Public Administration and the Theater Metaphor: The Public Administrator as Villain, Hero, and Innocent Victim

Abstract

Since the founding of this nation, the theater metaphor has had an influence on political discourse. Politicians often invoke the metaphor when they enact political dramas to construct themselves in the image of leader. An argument is presented that former President Ronald Reagan and his political strategists made extensive use of this strategy and were effective in portraying public administrators as evil villains. It is also argued that supporters of the administrative state relied on the theater metaphor as well. In an effort to counter Reagan's negative image of villain, supporters responded by portraying public administrators as heroes and innocent victims. This article suggests that the theater metaphor is problematic when viewed from the perspective of public administration theory and practice. The images of villain, hero and innocent victims emanating from the theater metaphor are troublesome and deserve scrutiny. The political climate of the 1980s gave the public administration community much about which to write. With the Reagan revolution at its zenith, academic journals and the popular press burst at the seams with articles assessing this historic period in American politics. The so-called Reaganites came to the nation's capital with a mission. Proclaiming to have had a mandate from the American people, they aggressively sought to carry out a conservative and probusiness agenda. This agenda championed the transfer of broad decision-making authority and power from the federal government to the states. It also advocated regulatory relief for private industry. To sustain political momentum and showcase Reagan's leadership abilities, the Reaganites relied upon his oratory skills and reputation as the Great Communicator. This strategy was guided by the skillful use of antigovernment rhetoric. Reagan consistently criticized and blamed the federal bureaucracy and career civil servants for what he perceived as America's problems. The Reagan administration's jihad against career civil servants caused a great deal of soul searching within the public administration community. There was a sense of urgency. Many writers argued that the administrative state was in the midst of a crisis. The perception was that decisive action was needed to counteract the immediate and long-term damage of Reagan's seemingly endless assault on the bureaucracy. Although students of public administration may remember the Reagan era as a time of crisis, this period did have a positive influence on the field. Academicians, practitioners, and others joined hands to produce a vast and impressive body of literature. This literature publicized the human resources crisis in the public sector (Lane and Wolf, 1990), documented the long-term consequences of caustic attacks on the administrative state (Adams, 1984; Farazmand, 1989; Rosen, 1983a, 1983b, 1986), challenged prevailing conceptions of public bureaucracies (Goodsell, 1985), and established an alternative basis upon which to legitimate the role of public administrators in the American political system (Cook, 1992; Kass and Catron, 1990; Rohr, 1986; Wamsley et al., 1990). Now that the Reagan era has ended, we should critically examine this literature.(1) This examination may prove beneficial, especially if it contributes to an understanding of public administration theory and practice. I argue that the theater metaphor provided the subtext for much of the literature that addressed Reagan-era attacks on the administrative state. Since the founding of this country, the theater metaphor has shaped and influenced political discourse (Fearnow, 1992; Richards, 1991; Silverman, 1976), especially in times of crisis (Turner, 1982). The highly publicized legitimacy crisis of the administrative state was no exception (Freedman, 1978; Rohr, 1986; Stever, 1988). In an effort to defend the administrative state, many writers helped prepare the script of political dramas primarily enacted by the Reaganites and their supporters (social conservatives, radical economic libertarians, and classical liberals). …