The American Diplomatic Spoils System, Part V: Let's Just Sell Off the Whole Damn Shootin' Match
Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: …of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing. ~ A Modest Proposal by Oliver Swift
When in mid-level training in the '80s, some bloviating Reaganaut political appointee came to address our class at the Foreign Service Institute. This agitprop windbag went out of his way to extol the benefits of having people "loyal to the President" serving in all senior government positions. On a roll, he then had the temerity to tell thirty career diplomats that, in fact, if he had his way, "I'd replace all Foreign Service positions with political appointees." He received polite applause from all but one -- this author, who sat cross-armed and glowering in the front row.
At the time, I thought, "Where do they get these clowns?" But, as I watched last week's cringeworthy Senate testimonies of Pres. Obama's latest batch of doofuses to be America's ambassadors, I had a change of mind. Heck, why not just sell off the whole damn shootin' match -- i.e., the entire U.S. Foreign Service? These moneybaggers who buy ambassadorships must think diplomacy is fun. So, let them have it all! There are good reasons to do this:
the President would be getting 100 percent "loyal" people carrying out his foreign policy.
the incumbent political party's coffers would be flooded with yet more cash in this post-Citizens United era, thus, further benefiting grassroots democracy.
taxpayers would spend less on foreign affairs as the moneybaggers would be required to fund all operations out-of-pocket, and all those pension-grubbing civil servants would be cashiered.
we'd be rid of a whole corps of whiny, promotion-obssessed career diplomats who let their brains get ahead of their loyalties.
we would eliminate the elitist and costly Foreign Service Officer Test, and related personnel processing.
everybody in the foreign policy ranks would "have the ear of the President."
Congress would be able to micro-manage foreign policy even more than it does now as it held Nero-like judgment over every nominee right down to junior visa officers. And, as we all know, Congress answers to The People.
as the sole remaining superpower, why should we give a crap over what the rest of the world thinks? A cadre of presidential Loyalists would simply read those foreigners the riot act, and we wouldn't have a bunch of elitist brainiacs nuancing every issue to death.
ridding the government of the outmoded Foreign Service would obviate future demagogues bent on liquidating our diplomats, Mao Tse-tung-style. We would be free of future scalawag Joe McCarthy's and Jesse Helmses, who went to sleep every night with images of eviscerated Ivy Leaguers dancing in their heads. (Of course, we're still stuck with Ted Cruz.)
So, how much are we talking anyway? Believe it or not, a couple of think-outside-the-box academics have costed out fair market prices for ambassadorial positions. Johannes W. Fedderke and Dennis C. Jett, of Pennsylvania State University, took into consideration a range of variables, from the per capita wealth of countries to tourist traffic to State Department danger and hardship classifications. Based on their criteria, at the top of the scale of highly sought-after European posts, Paris comes in at $6.2 million in direct contributions, or $4.4 million in bundled contributions, while little Portugal weighs in at a bargain basement $602,686 in direct contributions, or $341,160 in bundled contributions.
According to the New York Times, "donors and advisers involved in the diplomatic selection process say that competition for these posts is so tight this year, and Mr. Obama’s network of big donors and bundlers so vast, that those who have raised less than a million dollars are for the most part unlikely to be considered." The ratio of prospective buyers to supply of available ambassadorships reportedly hovers around ten to one.
This ratio is simply unfair to the President as well as to those who helped pay his way to electoral victory. Something must be done to bring supply and demand into equilibrium. Expanding on the Fedderke/Jett study, therefore, I propose the following price list:
Overseas Positions
Embassies: ambassadorships to the seven categories of embassies (small to big) will be priced from $1,000 to "sky's the limit," depending on free market forces.
Consulates: Consul General: $500 and up; Consuls: $300 and up.
All other posts: price to be determined at auction by Sotheby's or Ebay.
Ambassadorships-at-Large: to be minted upon demand, starting at $1200.
As previously stated, cost of all post operations will be borne by winners -- except security, which must be left in the hands of professionals, in this case, outsourced to Blackwater Security (now known as "Academi.") Costs, however, can be recouped by the selling of visas, passports and commercial services at going rates.
Domestic Positions
Secretary of State: bidding starts at $2 million.
Deputy Secretary of State: starts at $1 million.
Under Secretaries: $500,000.
Assistant Secretaries: $200,000.
Deputy Assistant Secretaries: $100,000.
Office Directors: $50,000.
Deputy Office Directors: $5,000 (these are really crappy jobs).
Desk Officers: $1,000.
Junior/Entry Level Officers: $500.
And this is just a beginning. The U.S. Foreign Service consists of 15,000 people, over 6,000 of whom are officers. We're starting here with the officer corps. Once we sell that off, we can then turn to the communications specialists, office managers and other support staff. While I haven't done the math yet, we're talking millions of big bucks. This is my modest proposal.
See also --
Make Me an Ambassador: Yes, We Can!
- and previous