#1 ·
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much the "appointment" process has changed over the last few years. It feels like we’re moving further away from the old idea of placing subject matter experts in high-level roles and moving toward a model where personal alignment with the executive branch is the primary qualification.
It’s a weird tension to watch. On one hand, you have the argument that a leader needs people they can actually trust to execute their vision without constant internal friction. On the other hand, when you start filling massive, sensitive institutions with people whose main credential is being a "loyalist," it makes me wonder about the long-term stability of our non-partisan agencies. Once those lines get blurred, is there any way to ever get them back to being neutral?
Do you think we’re seeing a permanent shift toward partisan control of these institutions, or is this just a temporary phase of high political tension?
It’s a weird tension to watch. On one hand, you have the argument that a leader needs people they can actually trust to execute their vision without constant internal friction. On the other hand, when you start filling massive, sensitive institutions with people whose main credential is being a "loyalist," it makes me wonder about the long-term stability of our non-partisan agencies. Once those lines get blurred, is there any way to ever get them back to being neutral?
Do you think we’re seeing a permanent shift toward partisan control of these institutions, or is this just a temporary phase of high political tension?