the frustrations of government service

The Frustrations of Government ServiceAuthor(s): Bruce AdamsSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1984), pp. 5-13Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975656 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 17:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.67 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:37:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/975656?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


From the Professional Stream PAR 5

The Frustrations of Government Service

Bruce Adams, Bethesda, Md.

"Public life is like air," according to David Mathews, a former secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare who now heads the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. "We all depend on it, but no one worries about it until it goes bad." It is past time to begin worrying. Signs abound that all is not well with the quality of our public life. The public lacks confidence in our governmental and private institutions. Our civic discourse is at times unnecessarily negative and shrill. Voting turnout is shockingly low, especially among the young.

"Bureaucrat" and "politician" -words that could evoke the honorable notion of public service-are used instead in a disparaging way by commentators, citizens, and politicians alike. A company in Virginia has manu- factured "The Bureaucrat" doll, calling it "a product of no redeeming social value." Instruction number six suggests: "Try him as a paperweight! Place The Bureau- crat on a stack of papers on your desk, and he will just sit on them." Everyone picks on bureaucrats and politicians-even the bureaucrats and politicians do it. The political environment is such that politicians seeking elective office feel that they must attack the very govern- ments that they desire to lead.

Inevitably, negative rhetoric about our public servants becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, making it difficult to recruit and maintain high quality people in government. The cumulative impact of the negative aspects of the lives of government officials at all levels- negative public attitudes toward government, demanding interest groups, unrelenting news media, time consuming and rigid decision making procedures, and financial sacrifice-is making government service unnecessarily frustrating and unattractive to many.

The purpose of cataloging the frustrations of government officials is not to discourage people from going into government service. The excitement and stimula- tion of working on important public policy issues is simply unmatched by private sector activities, according to many individuals who have had both experiences. But for an increasing number of people, life in government seems forbidding.

The purpose of this essay is to identify, in a sys- tematic way, the negative forces that are at work and the particularly perverse and counterproductive manner in which they are coming together in order to focus debate on the question of whether the cumulative costs of

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984

* The cumulative impact of the negative aspects of the lives of public servants is making government at all levels unnecessarily frustrating and unattractive for many talented Americans. This essay begins with a discussion of the impact of negative public attitudes on government morale, including a description of how the news media, interest groups, and candidates for elective office fuel these negative attitudes. The human toll of government service comes next with a description of the political environment that chews up some of our finest public servants and discourages others from going into government. After cataloging the specific excesses of the present environment, the frustrations they cause, and the stereotypes they create, the author suggests that the public in general and leaders of interest groups and the news media in par- ticular must begin to think of government in new ways if we are to build the strong and respected government service that our country needs.

The public accepts the anti-government, anti-bureaucratic rhetoric and stereotypes. In fact, ... cynicism toward government has become, in a perverse way, a mark of cultivation.

government service have become unnecessarily high, and, if so, what steps might be taken to reduce them. Rather than continue to moan and groan about the sad state of the public service in abstract terms, it is important to give attention to the specific excesses of the present environment, the frustrations they cause, and the stereotypes they create.

It is not possible to pinpoint exactly where the destructive spiral starts, but the fact that a number of elements reinforce each other in negative ways is easy to demonstrate: public confidence in government is low; the news media, playing to this lack of public respect, search for the controversial and the negative; interest groups escalate their rhetoric in order to attract atten-

Bruce Adams is a research consultant whose work on government service has been supported by a grant from the George Gund Founda- tion to the National Academy of Public Administration. Currently a Charles F. Kettering Foundation associate, Adams has served as research director of Common Cause in Washington, D.C. and as a Fellow of the Kennedy Institute of Politics at Harvard University. He is a co-author of the recently published book, America's Unelected Government.



6 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

tion from the public and media; candidates for elective office overcriticize and overpromise. Talented people are not attracted to an institution that is not admired by the public, salaries are held down, the push and pull of lobbyists and bureaucratic rivals wear people out, the performance of government falls, interest groups and the news media step up their attacks, public attitudes worsen, and the falling spiral repeats itself.

Service to one's country will always demand substantial sacrifices and many of the factors complained about are but the negative aspects of positive forces that have served our country well-a participatory democracy, a free press, and a skeptical public. Nevertheless, it is critical that we understand the negative forces at work and take first steps toward getting positive forces and incentives moving. Although there is no magic wand to wave to strengthen public service, it is important to begin to build positive public attitudes toward government and to lessen the human toll of government service. If negative public attitudes are to continue to reinforce unattractive job situations, the best of present and prospective public officials will be lost to government service for decades to come.

