The death of expertise-based civil service

[Damocles]

What, exactly, is wrong with someone choosing to build their career in the civil service? Should we not be happy that someone who very easily could have gone to the private sector chooses to serve us, instead? Should we allow rules, principles, and policies to bend at the whim of any particular person who manages to accrue a viral following? One would think that that, if anything, would only increase the degree of arbitariness and inconsistency with which our government may operate, no?

Private sector bureaucracy exists for a reason, too. I'm happy that Karen over in HR has a job, making sure that all policies are applied evenly, and that employees aren't fired for arbitrary reasons that could expose the company to legal problems. I'm happy that Steven over in Procurement has a job, auditing prospective suppliers' business practices to make sure that they aren't using child labor or slave labor in their plants. I'm happy that Timothy over in Training has a job, familiarizing new employees with the various hazards they may face in the course of their work, and highlighting all the mechanisms they can use to report such hazards.

The point is that getting rid of the professional civil service will only make the federal government, and the state governments, more arbitrary and prone to making poor decisions - not less so. The frustrations that lead to this sentiment are borne from more structuralist concerns that just "firing DC bureaucrats" won't fix overnight, and more importantly, can't fix. I'd much rather prefer a world where consistent policies and procedures exist, where bias and favoritism are controlled as much as possible, and where those who choose to serve us have as equal an opportunity to do so among their peers.