We are in the midst of a critical debate over the future of the federal workforce—and with it, about the future role of the federal government. It is raising questions more fundamental than at any time since the passage of the Pendleton Act, which established the civil service system in 1883.

Both sides are missing the most important issue: how to equip the federal government to deliver services to the public, in the best way possible.

There are, in fact, interlocking arguments that have developed over time: that government workers enjoy political and procedural protections that were not envisioned in the Constitution; that the Constitution vests power in elected officials—power public employees can easily frustrate; that this creates both political and operational problems for government; and that as a result, the government is encountering existential problems that require fundamental reforms to weaken the role of unions and to make it easier for elected officials to replace government workers, especially poor performers.

There’s a profound paradox here, of course, in arguing the original intent of the founders by pointing to a part of the Constitution that, in fact, doesn’t say what they say it says. That portion of the Constitution is short and vague, and the early debates of the founders spent very little time on anything dealing with the executive establishment