The essay begins with a discussion of negative public attitudes toward government, the source of much of the frustration of officials at all levels of government across the country. This section includes a description of how the news media, interest groups, and candidates for elective office fuel these negative public attitudes. Next comes the human toll of government service, a description of the political environment that unnecessarily chews up some of our finest public servants and discourages others from going into government. The pro- cedural demands of policy making in an open society, the adversarial nature of decision making, the stress on self and family, and the financial sacrifice are discussed in this section.

Public Attitudes

Negative public attitudes toward government have long been a major obstacle to building a strong public service in the United States. Editorial cartoonists and humorists have ridiculed political figures from the earliest days of our nation. The anti-government barbs of Mark Twain still draw hearty laughter today. With these negative attitudes toward government, it is not surprising that Americans have seldom placed a high value on government service and have frequently reverted to a Jacksonian disparagement of experience and professionalism. As we worked our way out of the Depression and through World War II and the Korean War, the level of cynicism decreased and a more positive bond was built between the government and its citizens. But Vietnam, Watergate, and the economic failures of the past two decades have led to a decline in confidence in government. In reviewing the new realities of public opinion, pollster Daniel Yankelovich has concluded: "Perhaps the sharpest shift in American attitudes has been a steady erosion of trust in government and other

institutions, falling from a peak of trust and confidence in the late fifties to a trough of mistrust in the early eighties. " '

The question whether these negative attitudes are the result of poor government performance, unreasonable public expectations, or simply bad economic conditions is a difficult one. Certainly, these attitudes are not held only by know-nothings. There have been more than enough failures of government in recent decades to jus- tify serious public concern. James L. Sundquist of The Brookings Institution surveyed the polling data and in a 1980 essay entitled "The Crisis of Competence in Government" found that "One does not have to share all these negative opinions to reach the essential conclu- sion: the performance of the government has fallen far short of what the people have expected and have a right to expect."2

The extraordinary lack of public confidence in government, however, is not entirely justified by poor performance. It is rooted, in large measure, in the clash of two powerful traditions of American thought that, although in conflict, have both served our country well at times. The first is a respectful view of government as a vehicle for solving problems and helping people. The second is a populist, more skeptical view of government.3

Anyone who attempts to sort out public opinion toward government is immediately struck by the para- doxes that result from this and related clashes of con- flicting values and beliefs. Our ambivalence about power and government reflects these conflicts. Burns, Peltason, and Cronin point out that "just as we are able to criticize our government as inept, corrupt, and something to be feared, it is equally American to be deeply convinced that ours is the best system in the world."4

The public accepts the anti-government, anti-bureaucratic rhetoric and stereotypes. In fact, among elites, cynicism toward government has become, in a perverse way, a mark of cultivation. But we really know better. Everett Carll Ladd points to an electorate at odds with itself, citing as many p6ll results endorsing government as those criticizing it. I We oppose government in general even as we support government programs that affect our lives. Seymour Martin Lipset and William Schneider, in their valuable new analysis of public attitudes toward government, business, and labor, show, for example, that Americans are more likely to support government regulation of specific industries than government regulation in general.6 And our attitudes toward our government officials are similar: we like the ones we deal with, but we believe the worst about the breed as a whole. According to the Gallup Poll, at a time when less than 30 percent of the public approves of Congress, those able to identify their representative approve of him or her by more than four to one.7 Charles T. Goodsell, in an important new defense of bureaucracy, cites survey data showing public satisfac- tion with the way government agencies handled personal problems of those interviewed.8 Unfortunately, however, positive experiences do not appear to change




FROM THE PROFESSIONAL STREAM 7

generalized stereotypes, although negative experiences tend to confirm negative attitudes.

Some of the public's most strongly held notions about government are so in conflict with each other as to be preposterous. Goodsell points out: "Bureaucrats are portrayed as fear-ridden yet arrogant, incompetent yet ominous, milquetoasts yet Machiavellians. Bureaucracy is rigid and at the same time expansionist."9 We expect government to solve the problems that the private sector cannot solve while we deny it the pay and respect it must have to accomplish those goals. The public wants government to do what cannot be done even with mir- rors. On the federal level, the public wants to increase defense spending, reduce taxes, and cut the deficit without reducing essential services. On the state and local levels, the public wants roads and bridges repaired, education improved, and property taxes cut. We want strong, independent, uncompromising leaders able to rise above petty political bickering, but we want the action that often necessitates the very compromising that we disdain.

