By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A new Office of Personnel Management memo mandates that all federal job applicants answer four 200-word essays, including one detailing how they would advance President Trump’s executive orders. This “Merit Hiring Plan” aims to expedite hiring to under 80 days, prioritize skills over degrees, and eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Critics denounce this as an authoritarian move dismantling the nonpartisan civil service and replacing experts with loyalists, while the OPM claims it reflects a commitment to American values and efficient service. Further federal government cuts are anticipated.
Read the original article here
New federal employees must now write essays praising Trump’s policies, a requirement that has sparked considerable controversy. This new mandate, part of a “Merit Hiring Plan,” demands that applicants submit four 200-word essays. These essays aren’t simply about qualifications; one specifically requires applicants to detail their plans to “advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities.” This effectively forces applicants to endorse a particular political agenda as a condition of employment.
The inherent conflict between this requirement and a commitment to the Constitution is immediately apparent. The Constitution guarantees impartiality in government; this policy directly contradicts that principle by prioritizing political loyalty over merit. It creates a system where allegiance to a specific administration trumps qualifications and experience, potentially leading to a workforce filled with individuals chosen for their political alignment rather than their abilities.
This situation raises serious concerns about the future competence of the federal government. Requiring praise of specific policies discourages qualified individuals who might disagree with those policies from applying. The result is a self-selected pool of applicants likely to be less diverse in thought and potentially less skilled, as those with integrity and independent judgment may be deterred. The focus shifts from finding the best person for the job to finding the most ardent supporter of the current administration.
The potential for infiltration and the appointment of unqualified individuals is another significant worry. Individuals may simply flatter their way into positions they are not qualified to fill, prioritizing obsequiousness over competence. This creates a system ripe for corruption and inefficiency, where political expediency trumps effective governance. It could lead to the undermining of crucial government functions, jeopardizing public safety and services.
The silence on this issue within certain political circles is also noteworthy. The absence of open discussion and criticism of this policy in certain segments of the media and political discourse raises questions about the overall health of the political landscape. A failure to address such a blatant disregard for meritocratic principles suggests a troubling lack of accountability and a potential suppression of dissent.
This situation raises concerns about the long-term health of democracy. The overt politicization of the federal hiring process sets a dangerous precedent, potentially eroding the foundations of a fair and impartial government. It’s a clear indication that loyalty is now valued more highly than competence or experience, suggesting a troubling shift towards a more authoritarian approach to governance.
The argument that this policy somehow advances the interests of the American people is difficult to support. Such a policy almost certainly lowers the overall quality of the federal workforce and undermines faith in the integrity and impartiality of the government. In the long run, this is likely to have a negative impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the government itself, ultimately harming the very people it is supposed to serve.
The consequences of this policy are potentially far-reaching. It erodes public trust in the government, potentially leading to cynicism and disengagement. The imposition of such a requirement signals a significant shift away from the principles of meritocracy and impartial governance that are essential for a functioning democracy. It could foster a climate of fear and self-censorship within the federal workforce.
The comparison to authoritarian regimes is not unfounded. Demanding public displays of loyalty as a prerequisite for employment is a hallmark of authoritarian systems, where dissent is suppressed and unquestioning obedience is expected. This policy, while seemingly subtle, represents a clear step towards that model and further solidifies concerns about a creeping erosion of democratic norms.
In conclusion, the requirement for new federal employees to write essays praising Trump’s policies represents a significant threat to the principles of meritocracy, impartiality, and democratic governance. Its potential consequences extend far beyond the immediate impact on the federal hiring process; it could fundamentally alter the nature of the American government, creating a system less responsive to the needs of its citizens and more vulnerable to corruption and inefficiency. This is a policy that demands careful consideration and immediate scrutiny.