The Washington Post has an article about the awful job market Bush appointees will face now that they’re out of work. Some observers suggest that having been a loyal Bushie will be a blackmark on their resume. Others dissent:
“I think the reports of their unmarketability are exaggerated,” Podesta said. “If you’re an economist at Treasury and you’re smart and skillful, I don’t think the fact that Bush was president and Democrats found him to be unpopular will kill anyone’s chances of finding a good job.”
“The cream always rises to the top,” added Nels Olson, of the executive recruiting firm Korn/Ferry International. “Those that are the first-rate individuals out of the administration and who have developed good bipartisan relationships and have solid policy experience will be able to make the transition.”
But it seems to me there isn’t so much “cream” among Bush appointees. Indeed, some might argue that the Bush administration’s failures were in no small measure brought about by the incompetence of Bush appointees. And that tiny fraction who were competent have likely been asked to stay on with Obama.
Of course, the article doesn’t make the obvious point, which is that the reason being a Bush appointee looks bad on a resume is not because people hate George W. Bush (though they do), it’s because they assume (correctly) that nearly everyone he hired was a hack.