The news media, interest groups, and politicians themselves have done much to fuel negative public attitudes. Thousands of reporters swarm over Washington, state capitals, and city halls, many more than but 20 years ago. Although this increased attention by the news media to public officials holds the promise of improved accountability, it all too often focuses on the trivial, the personal, and the negative.

Journalists are taught that news is a departure from the status quo, that conflict and controversy sell papers and attract viewers.'" This approach is driven, in large measure, by what Walter Lippmann called the public "preference for the curious trivial as against the dull important. ""I It leads to a journalism that emphasizes per- sonality over policy, conflict over consensus, strategy over substance, and error over achievement. To make politics seem interesting to their readers, journalists often think that they must find disputes, even when no disputes exist.

Even when policy is reported, the journalistic impulse to focus on confrontation and conflict often comes through. Sundquist points to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 as an example. President Carter argued that the bill would provide necessary flexibility for management while allowing him to fire incompetents, but news accounts focused almost entirely on the "bash the bureaucrats" theme.'2

The bureaucratic foul-up is a press favorite. The day- to-day achievements of government are non-stories. But this is, in large part, a reflection of what the public wants. "We can write one story about a whole depart- ment of government working right, and people won't pay any attention to it," says Washington Post editor Benjamin C. Bradlee.'3 And, in fairness, many of the negative stories about bureaucratic bungling are richly deserved. The news media, at its best an essential guardian of our democratic principles, is certainly not entirely at fault for the criticisms leveled here. But no matter who is to blame, the process seems out of balance and the negative consequences are real and deserve


careful attention. By focusing on controversy and failure, the press

fuels public cynicism. The aberrations reported by the news media become the public perceptions that are, in politics, more important than reality. The news media may attack in the hope of achieving reform, but the more likely result of negative, sensational, anti- institutional news items is to add to public cynicism. Word of the aberrant sexual behavior of a member of Congress or a city administrator travels swiftly, rein- forcing public suspicions about our government officials. The effect is to undermine public confidence in government and public servants and to reduce public tolerance. With television, bad news is brought into our living rooms on an instant basis at all hours of the day or night, exaggerating negative attitudes. One wonders, as Hedley Donovan asked in a Time magazine essay: "Could General Washington hold his command affter a TV special on Valley Forge?"'4

* . . attitudes toward our government officials are similar: we like the ones we deal with, but we believe the worst about the breed as a whole.

Watergate presents a special irony. The lessons of Watergate confirm our suspicions that all politics are dirty, when in fact the episode could be read as showing that our constitutional system worked in the face of a great threat. The open government reforms and inves- tigative journalism inspired by Watergate almost certainly have lessened official improprieties but, at the same time, have undoubtedly increased the level of public cynicism by increasing our information about the improprieties that still exist.

As with the media, organizational imperatives lead interest groups to overstate their criticisms, causing them to contribute to the overheated political rhetoric of the day. Many of these groups depend on direct mail solici- tations for the bulk of their budgets. Tom Mathews of the direct mail firm of Craver, Mathews, and Smith states flatly: "You cannot write a fund-raising message about keeping a coalition together that will work. " I 5 As a result, the most successful direct mail pieces are often the most extreme. They zap the emotions of those at each end of the ideological spectrum, helping to polarize our political process and often fueling negative attitudes toward government. The irony of the attacks on government by business, labor, and other interests is that when confidence in government goes down, confidence in other major institutions tends to follow.'6

In this atmosphere, it is not surprising that politicians seeking public office have played to the worst aspects of these negative public attitudes toward government. As government gets more complicated, our politics seem to become more simplistic. Government programs and employees are obvious and easy scapegoats. Our last two presidents have led the way in campaigning against the very government they seek to lead, undermining




their ability to govern once in office by reducing the morale of the career civil service and limiting their ability to recruit others to come into government. No corporate leader would denigrate his or her employees in this way. The irony is that the civil servants are bad- mouthed by presidents whose inadequate management skills and political overpromising are often more responsible for negative public attitudes than anything the career government employees do.

We want strong, independent, uncompromising leaders able to rise above petty political bickering, but we want the action that often necessitates the very compromising that we disdain.

Some might argue that this critique of the effect of public attitudes on government is too harsh, that over time the collective judgment of the people on major issues has been rather good. And, of course, it has. But sociologist Robert Nisbet makes a distinction that is use- ful here. Nisbet distinguishes between what he calls popular opinion-the whim of the crowd at a given moment as measured by the Gallup or Harris poll-and public opinion-the view of the community after popular opinion has gone through a process of reflection and assimilation. 17 Writing more than 60 years ago, Walter Lippmann explained that the notion that the truth will win in the competition of opinions "is probably sound if you allow the competition to extend over a sufficiently long time."'I But public officials are forced to govern with the popular opinion of the moment and often do not have the luxury of time. The danger that lies ahead is that the potential for reaching informed community judgments through public deliberations may be reduced significantly by the new communications technologies that offer instantaneous information exchange but do nothing to guarantee reflection.

