6 ms·
US Civil servants are being asked who they voted for in 2024 election
- osrec 2y agoAmerica starting to look more and more scary with each passing day. Not sure where it eventually ends up, but the trajectory doesn't look too good.
- tallanvor 2y agoI've been living overseas for 18 years and 6 months ago I was starting to feel like it might be time to move back to the US. That's off the table now.
- richie_adler 2y agoEven after the first Trump presidency happened?
- timbit42 2y agoProbably because they didn't expect a second one.
- atmavatar 2y agoI know people who saw Trump's first presidency as a shock to the system that would ultimately return us to the norm - much like an AED shocks the heart out of arrhythmia and back to normal beating. This was especially true after Jan 6 and many Republicans turning on him in the immediate aftermath. However, just a few weeks later, as the Republican party resumed their Trump worship, it seemed pretty clear the damage was permanent.
- Terr_ 2y agoThis is not normal. The next step on this path would be for Republicans to introduce some innocuous-sounding legislation... Perhaps something like "Act for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Professional_Civil_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Restoration_of_the...
- polotics 2y ago[flagged]
- sam_lowry_ 2y agoI wouldn't have, but after your comment I did.
- Terr_ 2y agoI considered leaving the link out, but then where would the educational value be? It would be just snark on its own, with an obscure reference unlikely to be caught by the people who most-need to know how another republic collapsed with a lot of similar factors going on. > Elizabeth Powel: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" > Benjamin Franklin: "A republic... if you can keep it."
- osrec 2y agoIt seems relevant though. You want to bring such things to people's attention before they start to gain momentum, not after.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Terr_ 2y agoP.S. To be more explicit, these provisions: > [§4] Officials whose previous political activities do not guarantee that they will always be fully committed to the national state may be dismissed from service. > [§7] Dismissal from office [...] shall be pronounced by the highest Reich or state authority, which shall make the final decision without recourse to the courts. And that's how the freshly-arrived executive guy started unilaterally firing people he felt were insufficiently servile to his agenda, ignoring prior checks-and-balances and without appeal.
- nitinrao 2y agoDoes loyalty give you enough talent?
- Yoric 2y agoI don't think that the current administration favors talent all that much. In fact, aren't they attempting to get rid of many of the civil servants to replace them with magical LLMs?
- BoredPositron 2y agoIf the money is right? I guess we will see a flood of „I am not interested in politics“ people like in every other oligarchy spring up in the US.
- vkou 2y agoAutocrats rarely value talent over loyalty. Look at the qualifications of the Oberfuhrer appointed as secretary of defense the other day for an example (With a 51/50 split because of 3 Republicans voting no - precisely the amount that is completely meaningless. His predecessor was appointed 91/2.) Your mistake is assuming that good governance is a goal of the current administration, and anyone who only voted for it because of $3.50 eggs will be in for a rude surprise. And I will have not a drop of sympathy for them - they are adults who should have known better. None of this is a surprise.
- rsynnott 2y agoTalent has never seemed to be something that Trump was particularly interested in.
- lazide 2y agotalent/competence gets in the way of loyalty more often than not - much easier to do what you are told when you don’t know what to do anyway.
- akmarinov 2y agoJust say Trump and move on?
- Terr_ 2y agoHow well has that strategy worked out for the Republican party internally over the last ~9 years? Rather than enabling them to glide over the brief uncomfortable moment with their backbones and stated principles intact, it seems to have left them congratulating the emperor on his new clothes. There are additional layers here because "I voted for Dear Leader" both pumps up the narrative of popular inevitability a regime tries to advertise, and it also binds the speaker more tightly to the regime by making it hard for any broad opposition to cohere. ("If they lied once, why not twice?")
- lazide 2y agoOf course. But until enough people feel the pain to actually fight back (and not in the courts, but you know - violently, so there are actual consequences), it’s clearly suicide to do anything else, yes?
- Terr_ 2y ago> "But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait." > "But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty." [...] > "You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair." -- They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (published 1955)
- Yoric 2y agoBest guess: at this stage, this is (yet another) move to get civil servants to quit, rather than having to lay them off. Nevertheless, chilling and, I imagine, very illegal.
- dtgm92 2y agoVoting should never jeopardize your career... the last thing you want with voting is to associate fear and possible job insecurity. You should be able to freely vote for anyone without any consequences.
- chii 2y agoYep. Luckily, you can easily lie about who you voted for, and it's not possible to verify.
- Etheryte 2y agoFor now. We should never accept basic freedoms being sidelined like this just because there is another one that protects us — what if that one gets the same treatment.
- chii 2y agoI mean, it's true, but at an individual level, if your boss (whether this is a gov't job or not) asked you who you voted for, you might need to somehow protect your own interests by not making someone with power over you antagonized. Of course, this should be made illegal - discrimination by political affiliation should be classified as illegal. But whether these laws are effective is another question.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> discrimination by political affiliation should be classified as illegal Political affiliation is almost impossible to define. Voting records and party affiliations are not. It should be illegal to discriminate based on someone's voting record or party affiliation, and it should be illegal for the government to ask about it in the context of employment.
