A politics-administration dichotomy is an administration that can be apolitical. No administration has ever been formed that has ever come close to being apolitical. Politics is what a government does and administration is how it does it. "What do I do?" and "How do I do it?" are related questions no matter what field your in. Politics-administration dichotomy not only cannot be sustained, it cannot be initiated. One begets the other. To separate the two would beg the question "Why are we doing this?"
Chat with our AI personalities
nothins
The description of the political corruption of the Grant administration and the mostly unsuccessful efforts to reform politics is patronage and stalwart. Credit mobilizer scandal and half breeds are also unsuccessful reform politics.
The primary thing that filled the void left by the disintegration of the political structure was lawlessness. This caused a long period in which goods were stolen and it was very difficult to created sustainable political structure.
Yes and no. There was some confusion about this, with various political charges thrown back and forth between the two parties, but the actual story seems to be quite non-political. The bust was on loan, during the Bush administration. When the administration was no longer in office, the agreement was that the bust be returned. But the Obama administration was able to get a copy of the bust, since there is widespread admiration in both parties for Churchill as a statesman. I enclose a link to the White House's explanation of what caused the confusion.
He had already been involved in politics during the Wilson administration. He decided to pursue his political career despite his illness.