26 Comments
User's avatar
Denver Gregg's avatar

It's worth remembering that the 1883 establishment of the civil service came when the memory was yet fresh of the assassination of President Garfield by a disaffected office seeker in 1881. as is often the case, legislation drafted in response to tragedy doesn't get sufficient consideration of its potential downside risks.

Jay's avatar

Civil control of government is just like civil control of military.

We don't want an "independent" civil service for the same reason we don't want an independent military.

They are supposed to answer to the elected representatives. It is foundational.

Richgard's avatar

Codifying the Nomenklatura and then having FDR carve its privileges into stone during the excesses of Stalin underscores that the current system is broken for those who are not it’s flunkies or apologists like McQuade. This is America and we need to do better than the rubber stamp of grift, graft and gilded bureaucracies who neither spindle or weave yet they are arrayed as Solomon while simple monetary accounting in all avenues of governing bureaucracies as well as personal responsibility, is non-existent.

Mark's avatar

You’ve written on this before, Glenn, but this is the most hard-hitting essay on the civil service yet. I think you’re right, and I think events are going your way. America will be stronger with a bureaucracy of rotating citizens held responsible to the people and their elected magistrates.

Phil Hawkins's avatar

This piece reminded me of a saying I heard years ago: "Conservatives work for the government for a time, then go off and do something worthwhile; liberals think working for the government IS worthwhile." I do not recall who said that, but it does apply.

Phil Hawkins's avatar

I remembered who said that this morning--it was Rush Limbaugh! It would have been back in the '90s.

Dale Wetzel's avatar

When members of Congress are newly elected, they hire their own staffers. They rarely keep staff members of the opposite party. This is good and right, because members of Congress have to count on the loyalty and good service instincts of staff members, in large part because good constituent service is a key to remaining in office. No one decries staff turnover in congressional offices once the job changes hands, because folks recognize the logic of being able to hire one’s own people. This reasoning should extend to the executive branch.

Doctor Mist's avatar

Gorsuch’s concurrence is stimulating, sobering, and fascinating. He observes that this is not the last step by any means. The “independent agencies” have dramatic legislative and judicial powers, not just executive; if Congress had foreseen that these agencies would eventually fall entirely under Presidential control, they likely would never have created them in the first place, and it will be up to Congress and the Court to wrest these non-executive powers from them.

It’s morning in America, my friends.

Christopher Chantrill's avatar

Just checking on my website usgovernmentspending.com

In 1880, the feds spent:

1.0 percent GDP on defense

0.35 percent GDP on the Post Office

0.6 percent GDP on other spending

0.9 percent GDP on interest

So you can see that the scope for "spoils" was "devastating."

Moneyrunner43's avatar

Excellent commentary. A bureaucracy that is unresponsive to elected officials is illegitimate simply because it's unelected and can't be voted out of office if it runs counter to the electorate's wishes. The fact that it's a political monoculture makes it a de facto dictatorship.

P Brig's avatar

As a former, disillusioned civil servant (following a Regular Army career), all I can say is, right on, and, yes, 'bring it'!

Skeptic's avatar

You're good at explaining things in a clear and simple way. Maybe you should consider going into teaching? 🤔

Ricardo's avatar

Nailed it, Glenn.

Irwin Chusid's avatar

Everything bad there is to know about "civil servants" can be learned from watching "Yes, Minister."

Gary O'Neill's avatar

A great article with common sense reasons. Reagan had a quip about being in the wheelhouse attempting to steer the ship of state and finding there was no connection between the wheel an the rudder, so this has been a thing for a while. The problem goes double for the professional staff that works in the legislative branch, as the members of Congress rely on their arcane expertise regarding budgets and legislation. If you can craft this as ‘term limits for bureaucrats’ it could catch on.

Tom Elia's avatar

Well said, Professor.

It is well past time that we ended the fantasy of the ‘neutral expert class’ in government.

Other fantasies that need to end:

— the belief in a plus-one Keynesian multiplier in government spending;

— the use of the term ‘public servant’;

— any use of the word ‘investment’ in describing government spending, except for (maybe naively) general research; and,

— an acknowledgment that political reformers have never come from the Chicago/Cook County Democratic Party machine. Never, never, never.

A boy can dream, right?

Freedom Lover's avatar

When we bring back the spoils system let's also bring back the smoke filled room. Our experiment with democratic nomination of candidates has been a horrific disaster.