Others would argue that public skepticism is at the core of the American democratic system and that it has often served our country well. The truth of that is obvious, but it is only half of the truth. We all too seldom consider the consequences of this half truth. Ex- cessive criticism may mean that competent government officials will not be there when we need them. It is very difficult to attract good people to jobs that lack public respect. Although only a small percentage of the government officials across the country come under the intense media scrutiny given to top level elected and appointed officials, all must bear the burden of the negative public attitudes that result.

The exposure to a drumbeat of negative rhetoric saps the morale of government workers. The scientists, engineers, clerks, and generals might be aware of the polls that show Americans are satisfied with how most government employees are carrying out specific government functions, but it is probably of little solace in the face of yet another Johnny Carson monologue or presidential affront. The talented college students, the engineers and scientists the government needs, are likely

to go elsewhere when all they hear about government service is the ridicule rather than the rewards.

Human Toll

The human toll of government service gets far less attention than it deserves. Bureaucratic politics in an open, democratic society is extremely time consuming and demanding. Rigid procedures impose formidable constraints on the activities of public officials. These procedures, when combined with interest group pressures, bureaucratic infighting, an aggressive news media, and the complexity of public problems, consume the energies of government officials and make it difficult for them to meet the lofty expectations of the public.

In the wake of Watergate, the public properly de- manded higher standards of openness and public accountability from government officials. Congress, state legislatures, and city councils across the country adopted new rules on openness and ethics, including citizen participation requirements that created an entirely new policy making environment. The Advisory Com- mission on Intergovernmental Relations found that as of 1978, for example, citizen participation requirements were contained in 155 separate federal grant programs and that 79 percent had been adopted since 1970.19

These sunshine rules have been successful, in large measure, and there are few advocates of a return to the old days of excluding the public from important meetings and winking at ethics violations. But the new rules are not without costs. There is, as Frederick C. Mosher of the University of Virginia points out, "a conflict between the value associated with accountability and the values of originality, experimentation, inventiveness, and risk-taking."20 They give the news media and interest groups more tools to use to find defects, and the news stories that result inevitably undercut public confidence. By design, the new accountability rules bring more people into the policy-making process, but the endless meetings and many layers of decision making that result are extremely draining. The inevitable delay caused by due process often serves the special interests that prosper under the status quo. Frank C. Carlucci, who has served in a number of top federal management posts, acknowledges that the accountability rules are good but concludes: "We have to put an equal premium on the guy who accomplishes his mission, takes a risk, and we have to reward him commensurate with his achievement. We do not do that in government."2 We need a constant balancing of the values of accountability and effectiveness and a periodic fine-tuning of the due process laws and procedures. The question is, as Harlan Cleveland, dean of the University of Minne- sota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, has put it so well: "How do you get everyone in on the act, and still get anything done?"22

The new sunshine and due process rules ought not bear the entire blame for the complexity that comes with public service, however. Politics is inherently difficult, and this is both part of its attraction and frustration.





The day-to-day issues faced by our top political execu- tives require a greater degree of technical sophistication than in the past. In his 1981 Jefferson Lecture, Harvard University's Gerald Holton noted that nearly half of all policy decisions are now scientific and technical in nature.23 Futurist Alvin Toffler has described the "crushing decisional overload" now faced by all high technology nations as "political future shock."24 The increasing technical complexity of public policy issues leads inevitably to professional specialization which results in special languages and serious communications problems with the public. Finding and developing people with the necessary technical expertise and a tolerance for the rigors of open policy making is a difficult task.

In this context, time is an invaluable asset, but time is exactly what many top government officials have little of. The short-term demands on the time of many are staggering.25 Interest group representatives, reporters, and other government officials fill their in-boxes with paper and phone messages and their calendars with meetings, ceremonial and substantive. The time pressures lead to an endless reactive and inadequate crisis management that fuels public dissatisfaction with government and makes public service unnecessarily frustrating. Everyone associated with government spends an enormous amount of time on trivial matters trying to meet the ceremonial demands on their time and to avoid making the small mistakes that end up as large head- lines. Life in this environment shortens their perspec- tives and squeezes out their creativity and imagination. There is no time for reflection, and the costs-in both the long and short run-are real. Public officials have "impoverished concepts of what is politically possible" because they so often are forced to rely on the opinions of interest group leaders and so seldom take the time to find out how the constituencies of those leaders might be educated, according to former HEW official Peter Schuck.

