<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Financier</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frumforum.com/the-financier/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frumforum.com/the-financier</link>
	<description>Building a conservatism that can win again</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: rittelme-this</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/the-financier/comment-page-1#comment-61631</link>
		<dc:creator>rittelme-this</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newmajority.com/?p=7648#comment-61631</guid>
		<description>&quot;Civil servants should not be appointed or removed on political grounds&quot; -- a popular opinion, but not unassailable!  Before TV and radio a party needed ward-heelers, and ward-heelers needed day jobs.  Where else should they have gotten them but patronage?  Should politics have been left to wealthy men and bored society matrons? 

I can understand exempting certain categories from the vagaries of party politics -- schoolteachers, say -- but, if it makes the difference between a party that functions and one that doesn&#039;t, isn&#039;t patronage worth it?  Or, at the very least, wasn&#039;t it worth it in the 1880s when parties depended on it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Civil servants should not be appointed or removed on political grounds&#8221; &#8212; a popular opinion, but not unassailable!  Before TV and radio a party needed ward-heelers, and ward-heelers needed day jobs.  Where else should they have gotten them but patronage?  Should politics have been left to wealthy men and bored society matrons? </p>
<p>I can understand exempting certain categories from the vagaries of party politics &#8212; schoolteachers, say &#8212; but, if it makes the difference between a party that functions and one that doesn&#8217;t, isn&#8217;t patronage worth it?  Or, at the very least, wasn&#8217;t it worth it in the 1880s when parties depended on it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Titan</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/the-financier/comment-page-1#comment-56585</link>
		<dc:creator>The Titan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:45:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newmajority.com/?p=7648#comment-56585</guid>
		<description>[...] Ayn Rand novel written by a socialist&#8221; was my assessment of Thomas Dreiser’s The Financier. That description applies even more forcefully to Dreiser’s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Ayn Rand novel written by a socialist&#8221; was my assessment of Thomas Dreiser’s The Financier. That description applies even more forcefully to Dreiser’s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

