There’s a fun new study making the rounds, published recently in the American Economic Review showing, when it comes to hiring in political bureaucracies, political connections are often more important than actual competence to do the job.
While the study looks at Brazilian public employees between 1997 and 2014, could it be possible that such an effect, of political convenience outweighing competence, can be seen in the United States as well? To be clear, there is a well-defined split between the career US government employees who serve the public through different administrations, and are generally highly qualified as a result of rigorous hiring processes, and the political appointees who are chosen to serve at the President’s discretion. Traditionally, high-ranking, science-adjacent political appointments positions go to qualified experts at the top of their fields, as few are capable of coordinating scientific efforts across vastly different disciplines. Traditionally.
But with the eleventh-hour hires of deniers David Legates and Ryan Maue to key climate and science posts in the lame-duck months of the Trump administration, the inverse relationship between political patronage and competence is not just easily inferred. It is explicitly acknowledged by one of their most fervent supporters, CEI’s Myron Ebell.
First though, let’s back up just a second. Because for years, David Legates and Ryan Maue both tried, to varying degrees, to present themselves as unbiased, neutral arbiters of climate and weather science. While both worked occasionally with fossil-fuel-funded people and organizations, neither necessarily seemed inclined to make a career in professional climate denial politics.
So it’s really something of a shock to see them now join the Trump Administration, in its waning months; climbing aboard a sinking vessel that would forever be a stain on their CV, one that shouts “I joined one of the most historically anti-scientific presidential administrations in history, one marked by a level of racism and bigotry not seen in decades and that so thoroughly mismanaged the science of a pandemic that hundreds of thousands of Americans died needlessly because of the President’s science denial!”
And normally, people would be able to claim in their defense that they are a decent person, compelled to answer the call of public service and that a great scientist would feel duty-bound to attempt to improve an anti-scientific administration from the inside. But given the reporting indicating they’re being brought in specifically to bring a Trumpian approach to the next National Climate Assessment, it’s hard to believe that it’s their intelligence or experience that’s brought them into the Trump administration.
In fact, it’s impossible to believe, according to fellow denier Myron Ebell, of the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute. Ebell’s been quoted often in the Trump era, essentially serving as the denial mouthpiece willing to say plainly what the Trump administration tries to tip-toe around. He seems to represent the power of organized denial that’s been welcomed into the Trump government.
According to Scott Waldman, Ebell says that the firing of various scientists and their replacement with the likes of Legates and Maue are simply the White House continuing to kick out people that aren’t loyal to the one-term, now-lame duck President.
He told Waldman that “they’ve been going through things and getting better people in—not better in terms of, you know, higher educational qualifications or intelligence or experience, but people who are qualified and support the Trump agenda—and of course David is a great choice, but he’s highly qualified.”
There it is! Hires like Ryan Maue and David Legates are “not better in terms of, you know, higher education qualifications or intelligence or experience,” but were instead hired because they “support the Trump agenda.” Talk about saying the quiet part out loud...
Remember that in a few months, when Maue has re-added some version of “apolitical” to his bio, and Legates is complaining about his students at U-Delaware objecting to a professor who joined the most dishonest and bigoted administration in modern history, simply to try and sabotage a climate report.
Maybe if Ebell were a little “better in terms of, you know, higher educational qualifications or intelligence or experience,” he would’ve successfully lobbied for these staffing changes months or even years ago, when they could’ve done significantly more damage to the climate, and less to their own reputations.