Although our democratic system is based on the ability of all citizens to petition their government, Common Cause Founding Chairman John W. Gardner warns: "There has been a steadily growing recognition that we are inflicting damage on ourselves with our adversary habits, our litigiousness, and our endlessly combative individualism.' '6 The posturing of rival interests in our adversary process is needlessly wearing out our government officials and discouraging others from entering government service.

We have always had strong interest groups in America, but the interest group phenomenon has changed markedly in recent decades. The number of interest groups has increased exponentially in response to the growth of government in the last 50 years and especially to the dramatic increase in regulation in the last 15 years. In addition, the rise of the public interest movement, single issue interest groups, and political action committees has altered the political power game drastically during the last decade. These dramatic changes have made a lie of the traditional pluralist the- ory that a healthy clash of special interests leads to the common interest. Pluralism seems to have run amuck.


In a complicated world, virtually all public policy solutions upset some interest group. In the political environment of today where interest groups are able to mobilize top lobbying and legal talent, sophisticated communications networks, and potent political action committees, the result is fragmentation and polarization.

The democratic process thrives on strongly argued debates on public policy issues. But this process is only healthy when done within the context of the restraint that comes from an awareness of the legitimacy of opposing points of view. "When each side demands the capitulation of the other," Harvard political scientist Stanley Hoffmann warns, "democracy is in serious trouble."27 A Washington-based corporate lobbyist recently said that he would fire any employee who signed a proposed code of ethics for lobbyists that pledged to put the public's interest above all others. "The minute you don't respond first to the person who's paying the freight, I don't need you anymore," he explained.28 The prevalence of this attitude worries many concerned with the country's future. "The real fear is that the number of such groups and the narrow- ness of their concerns will proliferate to such a point that society will become so fractionalized as to be ungovernable," according to the 1980 report of Presi- dent Carter's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties.29

The news media, interest groups, and politicians themselves have done much to fuel negative public attitudes. . . . Journalists are taught that news is a departure from the status quo, that conflict and controversy sell papers and attract viewers.

Interest groups, often intolerant of government officials who fail to agree with them 100 percent, demand instant gratification. For conscientious public servants caught in the middle with lobbyists for different causes whining in both ears, life can be miserable. By polariz- ing issues and exacerbating conflict, the news media add to the problem by destroying authority and making it difficult to solve public problems. John G. Kemeny, a university president called to public service to chair a presidential commission on the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, left his Washington experience expect- ing to read the following story some day: "Three scientists by the names of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein have concluded that the earth is round. However, the New York Times has learned authoritatively that Pro- fessor John Doe has conclusive evidence that the earth is flat."30 By focusing on the politician, expert, or interest group that comes up with the most extreme quote or position, the press gives a forum to fringe groups and publicity seekers and makes it difficult for problem solving public servants who want to test ideas and move toward consensus, but who fear being pounced on and repudiated.

It is not just the narrow interest groups outside of




government and the news media that fuel the fires of the adversary process. Rival interests within government provide their share of the excitement and the misery. Legislators looking for publicity play to the news media's desire for confrontation and often find picking on executive branch officials an easy way to get attention. "The backbiting and the bureaucratic maneuver- ing by ideologically committed staff members, both in the executive and in Congress, provided the most frustration," according to former Deputy Director of Cen- tral Intelligence Bobby R. Inman.31

Some argue that the adversary process ensures needed competition in the political marketplace of ideas. Even the vigorous and often demagogic debate over Social Security, to take a recent example, was resolved with a compromise that won wide support. But, again, this is only a half truth. It neglects the very real human costs to the public servants who have to work in this environment. The frontline officials who survive major policy debates too often come away from them feeling like punch drunk prize fighters.

The effect is to undermine public confidence in government and public servants and to reduce public tolerance. With television, bad news is brought into our living rooms on an instant basis at all hours of the day or night....

