I'm not sure where you are getting this contentious vibe from, but that definitely is not my intent.

I'm just trying to get you to see that "cronyism" is a cheap rhetorical device, that weakens your argument.

Here's another way to look at it: Does anyone self-apply the word "crony" in anything other than an intentionally comically ironic context?

No.

So by falling back on the word "crony", you instantly devalue your point, turn off the listeners who you have accused of being "cronies" or engaging in "cronyism", and you have abdicated your responsibility for presenting a well-formed argument/point.

YOU see "cronyism". THEY see "getting information from informed people/putting the most knowledgeable (and available) people into the role".

So as soon as you cry "Cronyism!", you have lost the high ground, and the opportunity to inform or convince your reader. It's name-calling.

My long-winded examples were simply ways of trying to help you see that perspective, and to hopefully inspire you to forming a more effective argument.

Because, like I said before, I agree with you. But until you frame your argument in a way that ANYONE can use it, without name-calling, it's not useful.

Here: I want people in office who do are there to serve, not people who are doing a job.

Service takes a heavy toll. It is thankless, hard work, and you don't get paid well for it.

So what I want to see are leading thinkers in their field running for office. They serve, do their duty, and then cycle back out into their industry, and continue to do their work. Climb the corporate ladder at their company, and have "House of Representatives 2004-2008" as a line on their resume.

From another perspective, this is "cronyism", pure and simple.