Rebuttal to Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy
by: Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk and Paul Dans

In "Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government - Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy," Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans argue for a significant overhaul of the federal bureaucracy, emphasizing the need to reduce the size of the government workforce, increase political control over federal employees, and streamline operations. While their proposals are framed as necessary reforms to increase efficiency and accountability, they raise serious concerns about the politicization of the civil service, the erosion of government expertise, and the potential undermining of democratic principles.

Politicization of the Civil Service

One of the primary recommendations made by Devine, Kirk, and Dans is to increase political control over federal employees, making it easier to hire and fire based on political loyalty. This proposal fundamentally undermines the merit-based civil service system that has been a bedrock of American governance since the Pendleton Act of 1883. The U.S. civil service was designed to ensure that government positions are filled based on qualifications, competence, and a commitment to public service, rather than political affiliation. This system has been crucial in maintaining a nonpartisan, professional workforce that can effectively implement policies regardless of the party in power.

Politicizing the civil service could lead to a significant decline in the quality and impartiality of government operations. When positions are filled based on political loyalty rather than expertise, the competence of the federal workforce is compromised. This can result in poor decision-making, inefficiency, and a lack of continuity in government services, especially during transitions between administrations. Moreover, it could lead to an environment where federal employees are more focused on pleasing political appointees than on serving the public good, undermining the integrity of the entire federal system.

Erosion of Expertise

The authors of this section advocate for a reduction in the size of the federal workforce, with the goal of making the government more "manageable" and less costly. However, reducing the number of federal employees risks eroding the expertise that is necessary for effective governance. Federal agencies are responsible for complex tasks that require specialized knowledge, from managing public health and safety to regulating financial markets and protecting the environment. A smaller workforce, especially one that is politically driven, is less likely to possess the necessary expertise to address these challenges effectively.

Moreover, frequent turnover driven by political considerations can lead to a loss of institutional knowledge, which is critical for the continuity and effectiveness of government operations. Expertise takes time to develop, and a constantly changing workforce can hinder the ability of federal agencies to fulfill their missions, ultimately reducing the quality of public services and increasing the likelihood of policy failures.

Threat to Democratic Principles

The proposal to centralize control over the federal bureaucracy also poses a threat to the democratic principles of transparency, accountability, and checks and balances. A professional and independent civil service is essential for maintaining the balance of power between the branches of government. When the executive branch has too much control over the federal workforce, it can lead to an imbalance of power, where the president and political appointees can push through policies without adequate oversight from Congress or input from career experts.

This centralization of power not only threatens the independence of the civil service but also risks turning federal agencies into tools of the ruling administration, rather than institutions that serve all Americans regardless of political affiliation. This could erode public trust in the government, as citizens may perceive that federal agencies are no longer impartial and are instead serving the interests of a particular political party.

Conclusion: Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Workforce

The proposals outlined by Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans in "Managing the Bureaucracy" are deeply concerning because they threaten to undermine the principles that have long ensured the effective and impartial operation of the federal government. Politicizing the civil service, reducing the size of the federal workforce, and centralizing control in the executive branch could lead to a less competent, less effective, and less democratic government.

To preserve the integrity of the federal workforce and ensure that it continues to serve the public interest, it is essential to maintain a merit-based civil service that values expertise, impartiality, and continuity. Any reforms to the federal bureaucracy should aim to enhance these qualities, rather than diminish them. The health of American democracy depends on a federal workforce that is independent, professional, and dedicated to the public good, not one that is beholden to political interests.