As if the job pressures of government service are not enough, the journalistic interest in the private lives of our top officials adds to the burdens. The preoccupa- tion with gossip has blurred the distinctions between news and entertainment and destroyed the line between private life and governmental responsibility. Reporter and media critic Sander Vanocur is concerned with the tendency of television, People magazine, and the National Enquirer toward gossip: "Under the title, 'The People's Right to Know,' they practice journalism's right to titillate."32 No one who is familiar with the propaganda sheets of the early decades of our republic, the yellow journalism at the turn of this century, or the columns of Drew Pearson will yearn for a return to the good old days of journalism. But our constant thirst for exposes of the private lives of our government officials is shortsighted and ultimately crippling. By personaliz- ing public life, the news media drive people away from government service. "Fear of exposure in their personal, financial, social and emotional lives is going to discourage competent people from going into government," according to University of Chicago political scientist Norman Nie.33 Sociologist Richard Sennett argues that the press deflects us from measuring our leaders' achievements "by simultaneously overexposing the leader's personal life and obscuring his work in office. "34

For families, there are certain obvious attractions that come with the prestige of government service. There are costs as well. For those at the top, the financial sacrifices of government service can be substantial. On top

of that, government officials often feel that they must face the choice of leading sane family lives or being effective public servants. For many, the price is paid by the family, not the job. The competition for time and the potential for negative exposure in the media are two major risks. The stress on personal health and family life is not, of course, unique to public life and some officials seem to manage the problem better than others. But the demands of government are such that those who try to maintain a somewhat normal family life will likely forego a measure of short-term influence. "We all agree that a politician should spend private time with his family," says columnist Ellen Goodman. "And we all want him to speak at our banquet."I35

Toward a Strong and Respected Government Service

Government service represents an extraordinary opportunity for talented Americans to make important contributions to our country. For many of our most able citizens, no jobs can compare to those in government. But others view government service quite dif- ferently. While recognizing that service to one's country will always demand substantial sacrifices, they see no reason why it must demand the high degree of sacrifice now attributed to it. The point of this essay is to show that no single factor leads to this view. It is the cumulative impact of a number of forces that feed on each other in destructive and counterproductive ways. Most of the aspects of this dilemma are inherent in the political process and have been with us through history, but the mix that results in today's political environment is especially troubling.

To some veterans of bureaucratic politics, the portrait painted here of the government official as a Roman gladiator thrust into the public arena for the entertainment of the spectators must seem overstated. The stri- dent and insatiable interest groups, the overinquisitive and sometimes reckless news media, the decision- making process paralyzed by constant bureaucratic infighting, and the negative public attitudes toward government do not, of course, represent the daily environment in which the average government official works. Obviously, they are but stereotypes based on the ex- tremes of reality. But they are of critical importance because they are the stereotypes that are influencing the perceptions of prospective recruits and narrowing the pool of potential public servants.

If the frustrations of government service for these officials are not unique in the American experience, it probably is safe to say that the character of them has changed. The cumulative impact of these frustrations poses a fundamental threat to our ability to recruit and maintain high quality people to govern our nation. Rather than continue the moaning and groaning, and nostalgia for better days, we ought to develop a new way of looking at government service. Although recognizing that there is no magic wand to wave, we can, by taking notice of the problem and making progress a priority, begin to get some positive forces moving. The





need for action is clear. The strategic importance of the government sector can hardly be overstated. A weak government sector, as we have seen in recent years, has weakened all other sectors and contributed to a shaky international economy and a dangerously unstable world. The private sector cannot prosper without the safe roads, educated citizens, and other services that only government can provide.

Certainly, modest steps can and should be taken at all levels to make government a more attractive arena for Americans of commitment and talent. The most fundamental solutions, however, are not susceptible to quick or simple action. They require voluntary action by virtually all segments of our society over a sustained period of time. The task is nothing less than building a constituency for a strong and healthy government service. This is what former HEW Secretary John W. Gardner calls a "constituency for the whole," a network of people who represent disparate interests but who act together in behalf of the common concerns of the community and the nation. According to Gardner, "It is hard to think of any other event that would so quickly restore the attractiveness of public life."36

We cannot have a robust political process when everyone is preoccupied with self interest. Each of us must recognize that we are part of something larger than ourselves and that few of us will do well as individuals if our common endeavor does poorly. In building the "constituency for the whole":

* we need a better informed public with reasonable expectations based on an understanding that certain individual sacrifices are necessary to advance the general welfare;

* we need business leaders who understand the importance of a strong and healthy government sector;

* we need leaders in the interest groups and news media who recognize that they are not exempt from their responsibilities of citizenship when they go to work;

* we need government officials who are comfortable working with complexity and building coalitions with others to solve public problems and establish a positive image of government as a force for good; and

* we need a sense of civility in public life that tolerates disagreement and that makes a virtue of our diver- sity.