- SauciestGNU 2y agoI was told by my city commission that it would be unlawful to screen our police for affiliation or sympathies with violent extremists like the oath keepers and proud boys. But I'm sure this is fine, it's only the federal civil service.
- delichon 2y agoThe alternative to a president picking the advisors they want is to continue to employ advisors that they don't want, but to ignore them. How is that an improvement for anyone, except possibly the advisor? I suppose one way to limit presidential power is to somehow force them to take meetings with advisors that they can't fire. You could neuter them with endless required meetings. That sure seems to be effective at my workplace.
- cjfd 2y ago[flagged]
- rat87 2y agoThe civil service at least below the top rank is supposed to be a professional bureaucracy insulated from political firing and hiring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system > In politics and government, a spoils system (also known as a patronage system) is a practice in which a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its supporters, friends (cronyism), and relatives (nepotism) as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party. It contrasts with a merit system, where offices are awarded or promoted on the basis of some measure of merit, independent of political activity. > The term was used particularly in politics of the United States, where the federal government operated on a spoils system until the Pendleton Act was passed in 1883 due to a civil service reform movement. Thereafter the spoils system was largely replaced by nonpartisan merit at the federal level of the United States. > The term was derived from the phrase "to the victor belong the spoils" by New York Senator William L. Marcy,[1][2] referring to the victory of Andrew Jackson in the election of 1828, with the term spoils meaning goods or benefits taken from the loser in a competition, election or military victory.[3] ... Note that this bit of corruption and incompetence was so entrenched once it got going that it was impossible to get rid of it for decades.
- Arnt 2y agoCivil services typically have both kinds — political appointees and career servants, The career servants are there for expertise and stability. For the political leadership, they bring deep knowledge of what's happened in the past years. For their department and for the population that the state serves, they bring stability and continuity to the projects their department executes. Remember that the Department of Foo carries out Foo-related projects. One generally does not want to replace all the senior people mid-project.
- rsynnott 2y agoBloody hell, the US is really speedrunning to failed state, isn’t it? Is this even _legal_?
- yongjik 2y ago> Is this even _legal_? That never stopped Trump, though ... (shrug)
- apexalpha 2y ago>Is this even _legal_? Does that matter when you stuff the legislative and judicial branches with loyal followers?
- dawnerd 2y agoWould it even matter? He was found guilty and just kinda let off without even a slap in the wrist. He’s crazy empowered to do whatever he wants, he stacked the Supreme Court and congress is basically all his too. Political views aside, this is a complete breakdown of our checks and balances
- smitty1e 2y agoAfter the experience of being sold out by Vindman the first time around, wanting to know that the staff isn't going to sandbag him seems natural for Trump. Also natural are these breathless takes from the media. So it goes.
- bananapub 2y agoit's just beyond belief that 100 million americans saw this career criminal who promised to absolutely fuck things up while lying about what he was going to let his mates do, and said "yeah, seems like a plan".
- DoingIsLearning 2y agoI think the moment that clicked for me was when I heard young people in my family circle (25 and below), _in_Europe_ claiming that Trump "will likely be good for the economy". When I dug deeper they were effectively repeating talking points they heard on TT. When I dug deeper I also realized they are conditioned to distrusted mainstream news, but somehow 10sec videos on TT are legit. If you can shape the opinions of young men in Europe, raised in social-democratic nations to have them believe that a bankrupt, convict, conman, traitor, kompromat, will be good for the US and global economy then you can truly shape any opinion anywhere.
- Swizec 2y ago> I think the moment that clicked for me was when I heard young people in my family circle (25 and below), _in_Europe_ claiming that Trump "will likely be good for the economy". Same. I am on a plane from visiting family in Europe right now. They are all convinced Trump is good for America. When pressed, they agree he may not be good for America’s people, but definitely good for America. The young ones get their news from Rogan (and do their own research), the old ones get it from TV and think the left-wing neoliberal elites have gone too far and must be stopped. Nobody in my family is actually right-wing and they agree with all left-wing policies when presented individually. But not when they’re asked about “the left”.
- rsynnott 2y agoThere's precedent; notably see Berlusconi. Who, even after being removed from power and convicted of tax fraud, _managed to get elected again_ (albeit as an MEP; Italy does tend to treat their MEP vote as a _bit_ of a joke). (Like Trump, Berlusconi was given special treatment; he was jailed for four years, but it was commuted to unpaid community service. Many countries indulge in this sort of special handling for their criminal politicians, and it's really a terribly bad idea; it only encourages more misbehaviour.)
