The Spoils System

               Various groups, frustrated by their inability to move legislation through congress, seek a return to the spoils system of the nineteenth century. I can understand their desire. Congress is, and always has been, unwieldy and slow. In our two-party system moving legislation through the senate and the house takes tremendous work and the necessary compromise vexes many. In truth, we want things our way, and right now. Some see a resurrected spoils system as a means to work around a slow moving congress.

             The term, dating from Andrew Jackson’s presidency, refers to giving high political appointments to members of one’s own party as a means of reward. While it has obvious benefits, rewarding those who think the way you do and are likely to make decisions you would, it also comes with serious drawbacks. The problem stems from appointing less qualified individuals to positions of great importance. This often-ham-fisted approach to governance results in poor decisions and questionable compliance with laws and the constitution. Additionally, every new president ushers in wholesale change to government and the resulting chaos degrades efficiency. Eventually we severely curtailed the spoils system, replacing it with a more professional civil service system.

               As a career soldier, I encountered this system regularly. It had it pros, professional men and women who knew their job and helped users interface with the system. They also had great institutional knowledge, which helped me navigate the labyrinth of governmental systems. Unfortunately, they also knew that while I was transitory, being stationed in one place for three years or so, they were more or less permanent and could wait me out on a particularly thorny issue. Despite the problems, a professional group of individuals with significant institutional knowledge helps make things work properly.

               Some will say that we will replace entrenched civil servants with equally capable outsiders. But under the spoils system we make party fealty the primary job qualification, we set aside competence and the need for understanding the issues at hand. In our time, governance is complex, interconnected and multifaceted. We need individuals who understand the intricacies and challenges of their given area of responsibility. I understand firsthand the frustration of dealing with recalcitrant public employees; however, our historical experience during the nineteenth century should serve as a brake against the desire to resurrect the spoils-system and its attendant chaos.

               President Benjamin Harrison changed 31,000 postmasters in one year, resulting in great inefficiency in the postal system. A return to the spoils system might make the job of the president easier. After all, he would appoint those who support his policies; however, in a few short years, another president would seek to reward their supporters. Such wholesale turnover would severely hamper government effectiveness. The spoils system also undermines the role of Congress in facilitating good governance.

               Congressional impotence frustrates all of us. We want a legislative system that actually performs its functions. Unfortunately, many of us forget that in a representative republic all legislation requires compromise. Our political culture seems to reject compromise as acceptable. Some sectors of our political landscape would rather accept congressional inaction than compromise. They take the short view, calling for an increase in the power of the executive branch, forgetting that their party will not hold onto the presidency forever. We need to work our constitutional system, embracing the compromise necessary to make it work properly. As with most things in life, shortcuts come with significant disadvantages. The spoils system is a shortcut, and one that leads to governmental chaos and inefficiency. We should reject it and those who would reenact it.