Nothing short of a change of public attitudes is re- quired. The admirable civic skepticism of Americans has turned into a dangerous negativism and selfishness. Without a more informed and tolerant public, the frag- menters in the interest groups and the news media can continue to impede progress in building public support for a healthy political process.

The news media and interest groups are both driven by organizational imperatives to overstate and polarize in order to attract attention. What serves their organizational interests is often the opposite of what serves the interests of the nation. The right to criticize is a fundamental aspect of the democratic process but it must be in the context of a respect for the overall health of the


political system. Business Week said it well in a 1957 editorial: "The same rules should apply to political criticism that apply to big game hunting: You don't hunt so hard and shoot so murderously that you wipe out the breed."32 Nearly everyone involved with government seems to be running too fast, talking too loud, promis- ing too much, acting too quickly, and thinking too little. The leaking, gossiping, bad mouthing, and public posturing of some have turned others away from government service. It is time to slow down, to reassess, and to make necessary changes.

The purpose of pointing to the negative consequences of the hyperactivity of interest groups is not to attempt to stop them from representing their legitimate interests, but to ask them to consider whether the unrestrained

The open government reforms and investi- gative journalism inspired by Watergate almost certainly have lessened official improprieties but, . . . have undoubtedly increased the level of public cynicism by increasing our information about the improprieties that still exist.

pursuit of their individual interests is not undercutting the system as a whole in a way that ultimately serves the interests of no one. Our reckless pluralism and individualism is doing great damage to the general welfare. Our excessive adversariness is blocking the com- promises that could make action in the public interest possible.

The purpose of pointing out the negative consequences of the present approach of the news media to public affairs is not to attempt to muzzle the press, but to ask them to consider whether the balance of coverage has not swung too far toward the negative and sensational and away from the positive and important. Tele- vision commentator Jeff Greenfield put a question to the producers of "60 Minutes" that all members of the news media should ask themselves on a regular basis: "How would you like it done to you?"38

The challenge for the press should not simply be to cut back on gossip and sensationalism, but to make a commitment to presenting a more balanced view of public affairs-a view that would include stories of government programs that work and help people as well as those that do not, a description of government officials who make those programs work as well as those who do not. The challenge for the interest groups should not simply be to tone down their shrill rhetoric and cut back on their unrealistic demands, but to make a commitment to contributing to the development of a healthy political process by searching with others for common ground and working toward positive solutions. The challenge for both the news media and the interest groups is to help create a political environment in which it is possible to develop a higher standard of open and competitive policy making, a process that includes the full participation of all interests, but that allows public



12 FROM THE PROFESSIONAL STREAM

officials to draw consensus out of conflict in a delibera- tive manner without being attacked unfairly in the process.

As citizens, we all have an enormous stake in the quality of our government service. We need to begin the long effort to change public attitudes from a disdain for politics and politicians to an understanding of the importance for the quality of our individual lives of a healthy political process and a strong and respected government service. Conservatives need not embrace government, and liberals do not have to tolerate injus- tice. But all of us need to take a more mature and longer view of what to expect of government that goes beyond the myths and stereotypes that trap us today. We need

to develop a stronger bond between government and citizens. We need to answer the question columnist David S. Broder asked of political candidates in the 1980 election: "What are you prepared and equipped to do to contribute to the reconstitution of effective government in this country?"39 The consequences of a failure to act to rebuild a strong government service are as obvious as they are unacceptable. In the words of Yale University President A. Bartlett Giamatti: "If a society assumes its politicians are venal, stupid, or self- serving, it will attract to its public life as an ongoing self-fulfilling prophecy the greedy, the knavish and the dim."40

Notes

1. Daniel Yankelovich, New Rules: Searching for Self-Fulfillment in a World Turned Upside Down (New York: Random House, 1981), 184.

2. James L. Sundquist, "The Crisis of Competence in Govern- ment," Setting National Priorities: Agenda for the 1980s (Wash- ington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1980), 534.

3. I am indebted to Princeton University historian Eric F. Goldman for this concept, although his formulation of it is somewhat different than my own.

4. James MacGregor Burns, J. W. Peltason, and Thomas E. Cronin, Government By the People, 11th Edition (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981), 448.

5. Everett Carll Ladd, "Politics in the 80's: An Electorate at Odds With Itself," Public Opinion, 5 (December/January 1983), 2-5.

6. Seymour Martin Lipset and William Schneider, The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor, and Government in the Public Mind (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1983), 230. Lipset and Schneider track the recent decline of public confidence in our major institutions. Arthur Miller suggests that the downward spiral may have reversed. See "Is Confidence Rebounding?" Public Opinion, 6 (June/July 1983), 16-20.

