09:19 am
Mr. Jones: Point, Counterpoint
Spencer Ackerman responds to my suggestion that he was criticizing National Security Advisor Jim Jones’s work ethic:
I wasn’t arguing Jones was a slacker. I was trying to say that he seemed in the WP piece a bit hung up on the generation/cultural gap between him and his Obama-campaign/Senate-experienced staffers.
Fair point — though I think that Jones was trying to sound a bit wry, but I can see where Spencer thinks differently.
Meanwhile, reader Norman Rogers begs to disagree:
Mr. Ackerman, please. You got *punked* again. Aren’t you used to it by now?
General Jones is used to having a professionally organized staff of dozens, not a frenetic, chaotic campaign situation. General Jones is likely used to having a capable chief of staff, and department heads that report to him and take their lesser concerns to his deputy. It sounds to me like he is working a rolling schedule–perhaps 10 hour days and 14-15 hour days as needed, and as based on events. He was expecting professionalism and what he got was a campaign-oriented staffing nightmare.
Pizza boxes are likely spilling into the hallway. General Jones isn’t happy with coming into the office and finding some dude sprawled on his couch with garlic sauce on his shirt and a can of Mountain Dew rolled under the desk. General Jones probably wishes he could right the ship, kick some tail, and clean the place up. Too bad the Obamatrons are running our government like the Indiana primary, with tacky pictures pasted everywhere and with cheese doodles crunched down into the fine carpets.
General Jones, sir–you have our permission to resign. These people don’t deserve your professionalism and your sober judgement.
Sorry Mr. Rogers, but you are way, way off base here. Late hours do not translate into chaos. The idea that his staff is sloppy or lazy or unprofessional is nonsense — they all are, without exception, experienced foreign policy professionals who have dedicated their lives to making the United States a better place. You may disagree with their vision, but do not question their professionalism (and for the record, I would make the exact same point about Bush’s White House staff).
The issue here is not professionalism but competing visions of how to work. As I noted in my original post, only in Washington could someone putting in a twelve-hour day be considered a slacker. The White House is a hothouse culture that tends to reinforce certain behaviors that are not always useful. To put it another way, what is a strength — the ability to work long hours and produce results — can become a liability if it’s overused. Our bodies simply cannot sustain themselves on caffeine and adrenaline. Sooner or later performance will erode; the key is to keep enough in reserve so that, like a marathoner, you have the ability to give your best when it’s absolutely necessary.
Unfortunately, too many in the White House think they need to run a sub-three minute mile time (to overstretch the analogy) for the entire race. The reality is that there are times for hard work and long hours (and pizza), and there are times when it makes sense to keep a more regular schedule so that you’re rested when the crisis comes. What Jones is trying to change is a mindset, not some sort of slacker culture. The challenge he faces is the exact opposite of what you suggest.
Related posts
| posted in American foreign policy, politics | 0 Comments