3 ms·

The 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 improve

The 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 ago
The 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 ago
Civil 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.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  > For their department and for the population that the state serves, they bring stability and continuity to the projects their department executes. The less polite term for what you are describing is "The Deep State": unelected government bureaucrats who keep stuff rolling despite political turnover. Brian Berletic has some good videos on YT where he's described the continuing escalatory actions of the US with regards to Russia across every Presidency of the 21st century, both Democrat and Republican. Bureaucrats keeping the Department of Commerce consistent is probably fine. Bureaucrats keeping the Executive Branch's own National Security Council (which is what the article is about) from changing course on major issues including foreign policy? Probably NOT fine.
andyjohnson0 2y ago
> The 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? This isn't about political advisors, its about normal career civil servants.
wiml 2y ago
The problem is the president seeking yes-men and sycophants. Do you think it would be reasonable for you to have to submit your voting history before posting on HN? Why not?

cjfd 2y ago

[flagged]

rat87 2y ago

The 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 ago

Civil 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.

CapricornNoble 2y ago
> For their department and for the population that the state serves, they bring stability and continuity to the projects their department executes. The less polite term for what you are describing is "The Deep State": unelected government bureaucrats who keep stuff rolling despite political turnover. Brian Berletic has some good videos on YT where he's described the continuing escalatory actions of the US with regards to Russia across every Presidency of the 21st century, both Democrat and Republican. Bureaucrats keeping the Department of Commerce consistent is probably fine. Bureaucrats keeping the Executive Branch's own National Security Council (which is what the article is about) from changing course on major issues including foreign policy? Probably NOT fine.

andyjohnson0 2y ago

> The 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? This isn't about political advisors, its about normal career civil servants.

wiml 2y ago

The problem is the president seeking yes-men and sycophants. Do you think it would be reasonable for you to have to submit your voting history before posting on HN? Why not?