TIL In the 1800s, individuals secured government jobs through connections to presidents, not by merit. This practice ended after a disgruntled job-seeker assassinated President James A. Garfield,
Ohhhh I get it. The guy hated the stress of Mondays, so he killed Prez Garfield, who is later reincarnated as Garfield the cat who now hates Mondays because they remind him of his assassination.
Holy shit, it all checks out. President Garfield had a nephew named Rutherford B. Lasagna who he gave a high-ranking position to, just two weeks before he was assassinated.
Your sweet ass has about the same integrity as all the other bullshit I see (and sometimes even read) every motherfuckin day on this Internet we find one another on.. Source verified as original by way of alcohol.
That didn't end. Most ambassador appointments are like that, and even though agency/department appointments require congressional approval, the wheels are so well greased, people with zero relevant experience get through. The horse breeder who was head of FEMA under bush comes to mind.
It's also kinda how governments work; merit is nice to have, but loyalty is vital. It doesn't matter how competent someone is if they're going to use their power to sabotage your administration to benefit their friends in the opposition.
Yeah the OP is doing a poor job of communicating what this is supposed to mean, something I'm actually noticing about their posting general actually. This isn't to say that appointments stopped all together, it's basically saying that there became two different tiers in government work. Political appointments are still around of course in terms of like you said ambassadors and secretaries and what not, but the more day-to-day aspects of government like the mailman are no longer appointed on political grounds. It's basically what project 2025 is trying to reverse.
Well, there's a classic: "Would you kill hitler?" and a follow-up: "Would you kill baby hitler?".
Now, there's a lot of ways to discuss these questions and possible answers.
I hate how history books refer to things like the "patronage system" or "spoils system" as if they're legitimate systems and not just open corruption.
I guess it ties into my general hatred of how history textbooks tend to treat history as a bunch of isolated facts to be memorized rather than trying to connect the dots in an insightful way.