Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Casey Mock's avatar

I agree with this, but also want to offer that this trend you’ve observed is also arguably a trend of poor staffing in general. I have served one governor as an appointee and work closely with the staff of another. A good staffer serves the principal, who was in turn elected to serve the community; staff are not there to take the wheel and drive the policy bus. If I were an elected and my staffer tweeted something like Saul Levin did, I’d want to have a serious conversation with them about whether they want to staff a policymaker or be an activist — you can’t do both well at the same time unless that’s agreed upon in advance.

I’ve also observed staffers who aren’t trying to grab the policy reins inadvertently contribute to problem you and Matt Y have described by trying to be responsive to the loudest voices within constituent activist communities. It takes a confident elected policymaker to push back when internal communications staff are relaying what they hear from the loudest complainers and most forceful advocates, and I’ve seen a lot of inexperienced staffers do a bad job at protecting their principal from these forces.

I wonder if the problem lies in the failure to make these sorts of staff positions credible careers in themselves rather than career-making stepping stones (whether as a prelude to selling out and become a lobbyist or to working in activism or running for something). I suspect it’s a combination of poor compensation and the electeds themselves having the wrong priorities when hiring.

Expand full comment
Elizabeth's avatar

Staffers who want to be policymakers should run for office. In the meantime, they need to realize they're not the show.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts