Reflection on A Government Ill Executed

Paul Volcker begins the foreword of the book stating, “Nothing is more certain in

American political life than complaints about the performance of the federal government. At the

same time, there are insistent demands for government to do more—to provide more security,

personal, national, and financial; to improve health care; to protect the environment; to build

transport systems; not least to build a strong and independent judiciary.”1 We have come to

expect much of our federal government, yet at the same time we are often critical about its

performance. The size and scope of government has drastically increased over the last century,

and with that came an increase in the potential for inefficiency and ill execution. Paul Light

addresses this issue in the context of Alexander Hamilton’s argument in Federalist No. 70, which

warned of the dangers of an ill-executed government. Hamilton was an advocate of an “energetic

executive” and thus an “energetic federal service,” which required seven characteristics in order

to be successful. These are missions that matter for the public benefit, clarity of command, posts

of honor, vigor and expedition, a spirit of service, steadiness in administration, and safety in the

executive.

The first characteristic is missions that matter for the public benefit. Light argues that

what has happened is that the federal government has taken on too much and thus lost its ability

to be effective. Light states:

As this chapter will suggest, congress and the president have been asking the

federal services to do more with less for the past thirty years, often using harsh

campaign rhetoric to attack fraud, was, and abuse, embracing deep tax cuts to

“starve the beast” of big government, yet simultaneously adding new endeavors to

1
Light, Paul. A Government Ill Executed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
 the federal agenda. Whether by accident or intent, Congress and the president

have asked the federal service to do the impossible, jeopardizing its ability to

execute all the laws.2

The problem is that there is a discrepancy between what the American public believes the

government should be doing on a theoretical level and what the government should be doing in

reality. People will generally say they want a smaller and less intrusive government, but when

asked about specific programs, they want them to grow or at least be maintained. Politicians

often get elected on the premise that they will cut government growth and curtail spending, yet

government influence has never dwindled; only its rate of growth has slowed. There have been

times though when Congress has not fully funded programs. The federal service was still

expected to deliver, but without the necessary resources to do so. Light states, “The pursuit of

limited government has clearly slowed the expansion of the federal agenda. Congress and the

president have become far less active in passing new legislation over the past thirty years, which

coincides directly with the effort to starve government during the Reagan administration.”3 The

problem facing even the most energetic federal service is that the resources are not often

available. This is because some missions may lose momentum and popular support or they may

become irrelevant. There is continual expansion as there are too many special interests that

prevent the dismantling of previous missions. This trend is likely to continue in the foreseeable

future.

The second characteristic is a clear chain of command. The founders realized that the

new government would require a command structure, with everyone ultimately being responsible

to the president and also the public. It is important to have a clear notion of who is in command

2
Ibid, 22.
3
Ibid,30.
from the top to the very bottom of government. Orders can be difficult to execute correctly if

there is confusion in the chain of command. Light states:

As the federal agenda grew, however, so did the federal hierarchy…This

thickening of the hierarchy thereby undermines the health of the federal service

by denying the clarity of command necessary for faithful execution of the laws…

What they fail to realize is that more leaders does not equal more leadership.

Rather, more leaders may actually weaken government’s capacity to act by

diffusing accountability for what goes right or wrong in the faithful execution of

the laws.4

This thickening of the hierarchy occurs not just at the top, but throughout all levels of

government and thus denies the necessary clarity of command. This is a problem that is difficult

to remedy. The thickening of government has made it difficult to hold individuals accountable

when something goes wrong, but also to give credit to those who deserve it for jobs well done.

There is a standard that government success is expected and only through failure is there any

attention paid. This subject again goes back to the eternal Jefferson vs. Hamilton debate. Perhaps

more attention should be paid to Jefferson’s calls for simplification and decentralization.

The third characteristic is posts of honor. This should be embodied by a fast, simple, and

fair appointments process. The process has become anything but that. No longer are candidates

for positions selected purely based on merit, but instead based upon availability. If someone is

unwilling or unable to successfully the grueling confirmation process, there is little chance they

will be nominated for a position, even if they are the most qualified. Light states:

Unfortunately, the current process does not guarantee character, merit, or

reputation, but rather embarrassment, delay, and exhaustion. It is tailored for the
4
Ibid, 53.
 best available person, meaning someone willing to endure the process itself.

