New in PJ Media:
Virtually all Americans believed, until the inauguration of Donald Trump as president on January 20, 2017, that when someone became president, he could begin to implement his agenda. Certainly Old Joe Biden’s handlers have done so with a vengeance since they took over; but when Trump became president, he immediately began to encounter resistance from entrenched members of the government bureaucracy who refused to do as he ordered. Some worked actively against Trump, while the establishment media assured us that these self-appointed “deep state” saboteurs were the courageous guardians of “our democracy.” At his South Carolina rally Saturday night, Trump continued to tease a 2024 run and made a new promise about how he would break the power of the unelected “deep state.”
“We will pass critical reforms,” Trump said, “making every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States. The deep state must and will be brought to heel.”
It’s a commonsensical solution, as Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance pointed out. “Everyone is losing their mind about this, but I’ve been calling for it at every town hall I do. Either the president controls the executive branch or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, we don’t live in a Republic, we live in a civil service driven oligarchy.”
Quite so. And although the “deep state” only came to the attention of most Americans over the last few years, the controversy over the hiring and firing of civil service employees is one of the oldest controversies of the republic. As Rating America’s Presidents explains, Andrew Jackson was elected president in 1828 on promises to end the hegemony of a privileged aristocracy, and, to drain that swamp, he would need his own men in key positions. He removed a large number of civil service employees and replaced them with men of his own faction, which came to be known as the Democracy, or Democratic Party. This came to be known as the spoils system, after the old adage “To the victor belong the spoils.”
The term “spoils system” is today practically synonymous with government corruption, but Jackson began it as a blow against corruption, preventing the establishment of an entrenched bureaucracy that would oppose the president. The Trump administration made it clear that such a bureaucracy, determined to thwart the president at every turn, is a genuine concern; it is time for a reconsideration of the spoils system.
There is more. Read the rest here.
gregbeetham says
Shouldn’t there have been repercussions for those bureaucrats who refused to obey instructions from president Trump? If not why not?
After all, he was elected by the people and if they refuse to obey the President they are in effect refusing to follow the will of the people and therefore in contravention of the constitution…correct?
Andrew Blackadder says
The reasons these ”deep state” morons have against PRESIDENT Donald J Trump is that Trump knows where all the bodies are buried and they know that he knows..
Christopher Watson says
I seem to remember that after Trump left office an army general boasted how he had kept troops in a country when Trump had ordered them re-patriated. This is called treason. In many countried that would result in a firing squad.
StacyGirl says
That would be Milley. I’d drop a bundle on pay per view to watch that fat traitor hang. We did see the troops get out of Afghanistan, well, most of them.
Infidel says
Yeah, that was a noteworthy statement that President Trump made at Florence, SC. Nothing would be more refreshing than him getting to fire all the Victoria Nulands and the Mark Milleys once he’s back there. Do a massive termination and eliminate their pensions. Then start the project of distributing the capital b/w various cities
Ray Jarman says
President Trump’s fight to eradicate the entrenched swamp dwellers was like those of 19th Century Russia as Nikolai Gogol points out in his “Tales of Good and Evil” and the “Overcoat.” So many of his novels and short stories point out that the Tzar never really ruled the people, it was the civil servant or as the former president referred to them a swamp dwellers.
I would like to see an amendment to the Constitution that would remove the ability of any civil servant to instill any regulation (which seems to be considered a law) without Congressional registered consent in both houses. The people are able to literally write laws by referring to them as regulations that are enforceable upon the people.
somehistory says
Since first knowing that a “civil servant” couldn’t be fired, I have thought that was a wrong policy.
Many civil servants, knowing they can’t be fired, do as they please.
For a boss, firing is a way to get rid of those who won’t work, who steal, who refuse to follow instructions; and if the boss can’t get rid of these, where is his power?
James Lincoln says
somehistory,
As well as being a retired naval officer, I am also a retired civil servant.
As a physician, I worked 50-55 hours per week and got paid for 40. From my personal observations, 20% of the civil servants do 80% of the work. The dedicated hard workers are true patriots.
Can a civil servant be fired?
Yes, but it is a very convoluted process that heavily favors the “rights” of the civil servant. The process can drag on for months, especially if accompanied by an EEO complaint.
somehistory says
James,
From my observations, working in many different businesses as a temp, and also a regular employee, I’ve seen that in most, if not all, a few do the work and the rest just go to get a paycheck for standing/sitting around, talking, etc.
It wasn’t a civil service job, but one example that stays with me: I worked for a health insurance company and at times, I would need information from other employees. One morning, I had to approach the customer service department with a request for documents, and two women were talking. I didn’t know if it was business related, so I waited to interrupt. While standing there, I watched one of the women filing her nails as she talked, then she reached for her phone, put it to her ear and spoke, “Please continue to hold,” and put it down again. She then finished her conversation and nail-filing. The other woman noticed me and indicated to the speaker that I was present.
I think they could both tell from the look on my face what I thought of the deceit.
Some people really value work and do more than their share and others are lazy, greedy and do little to carry their weight.
I’ve been in the position before of seeing “civil servants”…what a misnomer, for many of these…in their inaction and their lack of true concern for doing a good job, shows.
I’m sure you were the exception and there are a few others, but it’s a sad thing when the lazy, dishonest, greedy, people have so many ways of staying on the payroll.
gravenimage says
Too true, Somehistory and James–you see this even in the private sector, but it is of course often much worse in civil service.
I worked at a publishing house in production (design and typesetting) and one year when preparing for my annual review and to give a good account of myself, I did some research and found that even though we had six people in the department that I had worked on a quarter of the books in the previous year.
The review went fine.
Later, my supervisor asked to speak to me. He said that his own boss had said that it was inappropriate for me to note that I has worked on so many books. I pointed out that I hadn’t pointed any fingers at who was doing *less* work–in fact, I didn’t even have access to that information (although from experience I could have guessed, but didn’t mention this).
So I wound up having *to apologize* for my research. I did get a raise–but just the same percentage everyone else got. Very depressing.
somehistory says
G,
It would seem that if you just noted how many you had done, without saying anything about how many were done by all, this would have been “appropriate” research. If that is what you said, then the big guy knew from how many books were done overall and didn’t like to admit that most of his employees were slackers.
Life…at least the way humans who travel along beside us are prone to treat others…is not always fair. Life itself…is not to blame.
I was let go from a temp position because I made the mistake of doing more work than another person and was noticed for that. so, i kind of understand.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the reply, Somehistory. I’m not sure my supervisor would have known how many books we’d done that year off the top of his head, which is the only reason I included this information. Again, I wasn’t dumping on any of my fellow employees–just indicating that I was a useful employee.
And my guess is that about half of us were generally hard workers, two others somewhat, and one barely worked at all, and often needed help to get her books out on time.
And sorry to hear that you had a similar experience–I wouldn’t be surprised if many of us here have.