Politicals Deserve Praise

The number of political appointees has nearly doubled since 1960. President Bush has more than 3,000 political offices to fill, far more than leaders of other democracies. Public administration scholars fear that political appointees are less effective than career executives. While longtime career executives are hired and promoted based on their expertise, political appointees are chosen for any number of reasons and may not serve long enough to learn their jobs.

After all, whom would you rather work for in the Pentagon-an experienced professional or Monica Lewinsky? Not surprisingly, some career executives see political appointees as "Christmas help" to be waited out. Since the Volcker Commission of the 1980s, public administration analysts have argued for reducing the number of political appointees by a third or more. But would cutting political appointments actually lead to better government? Probably not, because most political appointees are competent and hard-working, do vitally important political work and help keep their agencies accountable to the public.

Contrary to stereotypes, most political appointees are competent. Syracuse University's Jude Michaels found that most of George H.W. Bush's Senate-confirmed appointees were doctors, lawyers or Ph.D.s with considerable experience. Lower-level appointees, however, are less credentialed. Even so, tens of thousands of campaign workers and contributors seek jobs in government, but only a few hundred are chosen.

The relatively few campaign workers who do win jobs are usually capable enough to help government. In surveys of career executives in the administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, pluralities said the appointees were competent. Most appointees also stay in place long enough to do some good. In a study of Reagan appointees, I found they served an average of nearly three years in their posts and nearly four years at their agencies-long enough to have an impact and too long to be waited out.

Political appointees work hard. A study by the National Academy of Public Administration found that three-quarters of appointees in the Reagan administration reported working more than 60 hours a week. Nearly as many reported work-related stress in their private lives. No one thinks the workload has declined since then. As a Clinton appointee told me, "There is something to be said for having a group of people who will burn themselves out for the President . . . and then go back to what they were doing before."

What do political appointees do in those long hours? Chiefly, political appointees do political work, dealing with the White House, congressional staffs, interest groups and the news media. This is high-risk activity that most career civil servants would rather avoid. It isn't presidential empire-building, but rather the growth of the political class as a whole, that explains the mushrooming number of political appointments. While the number of political appointees has nearly doubled since 1960, the amount of congressional staffers, interest groups and political action committees all more than tripled in the same period. In Washington, politics is a growth industry.

And even if President Bush were to cut back on his own political helpers, Congress would not follow suit. Any President who slashed the number of political appointees would be committing unilateral disarmament in relations with Congress. Aside from their political role, political appointees ensure that public bureaucracies reflect changing public needs rather than organizational "group think." As one career executive told me, political appointees "have a more strategic view of the public interest, one less tied to the agenda of the organization" than some of their career counterparts. The American bureaucracy is more efficient, more open and more innovative than its European counterparts, partly because of its oversight by political appointees.

In short, political appointees play vital roles in keeping their agencies accountable to the public and representing agencies to the rest of the political system. Maybe the bureaucracy doesn't like living with political appointees, but it definitely wouldn't work as well without them.