(MintPress) —The Inspector General’s office reported Thursday that the Justice Department should reform hiring practices after eight senior officials sought jobs and internships for family members. The department has been charged with three known cases of nepotism as the Inspector General reported that “nepotism, ethical lapses and misleading statements was the result of bad behavior by individuals insufficiently impressed with the principles of fair and open job hiring competition.” The Justice Department has pledged to investigate the problem and reprimand those individuals responsible.
The problem, however, is not limited to the Justice Department as many members of government in recent presidential administrations have chosen to appoint family members to high level cabinet posts.
The investigation
Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said he expected the Justice Department to discipline the unidentified individuals in the Justice Department guilty of nepotism in hiring full-time employees and interns. Commenting on the incidents which took place between 2004-2008, Horowitz said, “Most of the misconduct described in this report — the nepotism, the prohibited personnel practices, the ethical lapses, the false and misleading statements — was the result of bad behavior by individuals insufficiently impressed with the principles of fair and open competition.”
The Justice Department issued a quick response to the report. Assistant Attorney General for the Administration Lee J. Lofthus commented, saying, “The results of this investigation were very disappointing to me.” Additionally, Lofthus promised “appropriate and immediate corrective actions to ensure the problems are not repeated.”
The investigation into unfair hiring practices began in September 2010 after an inquiry by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.). Wolf, the key proponent of the investigation, was satisfied with the investigation saying, “I expect the employees involved in this nepotism ring to be punished under the full extent of the law. Nepotism has no place in any federal agency, and it is especially disturbing coming from the Department of Justice.”
Eight current and former Justice Department officials violated hiring practices by seeking jobs for family members. Since May 2008, the report said many were hired, including five daughters, three sons, a cousin, a nephew, a niece and two granddaughters.
American dynasties
The problem for some is much larger than just this recent investigation by the Inspector General’s office. Adam Bellow author and Vice President/Executive editor at Collins Books, commented on the issue during a 2004 NPR interview. When asked, “Is it smart for the Bush administration to be attacking anyone based on nepotism?” Bellow responded:
“Well of course it would be fairly inconsistent for anyone in the Bush administration to do that considering that this is by any measure the most nepotistic administration in recent history, certainly since the Kennedy administration. But I think what is really revealed by this incident if it turns out to be an attack on ambassador Wilson through his wife is the increasingly ingrown and incestuous nature of life in Washington itself.”
Dick Cheney, Bush’s vice president, appointed his own daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. Her husband, Philip Perry, served in a variety of roles during the Bush administration, including Associate Attorney General at the Justice Department.
Keeping it “all in the family” may not necessarily produce unqualified candidates. Very often, as Adam Bellows points out, appointments produce capable public servants. However, political commentators point out that other problems do arise with having family members working in the same branch of government.
Andrew Sullivan, writing for the Economist January 2010, wrote that these appointments are not necessarily problematic because of a candidates inexperience or ineptitude. Rather, Sullivan claims that such appointments will prevent family members from exercising sound judgement, including criticizing family members if their job requires it.
Sullivan wrote in his article, “Nepotism Watch, Eight Years Later:”
“The reason why you shouldn’t appoint your daughter as your surrogate inside the State Department isn’t necessarily that she lacks the relevant experience. It is that your daughter is very likely to give you an inflated sense of your own genius, and that relying for strategic advice on a familial clique is likely to drive you into a blind corner of actions that only look defensible to people who are related to you.”
Effect on democracy
Family appointments are actually a long-held practice in Washington, dating back to the founding of the city. In 1789, for example, Joseph Norse brought in four of his sons to serve at the Treasury Department. Ironically, the Revolutionary War fought just a little more than a decade earlier was a response to monarchical rule, that is, a rule by blood or kinship.
Indeed, some American families maintain deep ties in the Congress to this day. For example, Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) is the sixth generation of Frelinghuysens to represent New Jersey in Congress, dating to 1794. “The link is the fact that one or both of your parents is very involved in the political system so you often would be a tag-along. You sort of get it in your blood,” said Frelinghuysen in an interview.
There appear to be problematic promotion practices for a number of federal agencies as well. A 2002 survey conducted by the federal government’s Office of Personnel Management found that only 36.1 percent of federal employees thought their promotions were based on merit.
Major advances have been made since the American Civil Service Commission was established in 1883 to combat rampant cronyism and nepotism at all levels of federal employment. Before this, hirings, firings and advancements were primarily based upon party affiliation and family connections. However, by 1909, almost two-thirds of the federal workforce was hired based upon qualifications.
For most positions today, including the United States Postal Service, candidates are required to pass a civil service exam as a prerequisite for employment. Veterans and racial minorities are given preference in some instances. However, hiring for many federal positions is based mostly on merit rather than family or political connections.
According to the 2010 U.S. census, there were more than 2.5 million federal employees, including the U.S. Postal Service.
While most federal employees are subject to civil service exams, many positions, including high level cabinet positions, are made by appoint. Additionally, the increasing costs of political campaigns sometimes requires candidates to reach into their personal fortunes to overcome fundraising gaps. In the 2008 presidential race, Hillary Clinton used more than $11 million of her own money when her campaign was in debt and losing donations from outside donors.
The average race in the House of Representatives now costs candidates on average more than $1 million. The average Senate race costs about $6.5 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Family ties and name recognition are important in order for candidates to draw funding and popular appeal for their campaigns. Fundraising arguably remains the most important deciding factor in Congressional races, since, historically, the candidate who spends the most money on his campaign wins 9 out of 10 times.
Rule by plutocracy?
Stephen Hess, author of “America’s Political Dynasties,” sees this problem as reinforcing a cycle of elected officials coming from wealthy families and the upper echelons of American society. The children of politicians often grow up in wealth and have all the advantages of world class college educations, name recognition and a strong social network built by elder members of their family.
Such was the case, Hess points out, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the daughter of one-time congressman and Baltimore mayor Thomas D’Alesandro. Additionally, former Vice President Al Gore (D-Tenn.) built a strong political career, in part because his father was a U.S. senator. Both have amassed considerable wealth.
Congress contains a disproportionate number of millionaires compared to averages in the U.S. population at large. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the average U.S. senator had a net worth of $13.2 million in 2010. In the House of Representatives, the average net worth was $5.9 million. The same report shows that 269 members of Congress were millionaires, about 50 percent. Less than 1 percent of the American public falls into the same income bracket.
In addition to being predominantly wealthy, the U.S. Congress continues to be overwhelmingly white, Christian and male. In fact, according to Senate.gov, there were just 91 women serving in the 112th Congress. Women hold 16.8 percent of the 541 Congressional seats despite representing 50 percent of the population.
There are just 44 African-American members of Congress, all serving in the House. Additionally, other racial minority groups, including Asian Americans and Hispanic-Americans, are underrepresented given their numbers in the American electorate.
The problem with kinship politics, political analysts contend, is that Congressional representatives often bear little resemblance to their constituencies.