Civil Servants Should Not Have to Pass Political Loyalty Tests
In the last post of my federal government career, I served at the Federal Executive Institute, which trains senior career civil servants for leadership in their agencies. At the start of every four-week program, we asked participants to share why they entered public service. I don't recall a single one mentioning salary or benefits. While some mentioned the professional challenge of the work, almost all said some version of "to make a difference" or "to serve my country." On the opening day of every program, the first substantive topic discussed was the Constitution, what it means and requires of public servants. As their last act in every program, participants retook their Oath of Office.
These leaders expected no thanks for serving. Nor did they expect the public to appreciate what they do. After all, America was founded in the distrust of central government; being criticized as a "fed" or "bureaucrat" comes with the territory. But they did hope their political leaders would keep them out of partisan politics. Career public servants provide long-term stability, neutral (i.e. nonpartisan) expertise and services that keep government running, no matter which political party occupies the White House.
In his inaugural address in 1981, President Reagan famously announced that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Since then, with occasional relief, many politicians of both parties have attacked the bureaucracy for its inefficiency and public servants for their incompetence. This too, comes with the territory of public service. We can take our lumps, and sometimes we do things wrong. But, until recently, the character and patriotism of public servants have not been impugned.
Military and civilian leaders, who have spent their careers in service to their oath, which deliberately requires loyalty to the Constitution not to a president, are now the subject of ad hominem attacks.
Whistleblowing, an often career-damaging act due to retaliation by superiors, is protected by law. The reason is simple: reporting illegal or dangerous behavior by public officials is in the public's interest. Yet President Trump labeled the whistleblower regarding his call to Ukrainian President Zelesnky "highly partisan," though admitting he doesn't know who the whistleblower is. He then attacked those in government who gave the whistleblower information, telling a private group they are "close to a spy," and that the U.S. should "handle" them like it did "in the old days" (presumably when spies were jailed or executed). Tweeting about testimony by William Taylor Jr. a respected senior diplomat and former United States ambassador to Ukraine, the president, without evidence, labeled him a "Never Trumper." Sadly, this is not new behavior. In January 2017 he fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. She had refused, based on her legal judgment, to defend his initial Muslim ban (a ban the courts later ruled against). The White House statement said she had "betrayed the Department Justice."
Public servants will continue to do their jobs, professionally and with integrity. And they will, one hopes, weather such attacks. How our Constitutional system will fare is less clear. When respected members of the military are castigated for honoring their oath, it undermines the armed forces on which we depend. It can force good soldiers into a silent loyalty that defies their military judgment, discourage officers from seeking higher leadership, and damage military discipline as the enlisted and officer corps are asked to take sides in political disputes.
When senior civilians are charged with being disloyal for honoring legal Congressional subpoenas or accused, without evidence, of running covert, unsubstantiated "deep state" conspiracies, or sharing their concerns through legal whistleblower channels, who will want to stay or join this kind of government? For those who do, it asks them to bury their professional judgment in fealty to political superiors, at risk not just to the mission of their agencies but to their morality and character. Who will not also wonder if honesty risks their careers and livelihood? Who will not look at co-workers and wonder what political side they are on? Forcing public servants who should avoid politics to take political sides can turn the fear of a politicized bureaucracy into reality.
In 1881, Charles Guiteau, who believed he had been denied a government job because of his politics, assassinated President Garfield. The Pendleton Act of 1883 and legislation over the next century sought to isolate partisan politics from public service. The president's actions invite the public to view government agencies and public servants as political partisans. This weakens the trust in government essential to carrying out the very tasks he gives them.
A president must meet at least two tests required by his Oath of Office. He must never ask employees to put loyalty to him over fidelity to the Constitution. He must also meet the requirement of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution that the nation's laws be "faithfully executed." Demanding political loyalty of public servants as an operating principle of his administration violates these tests.
Photo Credit: Anthony Girand
