Clearly, the design was significantly altered during the course of its haphazard implementation. There are a number of reasons why political appointments grew in a direction not foreseen by the reformers: First, presidents and the Congress have taken the path of least resistance, not stopping to step back and assess the overall appointments structure. It was easier simply to let "the system based on happenstance" grow largely unchecked. Second, as more demands were made on government and it grew to meet them, more political appointees were added to meet the crisis-du-jour. Departments were rarely eliminated, however, so the overall number of appointees kept growing to supervise them (ibid., 201).
|
Third, there is an ongoing asymmetry between PASs and careerists, with several facets. The former can operate on an ad hoc basis irrespective of maintaining institutional ties or traditions while the latter depend on a web of tradition, mentoring, and institutional connections. There are also significant power differentials between the two groups. High-level careerists have no opportunity to add more careerists to their number to solidify their ranks. Meanwhile, political appointees who supervise a system that was previously wholly career-run can more easily "manage the workflow, bring in personal assistants, and disregard successors in such a way as to undermine any first-rate career operation. In the first case the effects on the personnel system are never felt in the long run, while in the second case they are felt only in the long run, when there is no one around to blame" (ibid., 201-02).
|
Consequently, a self-perpetuating dynamic is set off that eventually locates politically connected technocrats in PAS appointments, ironically created specifically for them. It happens in what Heclo calls a two-step dance: An interest develops, for whatever reason, in having a particular position filled by a partisan. A struggle ensues in which Congress stipulates requirements for that position and, making it subject to Senate confirmation, another short-termer position is born (ibid., 202).
|
A fourth reason for the growth in appointments is that diffusion of powers between the legislative and executive branches means that there is no one center of decision-making power. The operating assumption of the Progressive Reform movement that gave birth to the notion of "political neutrality depended on a different kind of democratic regime [than the American model], a regime of government and opposition." It assumed a very highly placed civil service, a parliamentary government along the lines of Britain, Europe, or Japan with an ongoing state or crown, a ruling or governing party, and an opposition party.
|
"Neutral competence" by those civil servants at the top meant "being committed to serving the party in power to the fullest of one's pro-
|
|