Among the many challenges awaiting the new Obama administration is the feeble state of US public service, which is failing to attract the best new talent
The ground-breaking election of Barack Obama and the many foreign, domestic, and economic challenges currently facing the United States have led to a political awareness and activism not seen in many years. Ahead of tomorrow's much-anticipated inauguration, Obama's team announced the establishment of "Organizing for America", an organization that seeks to shape the inchoate energy generated by his presidential campaign. Obama often repeated his desire to "open the doors of democracy" to the American people. Such endeavours aim to make that vague aspiration more concrete.
But while Obama appeals to the general public, the institutions of public service remain in crisis. One underappreciated aspect of the Democratic presidential victory in November was just how untenable - physically, just as much as intellectually and politically - continued Republican rule would have been. As one former government official, who participated in transitions dating back to the 1970s, opined prior to the election: "There's just no more talent available on the Republican side to fill all these positions; they're all burned out."
Talent can't be taught, but it can be coaxed along. The US government, along with the public sphere writ large, needs to attract and "coax along" the most talented individuals. At present, though, the realities of gaining public service employment make the barrier to entry for young individuals extremely high.
A problem of access
Without a fundamental change in the compensation and security clearance strictures of the public sector, the most talented young individuals will forego public service, to the detriment of the nation as a whole. It behooves Obama - who promised to make public service "a central cause" of his presidency - to take a serious look at how the potential appointments of the future are thwarted even before their government careers begin.
The high barrier to entry begins when one is still in college. As every person putting together his first resume knows, internships are the building blocks upon which successful job applications rest. And yet, those fortunate enough to receive worthwhile internship offers face a daunting challenge: money. Most internships in the public sector, whether on Capitol Hill or for non-governmental organizations, are unpaid.
The whole process is a form of indentured servitude, which plays off the fact that the young person is working for free against the prestige and contacts of the organization. For those college students working their way through school or supporting themselves during the summer breaks, this is often not a tenable option. Thus, very early on, the playing field is already skewed towards those with independent means.
The very same dynamic is still at play even after graduation. Entry level positions in most public sector jobs - for example, as staff assistants on Capitol Hill - pay less than a living wage. While a certain level of sacrifice is expected, penury should not be. If a young and ambitious "go-getter" is lucky, his or her parents usually end up covering the rent and the student loan bills. For those for whom family backing is not an option, then public service - however well-intentioned - is simply not feasible.
No noble ends without the means
In a world where the cost of a college degree has risen 439 percent over the past twenty-five years (compared to a 147 percent rise in the median family income), the financial reality of paying back one's loans oftentimes takes precedence over one's passions. Moreover, the increasing dilution of an undergraduate degree due to more people attending college - a positive development, to be sure - has meant that graduate degrees and their concomitant costs have become necessities, not luxuries.
Based on an exponentially higher cost of living (including for college), stagnant wages, and a more competitive job market, this is clearly not the reality of our parent's generation (or even that of Obama's). Viewed in the context of public sector employment, it shouldn't come as a surprise that a certain individual - usually somewhat affluent - is more likely to choose public service. Overall talent, as well as a more representative cross-section of society, is surely the biggest loser.
The second aspect of entry-level government service which needs to be reassessed is in the field of national security. Despite the federal government's legitimate security concerns, the clearance process as currently conceived is too long, too onerous, and ultimately counterintuitive.
Spend enough time amongst Washington's young foreign policy professionals, and the anecdotes one hears begin to sound less like individual sob stories and more like a pattern.
For instance, take the college senior who applied for an opening at one of the government's myriad intelligence agencies. Her security clearance eventually did come through - two years later. By that time, the position she had applied for had, predictably, already been filled; she went on to work for a contractor in the private-sector.
Or take the highly-qualified young professional, American-born and of Iranian-descent, who applied for a position at the State Department. It took her a year to learn that she in fact had not gotten the clearance the job required. In the interim, she took up an internship - unpaid - at a non-governmental organization; she subsequently went into the private-sector as well.
There are two points that need to be emphasized. First, to endure the often lengthy limbo period of the clearance process requires a bedrock of financial means. (Not to mention a steely willingness to be in professional purgatory until the process runs its course.)
And second, the clearance process, almost by definition, makes it that much more difficult for qualified candidates with non-traditional backgrounds to pass. Counter-intuitively, those with extensive travel experience abroad or with foreign roots - that is, those more likely to have the skills necessary for foreign policy - are at a disadvantage in relation to a candidate who has had, since birth, the same address in middle America.
At a time when the number of translators, linguists, and area specialists in public service is completely inadequate, the process through which the government hires those responsible for formulating foreign policy and defending national security is distorted and ill-conceived.
Among Obama's to-do list after 20 January, revamping the way young people enter public service should be included. More funding - for direct increases in salary, additional scholarships and debt forgiveness programs - should be considered in order to attract the best possible candidates to the public sector. Reform of the security clearance process should be considered in order to allow the brightest individuals to enter the foreign policy establishment.
It's an irony of the economic and bureaucratic realities that, given his financial and personal background, Obama would have great trouble entering government today as a young staffer. It would be tragic if the next Obama were dissuaded from serving the country, and instead opted to become a corporate lawyer. Government desperately needs just such talents.
Neri Zilber is a writer on international politics based in New York City
