Final answer:
Political appointees may implement changes differently because they often align with the current administration's goals, compared to civil servants who focus on stability and service through a merit-based system.
Reforms including the Pendleton Act and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, along with legislation such as the Hatch Act, have fostered a bureaucracy more resistant to political influence.
Appointees act on specific mandates, while civil servants maintain consistency in public service.
Step-by-step explanation:
One of the key reasons for this difference stems from the origins of their positions. Political appointees are typically selected based on political loyalty and may enact policies that support their appointing party's ideology.
Conversely, civil servants are often chosen through a merit-based system, designed to ensure competence and neutralize partisanship in the civil service.
This merit system was reinforced by laws such as the Pendleton Act and later by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which created the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to further separate civil service from political influence.
Furthermore, political appointees are often tasked by those who appointed them to carry out specific mandates or introduce changes that reflect the current administration’s policy priorities.
This can lead to a dynamic where political appointees are the 'dog' representing the elected officials’ policies, while civil servants might be viewed as the 'fireplug' acting in the public's best interest, trying to maintain a level of consistency regardless of who is in power.