Scapegoats vs. accountability

Is Sullivan operating with a different definition of accountable than I am? Because his definition of “accountable” looks a helluva lot like my definition of “scapegoat.” ~ John Cole

This is what I’ve been trying to say for a couple days now.  This whole fire-Napolitano-jihad of Sullivan’s is just another way of finding a convenient scapegoat.  The notion that it is in any way accountability is nonsense.  And it doesn’t make sense in practical terms either.  Would you fire someone at your company every time something went wrong?  Would you can the coach every time your team lost?  No – you only do that after a pattern of failure has been established.  Until then, you learn from your mistakes.  That is accountability – not just lopping off someone’s head and claiming you’ve fixed the problem.

John adds:

And another thing- If Obama fired Janet or forced her to resign for no reason whatsoever, who in their right mind would ever accept another appointment from him? Seriously- would you go to work for someone who would scapegoat you for things beyond your control, fire you, ruin your reputation and destroy your political career just because a couple wingnuts demanded it?

Seriously.  Far from being a welcome change from previous administrations, this sort of antic would be just more of the same.  If we want responsible government we have to hold their feet to the fire – and having them root out scapegoats does just the opposite.  And as John points out, it may even have further reaching consequences.  Nobody decent will want the post in the future if they think any gaffe they make will lead to their trial and execution.

How about this – how about we dismantle the Department of Homeland Security altogether?  That’s one way Napolitano could lose her job that actually makes sense….