CHAPTER NINE
The Bureaucracy

Take a Position

Since discontinuing the spoils system, American federal bureaucracy has worked to achieve neutral competence by making department and agency employees less political and more professional. Federal civil servants must pass competence exams, are promoted on merit, and are largely shielded from political pressure. The up side is that we avoid the patronage and incompetence in the federal bureaucracy that existed under the spoils system. The down side is that rule-based decision-making increases red tape, restrains creativity, and can create hostility toward the president's agenda, even though he is the "boss." This leads presidents to side-step departments and agencies in decision making and even to start new bureaucracies rather than alter existing ones. Moreover, federal civil servants gain power vis-à-vis the president, because of their established roles and institutional knowledge.

Take a position: Should we alter bureaucratic rules to reduce the heated politics of the executive branch so that departments and agencies provide more direct support to the presidential agenda? Or is the competition and rivalry between the president and federal civil servants healthy?

As you develop your argument, answer the following questions:

• Should unelected officials have any kind of power over the president? Is that the role they were intended to play, or have their powers outgrown their original function?
• Should the president more aggressively control the bureaucracy by rewarding and punishing civil servants, departments, and agencies with the budget through the Office of Management and Budget?
• Would allowing presidents greater control over personnel decisions lead to less red tape and allow enactment of more of the president's policies (which Americans ostensibly supported when they voted for the president)? Or is it important for American democracy to preserve neutral competence, despite the frustrations it presents, to overcome the prestige of the presidency?