NEWS BLOG (WSAU) Consider a business that’s expanding. The company started as one factory. The owner had his office on the second floor, the shop floor was below. The boss would reasonably know most of the people who worked for him by name. He’d know everything of importance that happened in his company.
Now imagine the same company grows, and sets up a second factory on the west coast. The boss flies out there once a week – maybe less. He knows the manager there, but not all the workers. If the company grows to five or six facilities, some might be visited by the owner only once a year. The managers who report to the boss are the critical cogs. The owner is only vaguely aware of the day-to-day doings. He might only become directly involved if there’s a problem.
Individual accountability at the top diminishes as the operation expands. That isn’t bad; it’s a success story – assuming there’s strong leadership in the mid-level ranks.
But what happens when an enterprise becomes so big that top management is disconnected? That is what’s happening with the White House in the wake of multiple scandals.
There’s a problem at the IRS. The President probably isn’t
even aware that non-profit tax-exempt applications are handled out of the
The same plausible deniability is being applied to the AP
scandal, and the death of our ambassador in
But the theme is the same: The President can’t possibly know about every IRS case, every Justice Department leak investigation, or every request for security from a far-flung government outpost.
A liberal administration is unknowingly making a strong argument against big government. If the executive branch is insulated from everything bad that happens, isn’t it too big? Smaller government is more accountable. When substantial wrongdoing is uncovered, will we be satisfied with ‘no one high up knew about it.’?