Yes. But then, what exactly is happening when you change "the administration", as in last election? You change the very top. The layers under the top are untouched, and the top echelon has less power than you'd think to change the underlying structure. Now, what I would like to see happening would be akin to how I've seen some large corporations handle restructuring problems: everyone is basically fired and has to re-apply for their job. Or any other of the jobs.
What HAS been happening, on the other hand, is that there's been some new leaders hired and tasked with making changes happen. I believe that is the case with the FBI, for example. I also believe that they won't be able to accomplish very much, because of rules that protects the rank and file from being fired.
Oh, and your question about "the culture". Yes, I regard that as the administration. And as a cult worshiping at the Clinton altar. So far, I think that the administration hasn't changed very much from Clinton's time, regardless of new figure heads. Making that change will take a lot of time and a lot of ingenuity, I think. May even have to change a few laws and scratch a few EO's, I dunno.
That would be an excellent plan. But I can see the argument being made that, for such a large organization, some other type of support structure (expansion of government again) would be required during each of these four year shuffles.
I'm not trying to over-simplify the problem, truly. I realize that under the current laws and societal atmosphere of litigation we have, it is a very difficult undertaking.
I just think that appointing a John Ashcroft to the "top echelon" (among other things) doesn't allow me to have much faith in a serious effort to clean out corruption.