The Transition of an Administration: A Welcomed Inefficiency

29 Nov The Transition of an Administration: A Welcomed Inefficiency

The electoral process in the United States is surprisingly efficient.

Most years, ballots are cast, votes are tallied, and we are told–usually within 24 hours–the results of the election. Even when considering the entire electoral process from the beginning–ballot access and primary campaigns–to the end, with the final vote of the electoral college, the whole thing is quite programmatic and fluid.

The inauguration process of a new president, however, is wildly inefficient.

As soon as the presidential general election is ‘called’ for a candidate (specifically, an election that selects a non-incumbent), things start to kick into high gear. Suddenly anyone who worked for the outgoing administration is looking for new employment. In fact many of these folks will relinquish their positions well ahead of Inauguration Day. With more than 4,000 positions to fill, a new administration may take months or even years to confirm political appointees. Depending on the department, this lapse in leadership can create serious hangups and issues.

Even in state and local offices, U.S. elections can cause upheaval. As the President begins to fill out his roster, state and local political officials may be called up to higher office, sometimes leaving those locales in a lurch to find new leadership and to pick up the initiatives those leaders had been carrying. Even the departure of non-elected roles like a politician’s Chief of Staff or other supporting staff members can cause hiccups in the system.

Then one must consider the learning curve faced by each new appointee! If the new administration appoints 4,000 new positions, that is 4,000 individuals who are most likely new to the role. Becoming familiar with their department’s landscape and procedures will take time regardless of the appointee’s experience and leadership acumen.

All of this is, of course, the cost of maintaining the incredible democratic system that we have in the United States. It is the very nature of checks and balances to arrest progress and limit the amount of change that can happen at any moment. We want progressive change, but we need to ensure it’s the change we need, not just an effort to gain voters’ approval. Inefficient as it is, the transition of a President’s administration protects us from the cancers of overly-accelerated growth as well as the paralysis of stagnant leadership.

Every four or eight years our nation receives a jolt of invigoration and new ideas in the form of these new political appointees. With it comes a ‘check’ on the progress that has been made. Misguided policies will be vetted and potentially reversed. If a policy is appropriate and good for the country, it will most likely stand. This way, highly-partisan ‘pet projects’ are less likely to last, as the next administration will just squash them. In fact, it incentivizes better policy and legislation in the first place because the one proposing it recognizes the need to accommodate the next administration’s perspective.

Government transitions are busy, inefficient, and often chaotic, but it is a controlled chaos that keeps the nation on its toes. Just like the human body, wholesome, natural growth is slow and methodical. It grows progressively but with moderation. Too much growth in one area can, like a hypertrophic tumor, signal underlying malignancies.

This is just another one of our government’s implicit checks and balances, working behind the scenes to keep power in check and to protect the future of our nation.