seems Caroline Kennedy is going to be the ambassador to Japan for obamadaitouryou. Is that how it usually works with ambassadors: Help the campaign with your name fame and cash and become the ambassador?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/re...88222.html

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/1303...001-n1.htm

Edit: i guess the title of the thread should really be 'kennedy taishi'

This is basically how it works with major campaign supporters. They'll often get cabinet appointments or other appointments like this. Kennedy doesn't bring much to the table. I'm not too wild about her possibly getting the spot.

tashippy Wrote:seems Caroline Kennedy is going to be the ambassador to Japan for obamadaitouryou. Is that how it usually works with ambassadors: Help the campaign with your name fame and cash and become the ambassador?

Yes, the current administration is openly corrupt. It's OK though, no one seems to care.

In fact I bet people will now provide examples of corruption in other administrations, in an attempt to justify this.

What exactly would she be doing as U.S. Ambassador to Japan? I don't really follow U.S politics so I really know much about this Caroline, aside from being a Kennedy. Is she fluent? Does she have a history of relations with Japan? Has she demonstrated an intimate understanding of Japanese business and political relations, etc.?

I went to school with a kid named Kennedy. A name can only take you so far, surely?

Ambassador appointments are essentially a payback system to politicians and strong political party supporters of the elected president. Every administration has used these appointments in this manner. Ambassadors were once necessary when communication once posed a problem, but that was over a hundred years ago and the system has evolved to a rewarding post for influential supporters.

Oh, okay then. Well to be honest I'm glad I don't follow these sorts of political things, then. I'm starting at about four different documents, organizing a grammar based Japanese particle close-delete spreadsheet and as boring as some people find grammar; I find politics just as odd, lol.

Thanks for the heads-up. I really had no idea what an ambassador can do what email, skype interviews, a translator or two, etc. can't, and for far less of a cost for the citizens of each respective nations. And know I know

Stansfield123 Wrote:In fact I bet people will now provide examples of corruption in other administrations, in an attempt to justify this.

Lol, nothing "justifies" it. But nothing also makes it special either. Politician and corruption are fairly synonymous.

Norman Wrote:Ambassadors were once necessary when communication once posed a problem, but that was over a hundred years ago and the system has evolved to a rewarding post for influential supporters.

A hundred years ago? In the case of Japan you could say 20-30 years ago, but they're still needed in many places. There are people that get put into ambassador positions that are actually fit for the position, though they are far and few between. Some of the early ambassadors to Japan after the WW2 were knowledgeable of Japan and Asia. Good ambassadors understand the culture of the country they have to handle diplomatic relations with, that way things move more smoothly. The more western the country, the easier for a US ambassador obviously, but if its not, then it can require work. Ambassadors also have cultural advisors and bureaucrats at the embassy, so even if they are dumb as a brick, they still have people that know what they are doing.

Vix86, it sounds like you have read too many State Department brochures. These people are dead weight sipping off tax dollars. Ambassadors were appointed as messengers for leaders. Technology has made the continuation of such posts outdated. Do you really think we need to finance a worldwide network of ambassadors to convey messages for leaders? It was a necessity before the invention of the telephone, but it has since been a system of appointments for political payback to supporters of the president.

They are also there to build human relationships and network, among other things that can't be done by email

Norman Wrote:Vix86, it sounds like you have read too many State Department brochures. These people are dead weight sipping off tax dollars. Ambassadors were appointed as messengers for leaders. Technology has made the continuation of such posts outdated. Do you really think we need to finance a worldwide network of ambassadors to convey messages for leaders? It was a necessity before the invention of the telephone, but it has since been a system of appointments for political payback to supporters of the president.

This seems naive. Ambassadors promote American interests in the country they're stationed in, however they can. A bit part of it, to my understanding, is that they make social connections with people in the government there (or other influential people), and try to persuade those people to act in ways that coincide with American interests. You can't do that so well with the internet.

Also, when you do want to tell a foreign leader something, or convince him of something, doing it in person is a lot more effective than online or by phone because of human psychology. It's easy to put pressure on someone in person, and it sometimes works, but it doesn't work nearly as well on the phone or by letters/e-mail.

I mean, have you ever read a history book that talks about what an ambassador did? Seems fairly obvious that there's a lot more to it than what you're saying.

Tzadeck, the human connection is a valid point, but it is still a blatant political payoff system with these appointments of unqualified friends. It would be best if real experts were selected in more of a competitive process. I guess the ambassadors are only the tip of the ice berg. The same could be said for nearly all non-competitive appointments that plague the federal government.

Norman Wrote:Tzadeck, the human connection is a valid point, but it is still a blatant political payoff system with these appointments of unqualified friends. It would be best if real experts were selected in more of a competitive process. I guess the ambassadors are only the tip of the ice berg. The same could be said for nearly all non-competitive appointments that plague the federal government.

I suspect it just isn't a very difficult job, kind of like a weather announcer. They probably just need someone who can smile and represent the party line. An "expert" might be a bit of a liability for the administration as you don't know what they might say/do.