Not your business

 Most of us have had our moments with “government bureaucrats”—indifferent government employees who annoy us just by doing their jobs. No doubt, there are flaws in the civil service system that sometimes allow unqualified and underperforming personnel to stay on the job.

On the other hand, there is something reassuring in knowing that no matter who heads the executive branch, or what party is in power, there is a continuity of knowledge and experience in the federal bureaucracy. These people work for the government--that is, for “we the people”--so their commitment is to us collectively (if not to me, individually). That commitment has generally proven to be a good thing for us all.

Which leads to this paragraph in today’s Letters from an American post by Heather Cox Richardson:

“In a move that threatens to destroy our nonpartisan civil service, Trump today signed an Executive Order creating a new category of public servant who is not covered by normal rules. These employees can be hired by agency heads without having to go through the merit-based system in place since 1883, and can be fired at will. This new “Schedule F” will once again allow presidents to appoint cronies to office, while firing those insufficiently loyal. It also appears to shield political appointees from an incoming administration by protecting them from firing because of political affiliation.”

Likely, this news will be buried by all the other, seemingly more pressing, news today, which is what the current administration is hoping. So, why is it important to me?

It is important to me because the United States of America is not a business owned and directed by those we’ve elected to serve us. The U.S.A. is a people--one people--who entrust leadership to those who further the public interest under the guidance of our Constitution and other laws. Elected office is a public trust, not a way of getting what you want for yourself or for your friends and supporters.

This move by the current administration feels like one more way it is guiding us toward some form of single party or authoritarian rule. It seems to me that it is enough that presidents get to appoint top leaders in their administrations, who are then often forced to come to terms with the continuity represented by the employees who work for them. In that tension is both stability and reassurance that the public will not be whiplashed by every change in administration, and that changes that are made receive informed review before and as they are implemented.

Our presidents are not the CEOs of an entity they own, or may treat as if they own. They may not run our government like they would run their own businesses…particularly like their badly-run businesses.