[Goose]

The notion that staffing and appointment quality in this Administration has been equivalent to every other administration is not an empirically credible claim. My professional network includes many staffers of the past three administrations (Bush II, Obama, and Trump), and even my friends who work for the Trump administration would admit they are not as qualified as their predecessors, but because most of the best people were either blocked due to political affiliations or else refused to have anything to do with this Administration, for precisely that reason had access to opportunities well above their qualifications grade.

There is no question that the current administration has had lots of trouble finding competent people that are willing to work there. Even when such people could be found, they quickly left because they couldn't work in what they considered an irrational situation where reason and argument had no value, and where true today would be false tomorrow. Many of the people that have served in other administrations would certainly not serve in this one, and that is a big problem. We are in agreement there.

Now for the hard part. I am entering a mine field here, but it has to be done. I know some of the people who had these jobs in previous administrations are part of you network and possibly are your friends. I also am quite willing to believe they are good people who did the best they could. But do you really believe they were the best persons for the job they held? How many had an educational background tailored to the job they held? How many had experience in the departments they led before they got the job? How many were of the opposite political party from the president? How many served in more than one administration? How many ended up running for office either before or after serving in the government?
I am sure there are some that pass these gates, but how many?

I think one has to face the fact that these appointments are political and are not jobs people aspire to when they chose their vocations. They are stepping stones or holding patterns. Nobody dreams of being undersecretary of defense. Most of the time this sub-optimal system does little harm. Sometimes it does a lot of harm. In either case IMHO it is very sub-optimal. Making all these jobs civil service has some appeal, but it isn't going to happen. I am not sure it would actually improve the situation, but rather trade one set of problems for another. However, I do not believe that the Federal government in general gets "The best and the brightest" in these positions, and pretending that we do is unrealistic and occasionally dangerous.

[Goose]

The notion that staffing and appointment quality in this Administration has been equivalent to every other administration is not an empirically credible claim. My professional network includes many staffers of the past three administrations (Bush II, Obama, and Trump), and even my friends who work for the Trump administration would admit they are not as qualified as their predecessors, but because most of the best people were either blocked due to political affiliations or else refused to have anything to do with this Administration, for precisely that reason had access to opportunities well above their qualifications grade.

There is no question that the current administration has had lots of trouble finding competent people that are willing to work there. Even when such people could be found, they quickly left because they couldn't work in what they considered an irrational situation where reason and argument had no value, and where true today would be false tomorrow. Many of the people that have served in other administrations would certainly not serve in this one, and that is a big problem. We are in agreement there.

Now for the hard part. I am entering a mine field here, but it has to be done. I know some of the people who had these jobs in previous administrations are part of you network and possibly are your friends. I also am quite willing to believe they are good people who did the best they could. But do you really believe they were the best persons for the job they held? How many had an educational background tailored to the job they held? How many had experience in the departments they led before they got the job? How many were of the opposite political party from the president? How many served in more than one administration? How many ended up running for office either before or after serving in the government?
I am sure there are some that pass these gates, but how many?

I think one has to face the fact that these appointments are political and are not jobs people aspire to when they chose their vocations. They are stepping stones or holding patterns. Nobody dreams of being undersecretary of defense. Most of the time this sub-optimal system does little harm. Sometimes it does a lot of harm. In either case IMHO it is very sub-optimal. Making all these jobs civil service has some appeal, but it isn't going to happen. I am not sure it would actually improve the situation, but rather trade one set of problems for another. However, I do not believe that the Federal government in general gets "The best and the brightest" in these positions, and pretending that we do is unrealistic and occasionally dangerous.