Anne Applebaum

Poland had not destroyed its electoral system. In other words, the election was fair in the sense that the people counting the votes were counting them fairly. I mean, it was unfair in other ways, but there was enough mobilization, there was enough anger, and there was a clear enough narrative that allowed pretty disparate parties to come together and defeat at the polls.

Poland had not destroyed its electoral system. In other words, the election was fair in the sense that the people counting the votes were counting them fairly. I mean, it was unfair in other ways, but there was enough mobilization, there was enough anger, and there was a clear enough narrative that allowed pretty disparate parties to come together and defeat at the polls.

Poland had not destroyed its electoral system. In other words, the election was fair in the sense that the people counting the votes were counting them fairly. I mean, it was unfair in other ways, but there was enough mobilization, there was enough anger, and there was a clear enough narrative that allowed pretty disparate parties to come together and defeat at the polls.

It did happen in Poland. I think actually the change in the United States is more dramatic from a civil service that's loyal to the Constitution and to the country and to the rule of law front into a civil service that's loyal to a single person or political party. You know, in Poland, we didn't have those kinds of civil service traditions that went back 100 years. So it wasn't as dramatic.

It did happen in Poland. I think actually the change in the United States is more dramatic from a civil service that's loyal to the Constitution and to the country and to the rule of law front into a civil service that's loyal to a single person or political party. You know, in Poland, we didn't have those kinds of civil service traditions that went back 100 years. So it wasn't as dramatic.

It did happen in Poland. I think actually the change in the United States is more dramatic from a civil service that's loyal to the Constitution and to the country and to the rule of law front into a civil service that's loyal to a single person or political party. You know, in Poland, we didn't have those kinds of civil service traditions that went back 100 years. So it wasn't as dramatic.

But yes, there were... people who had to make decisions about whether to stay, whether to protest. Many people were fired. They lost their jobs. One of the long-term effects is that there are a lot of weaknesses in Polish government. But yeah, when you have a change like that from one kind of system to another, that will leave people loyal to the old system with pretty dramatic choices.

But yes, there were... people who had to make decisions about whether to stay, whether to protest. Many people were fired. They lost their jobs. One of the long-term effects is that there are a lot of weaknesses in Polish government. But yeah, when you have a change like that from one kind of system to another, that will leave people loyal to the old system with pretty dramatic choices.

But yes, there were... people who had to make decisions about whether to stay, whether to protest. Many people were fired. They lost their jobs. One of the long-term effects is that there are a lot of weaknesses in Polish government. But yeah, when you have a change like that from one kind of system to another, that will leave people loyal to the old system with pretty dramatic choices.

So before Teddy Roosevelt, we had something called the spoils system or patronage. And by the way, it's something that most countries have, I would guess, on the planet. And that meant that all civil servants were hired and fired according to who was the president.

So before Teddy Roosevelt, we had something called the spoils system or patronage. And by the way, it's something that most countries have, I would guess, on the planet. And that meant that all civil servants were hired and fired according to who was the president.

So before Teddy Roosevelt, we had something called the spoils system or patronage. And by the way, it's something that most countries have, I would guess, on the planet. And that meant that all civil servants were hired and fired according to who was the president.

It meant that the civil service was often people's cousins or people's sister-in-law or party loyalists who needed jobs and who could be given them, at least for the time being. The point of working for the government was not to prevent Americans from being poisoned by air pollution or to make sure that children got vaccines.

It meant that the civil service was often people's cousins or people's sister-in-law or party loyalists who needed jobs and who could be given them, at least for the time being. The point of working for the government was not to prevent Americans from being poisoned by air pollution or to make sure that children got vaccines.

It meant that the civil service was often people's cousins or people's sister-in-law or party loyalists who needed jobs and who could be given them, at least for the time being. The point of working for the government was not to prevent Americans from being poisoned by air pollution or to make sure that children got vaccines.

The point of working for the government was to get a salary and be loyal to whichever president or whichever political movement was had put you there. Patronage systems are famously corrupt because, again, the people who are in those jobs are only in them because they're being paid.

The point of working for the government was to get a salary and be loyal to whichever president or whichever political movement was had put you there. Patronage systems are famously corrupt because, again, the people who are in those jobs are only in them because they're being paid.

The point of working for the government was to get a salary and be loyal to whichever president or whichever political movement was had put you there. Patronage systems are famously corrupt because, again, the people who are in those jobs are only in them because they're being paid.

And they're also famously inefficient because the point is that people are hired not for their expertise or their skills, but they're hired for their political loyalties. Teddy Roosevelt was one of many, although he was a leading voice in the 19th century, of arguing that this system was bad for America and that it should end.

And they're also famously inefficient because the point is that people are hired not for their expertise or their skills, but they're hired for their political loyalties. Teddy Roosevelt was one of many, although he was a leading voice in the 19th century, of arguing that this system was bad for America and that it should end.