Two Cheers for Cronyism

Who can you trust? In politics, the answer increasingly seems to be "nobody." The newly-released book "Game Change," written by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, is Exhibit A. Halperin and Heilemann's gossipy behind-the-scenes look at the 2008 election is loaded with juicy quotes plucked from "unnamed sources," "anonymous staffers," and "campaign higher-ups," each one desperately trying to spin the truth to their own advantage.

So how are politicians supposed to act when everything they say or do might eventually find its way into a tell-all memoir? Frank Bruni explores the issue in a though-provoking New York Times article.

The biggest problem, as Bruni rightly points out, is a lack of loyalty. In the past two decades we have seen the rise of a new political class, a gang of mercenary advisers who hop from candidate to candidate in search of the big score. True, they are not completely unprincipled; most work only one side of the political spectrum, for either Republicans or Democrats. But beyond that, they have no connection to their candidate other than a paycheck. Think of Steve Schmidt, brought in to advise John McCain, or Chris Lehane, formerly of the Edward campaign.

Maybe, then, cronyism isn't such a bad thing after all. Maybe a candidate should surround himself with close friends rather than hired guns. Yes, they might not look as flashy, and they also might cause a certain ideological cocooning. But at least the candidate's friends know his strengths and weaknesses. They won't try to make him something he's not. Plus, if a candidate is more comfortable with his advisers, he'll be more comfortable in general. Can you really share your feelings with a campaign manager you hired two weeks ago?

Two cheers for cronyism--at least the cronies are usually loyal.

WILL SCHULTZ