loves to hate the bureaucracy. Even the word “bureaucracy” fills people with dread as it connotes an image of long lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) filled with barely competent workers who slowly process driver’s licenses applications. In the United States, we, generally, take a very dismal view of the tasks that local, state, and federal bureaucracies perform and resent our tax dollars supporting government workers who enjoy good benefits for relatively easy work.
Encouraged by politicians of both parties, this view feeds the public narrative that too many tax dollars are spent on agencies in the U.S. federal government. Just as Richard Fenno observed in Homestyle (2003) that in the United States, “members of congress run for congress by running against congress” (p. 168), the corollary to the executive branch is also apparent. Politicians of both parties attack the bureaucracy as bloated, inefficient, and unresponsive because it is politically expedient to propose reform programs that reduce the size of the federal government and introduce market forces into its management and operation (Fiorina 1989; Fiorina 1977). President Ronald Regan’s antipathy for the federal bureaucracy was palpable and he routinely requested that Congress “starve the beast” by severely cutting agencies’ budgets in order to reduce the size of the government. Regan’s attorney general, Ed Meese, would come to cabinet meetings “with a rotund, faceless, large-bottomed doll. He announced that it was a bureaucrat doll; you put it on a stack of papers and it just sits there!” (Raines 1981). The implication was that government was bloated and if agencies could be run more like private businesses, decisions would be more rational and inefficiencies would disappear (Milward and Rainey 1983).
The stereotypes of the bureaucracy do not match their importance in a smoothly functioning society or in democratic governance. In fact, the bureaucracies at the federal, local, and state levels are very important. The so-called street-level bureaucrats such as teachers, cops, and garbage collectors perform essential functions in society and do not warrant the negative clichés that politicians, authors, and everyday Americans associate with them. Part of the intransigence of the bureaucracy is it is often asked to solve problems where