The history of American public service reflects the nation’s ambivalence about government itself. On the one hand, we consider public service essential and laudatory at many times, and yet it is also often distrusted. From a few hundred employees in 1789 to millions today, the transformation mirrors America’s evolution from agricultural republic to industrial to information age superpower, with public servants adapting to meet each era’s challenges while maintaining democratic values. The evolution of American public service reflects fundamental changes in how the nation views government’s role and how it staffs its institutions. Since Canada is increasingly becoming “the better version of America” to many of us, I think comparing and contrasting the two country’s approach to public service is worth considering.
The two countries have markedly different cultural attitudes toward government employment and the role of the state, despite their geographic proximity and shared history. Foundational differences have their origins in the American Revolutionary era. Our system in America was born in rebellion against centralized government authority, and that sets a distinct tone. Our Constitution emphasizes limits on government power for that very reason. The “Government is best which governs least” ethos is the American mantra. Suspicion of bureaucracy is baked into our political culture and individual liberty is emphasized over collective good, for better or worse. Meanwhile, the Canadian evolutionary origins are quite different. Canada had a peaceful evolution from British colony to dominion to independence. They maintained the Westminster parliamentary system and their mantra is “Peace, Order, and Good Government” versus the “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” approach in America. This means that Canadians are generally more comfortable with state authority and a belief in balance between individual and collective rights.
The cultural attitudes toward government for the two countries reflect themselves in their attitudes toward public service. In the United States, Reagan’s famous “Government is the problem” still tends to resonate widely. “Bureaucrat” and “civil servant” are often used pejoratively. There is deep skepticism of federal power and government workers get stereotyped as lazy and inefficient with the private sector viewed as inherently superior. This has created even more tension between red states (anti-government rhetoric) and blue states (pro-government services) of late. In Canada, there is generally a more positive view of public servants. “Public service” carries prestige and respect and there is less ideological opposition to government itself. A career in federal public service is seen as honorable. Government competence is more assumed than questioned.
Let’s consider the relative size and scope of government in the two countries. In the United States the public service rolls look like Federal workers ~2.3 million civilian employees (excluding USPS), military ~1.4 million active duty, and State/local ~19 million for a total of ~22-23 million (about 14-15% of workforce). In Canada, by contrast, there are Federal ~300,000 employees, Provincial/territorial ~500,000 and Local ~600,000 for a total ~1.4 million (about 7-8% of workforce). Furthermore, while proportionally much smaller than the public service in the United States, it is also more centralized and focused on healthcare and education, something we find greatly lacking in this country. Some say that the key difference between the two countries in terms of public service is that Canada’s healthcare system is public, while America’s is largely private and that this fundamental human need more broadly shapes perceptions of government competence. The irony should not be lost on anyone. We decry public service, but for some reason we have blown it up to twice the level that exists in Canada. I wonder why?
There is another fundamental difference worth noting and that has to do with political independence. The United States there is a long history of political appointees and patronage. In the colonial and revolutionary era, most positions were part-time or honorary and public service was seen as the civic duty of propertied men. There was a suspicion of standing bureaucracies based on the British experience. Initially, there was an extremely small federal workforce (few hundred employees) with appointments based on “fitness of character”, with an emphasis on education, competence, and loyalty to the Constitution. Then came what is known as the Jacksonian Spoils System (1829-1883) to which the expression, “To the Victor Belong the Spoils”. Andrew Jackson systematically replaced federal employees with supporters. It is noteworthy that Donald Trump has shown great admiration for Andrew Jackson. Trump hung a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office in both his first term (2017) and brought it back in his second term (2025). The portrait was hung in a prominent spot behind Trump’s desk, positioned so Jackson appears to be staring at whoever sits at the Resolute desk. Chief White House strategist Steve Bannon called Trump’s inauguration speech “Jacksonian,” saying it struck the populist and patriotic tones Jackson was known for. Jackson was heralded by his supporters as a champion of the common man; like Trump, he was the anti-establishment candidate, hated and feared by political elites who warned he was too volatile or dictatorial. The irony in this is that while Trump sees himself as a Jacksonian populist, the actual Jackson—who fought genuine physical battles and lived a frontier life of genuine hardship—might have viewed the New York real estate developer as precisely the kind of East Coast elite he despised. Nonetheless, Trump has established that, like Jackson, political loyalty is to trump expertise or experience in public service. So you think that maybe this Jacksonian/Trumpian approach to public service patronage might have something to do with our problems today?
The American problem with public service was directly addressed by the Civil Service Reform Era taken up during the Garfield/Arthur presidential era, with a reform movement epitomized by the Pendleton Act of 1883. It created the U.S. Civil Service Commission, established merit-based competitive examinations and protected employees from political removal. Clearly, during the Roosevelt years, due mostly to the Depression and World War II, federal employment exploded from 600,000 (1932) to 3.8 million (1945). To satisfy politicization concerns, the Hatch Act (1939) was put in place which limited political activities of federal employees, protected civil servants from political coercion, prohibited using political positions to influence elections and balanced political rights with impartiality requirements. In the modern era through times like the Great Society years, the Post-9/11 expansion (including establishment of the Department of Homeland Security), the financial crisis response (2008-2009) and COVID-19, public service rolls have continued to expand. That has led to a degree of political polarization as “Deep state” conspiracy theories and Whistleblower protections get debated and bandied about. The Trump Administration routinely ignores the Hatch Act while talking big about draining the swamp.
Meanwhile, in Canada the doctrine of ministerial responsibility has led to very few political appointments, the existence of Deputy Ministers that are career public servants, a strong tradition of non-partisan advice to government. Public servants serve government of the day professionally with far less politicization of bureaucracy. Sounds like a more effective approach if you ask me.
Which system works better? According to the World Bank, Canada operates in the 90th percentile globally in terms of efficiency where the US is only in the 85th percentile globally. In terms of trust in government, Canada has ~50-60% trust in their federal government where the US has ~20-30%. This a dramatic difference in legitimacy. The bottom line (we are a bottom line kinda country, right?) is that Canada’s public service benefits from a political culture that views government as legitimate partner in society rather than necessary evil. This creates a virtuous cycle: respect → better candidates → better performance → more respect. America’s anti-government ideology creates a vicious cycle: suspicion → attacks → reduced capacity → worse performance → more suspicion. Canada is, indeed, a better version of America.