[ethbr1]

It's also important to highlight the origins of modern US civil service (read: the Wilson+ era you're referencing) in the anti-Conkling/spoils Congressional factions and presidents of the late 19th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Breeds_(politics)#Setback...

As recently as 1880s the US was still assigning important civil service roles to whomever donated the most money to election campaigns.

The 1880s - 1970s generally featured a more protected civil service, with both advantages (insulation from changing presidents / legislators, maintaining institutional knowledge and competence) and disadvantages (insulation from performance-based hiring / firing, optimizing for bureaucratic rules became more effective than doing a great job).

The latter of which and anti-government sentiment post-Nixon drove deregulation and more direct executive control of the bureaucracy (e.g. the OPM).

As with all pendulums, we're now again seeing the excesses of affording too much power to the presidency (firing institutional knowledge because their role/expertise isn't currently politically en vogue).

Hopefully post-Trump this will spur reinforcing and insulation of civil service expertise.

[rayiner]

There is expertise, but there is also ideology. To use the plane analogy everyone likes: the pilot should use his expertise to fly the plane, but he doesn’t get to choose where the plane is going! When you “insulate” the civil service from politics, what you end up doing is privileging the ideology and political goals of civil servants over those of voters.

[Steltek]

But to continue your analogy, the pilot is also totally correct in refusing to crash the plane into the ground or jettison passengers out the door because they're brown.

The current state of affairs is not some mere disagreement of ideology.

[rayiner]

No, this is a choice between flying to Boise or flying to San Francisco.

[mdhb]

Never a bad decision that you don’t seem to rush to the comments section to defend.

[rayiner]

I think extending Trump’s tax cuts is a terrible policy, do you want to talk about that?

[freejazz]

>Never a bad decision that you don’t seem to rush to the comments section to defend.

And always with such specious reasoning

[ethbr1]

> When you “insulate” the civil service from politics, what you end up doing is privileging the ideology and political goals of civil servants over those of voters.

No.

You end up balancing the current political desires of voters with institutional expertise.

Or to put it another way, would you say that "competency" is a political ideology or an objective fact?