- entropyneur 2y agoAs someone who lived most of my life under authoritarianism, this rings so many alarms. Pressing civil servants and government workers to vote the way you need is basically the first trick in the dictator's manual.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Pressing civil servants and government workers to vote the way you need is basically the first trick in the dictator's manual I'm blown away this isn't illegal.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pjc50 2y agoIt probably is, but - guess what - they stacked the Supreme Court, which determines what is and isn't illegal. Same deal as in Poland.
- xor-eax-eax 2y agoAmerica is over. It's a kabuki theater charade pantomiming the outlines that were once a representative republic.
- Gud 2y ago*USA. Many countries in America are doing pretty well. Always seemed to me that the federal state has too much power.
- scoofy 2y agoI don’t think it’s over, we’ve just hit the end of post war prosperity, and we are shifting our parties’ respective structures. The idea that we’ve literally never elected any president younger than a boomer is telling. The party is facing an intergenerational crisis, and but both parties are captured by one generation. If the electorate realigns or one party begins to concern itself with the struggles of the 80’s and 90’s, things will go back to normal. This is a series of repudiations, not an embrace of fascism.
- nxm 2y ago[flagged]
- ajdude 2y agoIs there a source for this?
- fabian2k 2y agoThere was an incident like this and the person was fired if I remember correctly. Not at all comparable to what is happening now.
- janice1999 2y agoOne incident is a single individual with a local team in one area and no authority (who was fired), the other is the government acting against its entire civil service. These are not remotely the same.
- Spacemolte 2y agoWhataboutism, and please don't compare the two.
- vkou 2y ago[flagged]
- Spacemolte 2y agoThis is extremely scary... and very much not a surprise.
- saboot 2y agoThe article is from January 13 .. why post it now?
- sethammons 2y agocan anyone confirm if the fearmongering in the article took place after the inauguration?
- whamlastxmas 2y agoThe headline is a lie. It doesn’t even try to support it in the article. They were asked if they can support the agenda that is literally their job to support.
- _uxvx 2y ago[flagged]
- dzonga 2y agothis was outlined clearly in the project 2025 doc - which is / was online. so why are people suddenly surprised ?
- StefanBatory 2y agobecause it was fearmongering! Exactly like Brexit, don't listen to the Remain! /s
- happytoexplain 2y agoAs always: Shock/outrage != surprise. We should be shocked and outraged by evil deeds, regardless of how clearly forecasted.
- DinoDad13 2y agoThe only constant in this universe is "change" so what ideology can be more illogical than one that rejects change? We are about to learn this lesson again as a society.
- apexalpha 2y agoIt's crazy to me how many things Trump and his friends get away with simply by doing another thing. Launch a shitcoin and rugpull it for personal benefit just before the inauguration? Who cares just do some other preposterous thing. Oh now that's in the news? Well just do another one...
- penguin_booze 2y ago"Whom" they voted for.
- zwerdlds 2y ago"For 'whom' they voted."
- difosfor 2y agoIsn't it illegal to force people to tell who they voted for? That seems like one of the most basic democratic freedoms to protect.
- notcrazylol 2y agoIts kinda funny looking at it from another country. Before Trump was president, anyone who associated with Trump was labelled every bad word in the dictionary - racist, sexist, etc. If you had said you voted for Trump and supported Trump, you would lose your job - example being the Trumps administration's Publicist(? I dont know the exact job description). She had to disassociate with Trump so that she could be hired elsewhere. Now since he won the election and the tides have turned, these very people who labelled others and fired people who sided with Trump, when faced with the same issue are making this a big issue. US media and the people there are something else lol. Also if you guys had the same scrutiny for all the other presidents, your country would have been better. A person who said "okay" to bomb 8 countries and receive a Nobel peace prize? Well played.
- rich_sasha 2y agoDidn't Trump have some of his first term plans frustrated by "civil disobedience" of his civil service? I'd love to see his decisions overturned, but I suppose it shows the dangers of trying to smother populists in non-democratic ways. He is reacting reasonably to his first term, and he is not shy of such actions. A better way to fight populism long-term is to deliver a system of fair government, and education so people can recognize that and not vote for tyrants. I am amazed what state schooling actually does for 12 years, at a huge cost to worldwide budgets, with people coming out the other end barely able to do maths and reading comprehension.
- Terr_ 2y ago> Didn't Trump have some of his first term plans frustrated by "civil disobedience" of his civil service? IIRC some portion of it was "wait one week and he'll forget the crazy thing and lose interest" and some "I won't commit crimes for you." I feel those both deserve a separate category.
- underseacables 2y agoNo, I'm sorry that's not true. That's absolutely illegal. Everyone who works in the federal government knows this. If just one person was confronted by their manager and asked who they voted for, that person would already be on the news screaming, and the union would be having a meltdown. I call BS.
- vaadu 2y agoFake news. They are asking people who work on the National Security Council. This isn't happening government wide.