Laden with needless forms, plagued by needless delays, and predisposed to treat

every candidate as ‘innocent until nominated,’ it has become a confusing test of

anything but qualifications for services.”5

When finally confirmed through the process, these appointees do not stay in positions for long,

usually an average of less than two years. The pool of candidates is also limited mainly to those

who are already residing inside the Beltway and thus have a grasp of the workings of the federal

government. Motivation also becomes a factor, as the reasons for being involved in public

service has become less focused on that—service to the public. Overall, this is a problem that

needs to be addressed in conjunction with the problem of the exploding hierarchy. It is not

something that can be remedied on its own.

The fourth characteristic is the vigor and expedition needed to execute the law. People

must be concerned with working for the public benefit first and foremost, with salary and

benefits being secondary concerns. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Light says:

Too many federal employees come to work for the pay, benefits, and security, not

the chance to make a difference on missions that matter; too many report that their

coworkers are closed to new ideas and their organizations are unwilling to

encourage risks; too many say they do not have the resources needed to do their

jobs well; too many believe their organizations fail at helping people; and too

many do not trust their own organizations to do the right thing.6

All these factors are quite troubling. Those working in the public service ought to have a drive to

do so because they have a genuine care for the public good. If workers are distrustful of their

5
Ibid, 79.
6
Ibid, 128.
supervisors, or think that their organizations are not succeeding in their mission, it is difficult to

imagine that they can be motivated to do the best work that they are capable of. The remedy to

this, along with the root of the problem, can be found looking to Jefferson and Hamilton. From a

Jeffersonian perspective, the federal service should move away from pay, benefits, and security

as the primary motivations. Looking to Hamilton, there could be more support and defense of the

federal service along with more recognition for a job well done. This issue must be addressed

through the entire workforce, from the top down. It is important that all levels of workers trust

each other, trust the system, and find the desire to do good the primary motivator.

The fifth characteristic is an energetic federal service. It is important to keep a stream of

young and energized employees coming through the system, replacing those who retire or leave

for other jobs. The problem today is that there is a general lack of interest in federal careers

among the nation’s brightest and most talented people. This can be blamed mostly on a general

public distrust as well as rhetoric denouncing government waste and abuse. There tends to be a

stigma, especially emanating from conservatives and libertarians, that the federal government is

bloated, inefficient, and needs to be cut. To many, there is no nobility in being a federal

‘bureaucrat,’ as the distinction between bureaucrat and public servant is often blurred in the

public perception. Whether it’s a fair assessment or not, most young talented Americans are

attracted to either the private sector or to non-profits because they feel they can accomplish more

there than in the federal service. Light states, “Until [the federal government] confronts its own

negligence, as well as its outright resistance to building meaningful careers, it is hard to imagine

how it can reverse the reluctance to serve, let alone the reluctance to stay. And absent both, it

cannot meet Hamilton’s test of an energetic federal service.”7

7
Ibid, 162.
 The sixth and seventh characteristics are steadiness in administration and safety in the

executive, respectively. It is important to have consistent accountability in the federal service in

order for it to be successful. If things are constantly changing and reforms constantly being

pushed, it is difficult for the workforce to adapt to the changing conditions. Another problem is

the growing private contractors hired to do jobs once formerly done by the federal service. There

is no inherent problem with contracting out certain jobs, but it does bring the accountability

factor into question. Light says:

Even as it provides perceived political and administrative benefits, the rise of the

hidden workforce carries great potential cost in lost accountability, not to mention

potential increases in labor costs that remain invisible absent a hard headcount of

contract- and grant-generated employment, as well as the dependency on single

suppliers that is created as industries have consolidated over time.8

It is important that the “hidden workforce” be governed by the same rules as the federal service

if they are to be proving services on the government’s behalf. That type of transparency is often

not available today, and thus has negative effects.

There are many different recommendations that Light offers to remedy these essential

problems with the federal service. None will be easy to implement, as there are many forces that

would act as a barrier to any progress on reform. However, in order for the federal service to be

truly effective and sustainable, something must happen. In the process, it is yet again helpful to

look back at Jefferson and Hamilton. Light concludes by saying, “ The most successful reforms

may emerge from blending Jefferson’s effort to temper Hamilton’s excesses, and Hamilton’s

8
Ibid, 210.
effort to temper Jefferson’s reluctance. Just as Jefferson began his first term as president by

declaring, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists,” reformers might say the same.9

9
Ibid, 239.