The tension between career government servants and elected political. leaders is not new. The problem is humorously depicted in two excellent BBC series, “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister.” Furthermore, U.S. presidents have complained of issuing executive orders only to find that nothing really happened. The “democratic” position is that the people control the government and that the President is the elected representative of the people, therefore, the President’s orders should compel bureaucratic action.
Most scholars would agree that the first, clear assertion of this democratic view can be found in the 1828 election of Andrew Jackson. Jacksonian democracy rebelled against government domination by elites. It introduced a system in which the elected executive was expected to staff government with those who reflected his views and the views of the people. This sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
However, as the Nineteenth Century wore on, the Executive branch became characterized by uninformed decisions and corruption. There is no evidence of a real connection between governmental action and a clearly expressed will of the people.
In 1883, following the assassination of President James Garfield by a disappointed office-seeker, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was passed. Jobs covered by the Civil Service system are to be filled by candidates with demonstrated knowledge and competency related to the job and without consideration of partisan affiliation or loyalties. Competency was initially demonstrated through performance on examinations although this is no longer the case.
It seems obvious that current effort to reduce Federal government employees is accompanied by an emphasis on partisan or personal loyalty. This includes requiring applicants to reveal for whom they voted in the last presidential election. There is little reason to believe that the results will be any different in the 21st Century than they were in the 19th.
There is another reason to worry about the current effort to “clean house.” As I observed practices in the Pentagon for over fifteen years, I noted the importance of the civilian staff. Military personnel were moved in and out with frequency – usually after three years. The knowledge about policies and procedures lay with the more or less permanent civil service staff. A system that depends to a greater degree upon political appointees does have the possible advantage of expanding the possible tenure of civilian officials to eight years (two presidential terms). However, increasing the “churn” of office holders will add nothing to the honesty and efficiency of government. If “knowledge is power” as Francis Bacon claimed, ignorance is weakness.
Imagine for a moment attempting to run large business in the manner proposed. While it would appear that Elon Musk’s actions at Twitter/X had an effect, that effect appears largely to be giving him absolute control of every aspect of the organization. In most corporations, a new CEO replaces VPs and division heads as he or she deems necessary. They do not fire assembly line workers, sales staff, or accountants. Even a beginning student of management knows why. Think of a new CEO of Ford hiring their loyal gardener to design 2027 models.
Gov. Huey Long’s proclamation of “every man a king” was an effective populist slogan, but it served only to encourage corruption and mismanagement in Louisiana. It makes no sense at all to follow this path at the national level.