The Spoils System - remade in Trump's Image.

By: Cassandra Williamson

Veteran: USN, USMC, USNA '84

Historical Context: The Spoils System vs. Merit-Based System

To comprehend the possible effects of an administration replacing career civil service workers with political appointees, it's important to explore historical context and the core principles of the civil service. Here's an overview:

• The Spoils System:

  • Before the late 19th century, the "spoils system" was prevalent in federal appointments. This system, typified by Andrew Jackson's presidency, involved granting government positions to political supporters.

  • This led to significant inefficiency, corruption, and instability, as positions were filled based on loyalty rather than competence.

  • Historical accounts indicate this system resulted in government positions being used to "buy" votes and undermine the public will.

• The Pendleton Act (1883):

  • In response to the spoils system's abuses, Congress enacted the Pendleton Act, establishing a merit-based civil service.

  • This act aimed to ensure federal employees were chosen and retained based on qualifications, not political affiliations.

  • This act brought greater stability and expertise to the federal workforce.

Potential Impacts of Increased Political Appointees

• Politicization of the Bureaucracy:

  • Replacing career civil servants with political appointees can result in a highly politicized bureaucracy, where policy decisions are influenced by partisan agendas rather than objective analysis.

  • This can compromise the neutrality and impartiality of government agencies.

• Loss of Institutional Knowledge and Expertise:

  • Career civil servants possess valuable institutional knowledge and expertise essential for effective governance.

  • Replacing them with political appointees can lead to a loss of this expertise, resulting in policy errors and inefficiencies.

• The Worsening Erosion of Public Trust:

  • A politicized civil service can erode public trust in government, as citizens may perceive agencies as serving partisan interests rather than the public good.

• Increased Turnover and Instability:

  • Political appointees typically serve for the duration of an administration, leading to high turnover rates and instability within government agencies.

  • This can disrupt agency operations and hinder long-term policy planning.

• Examples of past issues:

  • The Nixon administration attempted to replace civil service workers with political patrons to make agencies more "politically pliable". This led to reforms aimed at preventing similar actions.

    
    

Key Considerations

• The civil service is designed to provide stability and continuity in government, regardless of political changes.

• While political appointees play a vital role in setting policy direction, career civil servants are essential for implementing those policies effectively.

• Striking a balance between political accountability and professional expertise is crucial for good governance.

In essence, while political appointees are necessary for carrying out an administration's agenda, a strong, merit-based civil service is essential for ensuring effective, impartial, and stable government.

Reshaping the Executive Branch: A New Federal Employee Category

A recent White House fact sheet outlines President Donald J. Trump's initiative to create a new federal employee category, "Schedule Policy/Career," aimed at enhancing accountability within the Executive Branch. This move, led by a proposed rule from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), could significantly reshape the structure and responsiveness of the federal government.

The "Schedule Policy/Career" Category

The fact sheet Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Creates New Federal Employee Category to Enhance Accountability, outlines that this new category will include career employees in policy-determining, policy-making, policy-advocating, or confidential roles. A key feature of this category is that these employees will be considered at-will, meaning they can be removed more easily for reasons such as poor performance, misconduct, or subversion of Presidential directives. This contrasts with the existing system, which often involves lengthy appeals processes before an employee can be terminated.

Rationale and Intended Purpose

The administration argues that this change is necessary to address systemic issues of unaccountability within the federal workforce. The fact sheet cites examples of employee misconduct and resistance to implementing presidential policies as justification for the new rule. The stated goal is to ensure that elected officials can hold policy-determining and policy-making career employees accountable, thereby making the government more responsive to the will of the American people. Approximately 50,000 positions, about 2% of the federal workforce, are expected to be reclassified under this new category through a subsequent executive order.

Potential Impact on the Executive Branch

This initiative could lead to a more politically aligned civil service, where employees are more likely to implement the policies of the current administration without resistance. Critics, however, express concern that it could also lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and expertise, as well as a chilling effect on employees' willingness to offer dissenting opinions or challenge policy directives. The long-term effects on the stability and effectiveness of the Executive Branch remain to be seen.

Reshaping the Executive Branch: A New Federal Employee Category and the Specter of Politicization

A recent White House fact sheet outlines President Donald J. Trump's initiative to create a new federal employee category, "Schedule Policy/Career," aimed at enhancing accountability within the Executive Branch. This move, led by a proposed rule from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), could significantly reshape the structure and responsiveness of the federal government. The fact sheet Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Creates New Federal Employee Category to Enhance Accountability outlines that this new category will include career employees in policy-determining, policy-making, policy-advocating, or confidential roles, making them at-will employees who can be more easily removed.

The administration argues this change is necessary to address perceived issues of unaccountability and resistance to presidential policies within the federal workforce. The stated goal is to ensure that elected officials can hold these specific career employees accountable, thereby making the government more responsive. Approximately 50,000 positions are anticipated to be reclassified under this new category. However, this initiative raises critical questions about the balance between political responsiveness and the principles underpinning a stable, merit-based civil service.

To fully grasp the potential impact of allowing an administration greater latitude to replace career civil service workers with political appointees, it's essential to consider historical context. The early days of the American republic were marked by the spoils system, where political loyalty, rather than competence, dictated government appointments. As historical studies reveal, this system, perhaps most infamously associated with Andrew Jackson's presidency, led to widespread inefficiency, corruption, and a lack of professional expertise within government ranks. Positions were often used to reward political supporters, sometimes even to the detriment of effective governance.

The abuses inherent in the spoils system eventually led to reforms, most notably the Pendleton Act of 1883. This landmark legislation established a merit-based civil service, aiming to ensure that federal employees were selected and retained based on their qualifications, thereby fostering greater stability and expertise within the federal workforce. This act was a direct response to the instability and ineffectiveness caused by a politically driven bureaucracy.

The current move to create the "Schedule Policy/Career" category could potentially lead to a politicization of the bureaucracy, where policy decisions become increasingly influenced by partisan agendas rather than objective analysis and long-term institutional knowledge. Replacing career civil servants, who often possess decades of experience and specialized expertise, with political appointees can lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and expertise, potentially resulting in policy missteps and operational inefficiencies.

Furthermore, a civil service perceived as being overly politicized can lead to an erosion of public trust in government agencies, as citizens may view them as serving partisan interests rather than the broader public good. The increased turnover associated with political appointees, who typically serve at the pleasure of the current administration, can also create instability within agencies and hinder long-term policy planning and implementation. Historical examples, such as instances during the Nixon administration where attempts were made to replace civil servants with politically aligned individuals to ensure greater "political pliability," underscore the potential for such actions to undermine the intended neutrality and professionalism of the civil service. These past issues spurred further reforms aimed at safeguarding the merit-based system.

In conclusion

Although political appointees are vital for determining an administration's policy direction, a robust, merit-based civil service is essential for ensuring stability, continuity, and the expertise needed for effective and impartial governance. Introducing the "Schedule Policy/Career" category will revert us to The Spoils System, initiated by President Andrew Jackson, the first president elected by popular vote in our nation. This is not a promising development for our country's future.