NSF director is a political appointee, as such serves the will of the President. We don't need those people "fighting," we need to elect the people we want to make the right appointments.
Well, I’ve come to learn the best leaders hire people who do fight them. The key is that they’re transparently open to being fought, take all sides under consideration, give deference when they don’t have to, but expect compliance when they make a decision.
I think we are in a situation where none of the above is happening, so you end up with a globally pessimal decisioning system where you push out the thought leaders and consensus builders and replace them with either people too stupid to have an opinion or just devious enough to appease their master while imposing their will. It’s the most toxic of all work places.
I feel genuine sorrow for all federal employees, contractors, and people who do business with or receive money from this government. I’ve worked in both environments, and what’s happening is going to crush a lot of human souls in what was already a pretty soul crushing environment to begin with.
>I think we are in a situation where none of the above is happening
What leads you to believe the guy hasn't fought? He literally said "I have done all I can." Do you want him to create so much conflict that he is forced to leave in disgrace, burning every bridge he comes across? Or is it OK that a good guy fights behind the scenes, and resigns with grace when he has lost that fight?
When he was initially appointed by the same guy, yeah kind of. Unless you can spin a good story about how you thought Trump was good but changed for the worse (which is a tough story to make believable right now, and will also burn all your Trump-adjacent bridges since he seems to value loyalty above all else)