7. George Gallup, "Only 46% Can Name Congressional Represen- tative," The Washington Post, August 1, 1982.

8. Charles T. Goodsell, The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic (Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, 1983), 22-23. For similar surveys, see Robert L. Kahn, Barbara A. Gutek, Eugenia Barton, and Daniel Katz, "Americans Love Their Bureaucrats," Psychology Today, 9 (June 1975) and Barry Sussman, "By and Large, Americans Approve of Their Bureaucracy," The Washington Post, January 16, 1983.

9. Ibid., 12. 10. In News From Nowhere, Edward Jay Epstein argues that the net-

work television news is shaped by a series of organizational con- siderations that are designed to meet the need to survive in a competitive world and that often have little to do with news judgment (New York: Vintage Books, 1974 edition), 258-273.

11. Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922 edition), 365.

12. James L. Sundquist, "Jimmy Carter as Public Administrator: An Appraisal at Mid-Term," Public Administration Review 39 (January/February 1979), 9.

13. "The First Rough Draft of History" (an interview with Ben- jamin C. Bradlee by Michael Gartner), American Heritage, 33 (October/November 1982), 39.

14. Hedley Donovan, "Fluctuations on the Presidential Exchange," Time, November 9, 1981, 122.

15. As quoted in Edward Roeder, "Populist Electronics," Working Papers, 8 (July/August 1981), 42.

16. See Lipset and Schneider, op. cit., note 6, 40. 17. Robert Nisbet, "Public Opinion Versus Popular Opinion," The

Public Interest, 41 (Fall 1975), 166-192. 18. Lippmann, op. cit., note 11, 318. 19. Citizen Participation in the American Federal System (Washing-

ton, D.C.: U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1979), 5.

20. Frederick C. Mosher, "Comment," Improving the Accountabil- ity and Performance of Government (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1982), 72.

21. As quoted in Philip M. Boffey, "Carlucci: Thoughts on Govern- ment and Leaving It," The New York Times, January 4, 1983.

22. Harlan Cleveland, "How Do You Get Everybody In On The Act and Still Get Some Action?," Educational Record 55 (1974), 177-182.

23. Gerald Holton, "Where is Science Taking Us?," Jefferson Lec- ture (National Endowment for the Humanities), May 11, 1981.

24. Alvin Toffler, "Introduction on Future-Conscious Politics," Anticipatory Democracy: People in the Politics of the Future (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), ed. Clement Bezold, xvii.

25. For a more detailed discussion of the time pressures on public officials, see Bruce Adams, "The Limitations of Muddling Through: Does Anyone in Washington Really Think Any- more?," Public Administration Review 39 (November/Decem- ber 1979), 545-552.

26. John W. Gardner, "Remarks," Common Cause Tenth Anniver- sary, September 5, 1980. For an enlightening discussion of the negative effects of interest group pluralism, see Gardner's "Toward a Pluralistic But Coherent Society" (New York: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, 1980).

27. Stanley Hoffmann, "Year One," The New York Review of Books, August 12, 1982, 43.

28. Paul Taylor, "Lobbyists' Lobby Hesitates at Proposal to Rate 'Public Interest' Above Client's," The Washington Post, November 18, 1982.

29. President's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties, A National Agenda for the Eighties (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), 10-11.

30. John G. Kemeny, Compton Lecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, April 11, 1980.

31. "Assessing Government's Approach to Intelligence" ("Question and Answer" with Bobby R. Inman), The New York Times, July 5, 1982.

32. Sander Vanocur, "Political Values and Trends," Change and





Governance: Some Strategy Choices (National Association of State Budget Officers, January 1980), 81.

33. As quoted in Lance Morrow, "Watergate's Clearest Lesson," Time, June 14, 1982, 28.

34. Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man (New York: Vintage Books, 1978 edition), 265.

35. Ellen Goodman, "Lone Man on the Milk Run," The (Baltimore) Sun, May 15, 1981.

36. John W. Gardner, "The Mischiefs of Faction Revisited,"


Kettering Review (Winter 1983), 13. 37. "Why Government Jobs Go Begging," Business Week, August

10, 1957, 156. 38. As quoted in E. J. Kahn, Jr., "The Candy Factory," New

Yorker, July 26, 1982, 45. 39. David S. Broder, "The Leading Question," The Washington

Post, November 28, 1979. 40. A. Bartlett Giamatti, The University and the Public Interest

(New York: Atheneum, 1981), 168.



the frustrations of government service

Documents