So, I think I’m going to take the Foreign Service Exam this April, and while it’s very very uncertain that I’ll a) pass the written exam, b) pass the oral exam, and c) get offered a job, if all of those things DO happen, I’m not sure how I’d feel taking the position. Here’s the crux of the matter: I lean liberal/Democrat, and in many ways I do not support the policies of the current administration. However, if you are in the State Department, it is your job to represent the policies of the current administration, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. And while not every job in the Foreign Service is in the PR department, no matter what position you have with them, you are seen to be representing your country, for better or for worse. Personally, I’m not sure I’d want to be the one standing up for Guantanamo Bay, various mishaps in the War, Creationism in schools, the anti-gay marriage agenda, etc. etc. And while by the time I would theoretically be offered a position George Bush would only have a year or two left of his presidency, who knows who would replace him, and what new policies I’d have to represent – even if a Democrat won in '08, I inevitably would not agree with all of his/her agenda.
So Dopers, how big an issue would this be for you? Could you confidentally represent your country’s policies, right and wrong?
No way, and it’s one of the main reasons I never took the diplomatic service exam myself. Hell, I even had issues working as a low-level civil servant on a politically explosive area (immigration court interpreter). It’s really difficult to hear testimony in a political asylum case and not show an opinion.
Nope. I turned down the FS several times for this very reason. This was back in the Reagan days, when foreign policy was just as polarized, and polarizing, as now. But do take the exam, just for the hell of it. They’ll want to hear, by the way, that you are prepared to represent your country, right or wrong. You should answer “yes” no matter what – and hey, diplomatic lies are what the FS is all about!
There’s never a time when foreign policy isn’t controversial for some body.
I have no idea what your job description would be or what you’d be doing for the Foreign Service however I can give an example. A friend of mine took a job with them and started out in sort of an analyst position and ended up moving into more of a negotiator’s position. The state department has a lot of low-level nameless negotiators that will often work with other low-level negotiators in other countries for matters that either aren’t important enough to involve the bigwigs, matters that are still developing and aren’t ready for the bigwigs involvement, or matters there are sensitive so that low-level negotiations serve as an easy way to start a dialogue.
One way of looking at your job is like that of an attorney. If you’re an attorney you can’t make moral judgments about your client. If you’re a public defender for example you have to defend your client, no matter what you think of them. Not to do so would be a failure to them and to the legal system. I’d imagine foreign service people need the same mindset. Their client is the United States in their dealings with foreign officers, and to ethically hold their position they need to represent the wishes of the U.S. government in the best manner they possibly can.
I would absolutely do this. I can understand not agreeing with the policies but you are an American and therefore support America. I am currently an elisted member in the Army and am applying for the Defense Attache Service and will hopefully be representing myself, the army and the US in an embassy somewhere in the world within the next three years . . .exciting ya know.
If you are not sure that you will pass the exams, and pretty sure that you will be uncomfortable representing your country when you disagree with it’s foreign policy that much then why are you even bothering with the whole endeavour? Sounds like a waste of time for you.
You’ll be so consumed by the internal politics of the DOS that you won’t have time to worry about who’s in office and what their policies are. The first two years will be in the visa mill, dealing with an impossible workload. Nobody will pay attention to you or to what you think about policy for at least five years. I found that I did best by representing who I am as an example of what the country is about, rather than parroting any party line. Now, if you want to move up, you’ll have to suck up. That’s just the way it goes in the FS. If you just want the resume ticket punch, there are worse things to have on your CV than a TS clearance and some world experience. Many people quit after a few years (we managed to last six).
Not sure I understand you correctly; are you talking about every American, or just those employed by the federal government? I don’t think any private citizen should feel compelled to support American policies they don’t agree with…
Not sure I’ll pass the exam because statistically very, very few people do – but I guess I have as good a chance as any. I’m bothering with it because in many ways it sounds like an excellent job – I believe in diplomacy, and I’d love to try to represent the best of my country. Representing – and, if it came to it, – defending the good AND the bad is what sticks me.
I think he means every American, and I agree with him. Everybody should be proud of where they are from. The United States is more than just the current administration, it’s also almost 230 years of history and culture.
If you feel ashamed of where you are from then I don’t think you should be representing your country, regardless of which one it is. So your’e a Liberal/Democrat, you are still capable of speaking for your country, perhaps even more so since you can show the world that not everybody here is as conservative or imprealistic as we are sometimes made up to be.
As for your OP, I would gladly do it and prbably will when I’ m through with college.
Without trying to turn this into too much of a great debate, I agree that people should in general be proud of their country and its history – but naturally that does not mean that you have to support every policy of your country. Sometimes there are things your country does that you disagree with, or are embarassed or, yes, even ashamed of – and thus you write letters to your senator, protest, try to improve things, whatever. (And again, that goes for both sides of the political spectrum.) But if it’s your job to represent your country, you have to defend those things, like it or not. If you’re a Liberal/Democrat working for the State Department now, you can’t – at least in an official capacity, as I understand it – go around speaking your liberal mind to the foreign dignitaries, trying to show that we’re not as conservative and imperialistic as they think – you have to represent those conservative policies.
And yeah, I suppose you could and should explain the opposition platform as well so they know it’s not one sided, but at the end of the day, if your country has decided to go to war, for example, and you think it’s a bad idea, you still have to be able to argue for that war.
And maybe realistically it’s a moot point anyways since, as Chefguy mentioned above, for lots of the work in the State Department nobody’s going to be asking you anything anyways. Still, it’s interesting to think about.