"Part of the reason I use the 'deep state' instead of the 'administrative state' is precisely to neutralize the very sinister and pejorative connotations of that term." -- How does that "pander" or "legitimize" far-right talking points"?
Does the "pandering and legitimizing" come in the statement that bureaucrats sometimes, in some places…
"Part of the reason I use the 'deep state' instead of the 'administrative state' is precisely to neutralize the very sinister and pejorative connotations of that term." -- How does that "pander" or "legitimize" far-right talking points"?
Does the "pandering and legitimizing" come in the statement that bureaucrats sometimes, in some places, go overboard in making rules that restrict and penalize the actions of citizens? Could such a thing never happen?
The main criticism of the "administrative state" is that democracy is undermined when elected officials punt legislating to administrative offices where career employees may often act with little oversight by political appointees, so those offices become like a permanent legislature that's insulated from voters.
Others respond that the criticism itself "undermines democracy" -- as if "democracy" were defined by a permanent bureaucracy that doesn't answer to voters. It reminds me of when people on the left took the view that "real democracy" wasn't about citizens having a voice in their own governance, but about a party or a dictator imposing supposedly egalitarian policies, and brutally suppressing dissent.
More generally, "democracy" is often understood simply as "policies I like." From this perspective, bureaucratic legislating is fully "democratic" if the bureaucrats who both write and enforce the rules tend to share one's own views.
Some readers seem to come to the Bulwark expecting nothing but unqualified affirmation of their own views, along with the joy of seeing disaffected Republicans bash other Republicans -- and then they get offended by the expression of viewpoints that differ even slightly from their own. Some are offended by the idea that Republicans might ever have been right about anything and Democrats might ever be wrong. There are other sources of commentary that would more reliably spare readers from such a suggestion.
Most of the people who complain about the Administrative State have never given any real thought to what they want it to look like, as opposed to what they want to gripe about. Here's the real question; do you want to encounter a bureaucrat who can solve your problems today, in one stop? Then you're going to have to give them enough leeway to interpret the rules themselves, and accept that eternal vigilance for error and abuse is necessary and unavoidable. And yes, to trust them as professionals with a particular skillet, rather than viewing them as petty dictators there to make people's lives harder. Alternatively, do you want to ensure that such errors and graft are as close to impossible as can happen? Then you're going to have to accept a longer, more irritating process with more humans approving up and down the scale, whole rigidly adhering to the letter of a policy.
A lot of people want neither; they want their stuff today, and for everybody else to have to prove their worthiness to the system. Part of why we are where we are is that giant chunk of society who refuse to be grownups and accept that tradeoffs and balancing acts are a necessary part of life, not a sign of immorality or corruption.
"Part of the reason I use the 'deep state' instead of the 'administrative state' is precisely to neutralize the very sinister and pejorative connotations of that term." -- How does that "pander" or "legitimize" far-right talking points"?
Does the "pandering and legitimizing" come in the statement that bureaucrats sometimes, in some places, go overboard in making rules that restrict and penalize the actions of citizens? Could such a thing never happen?
The main criticism of the "administrative state" is that democracy is undermined when elected officials punt legislating to administrative offices where career employees may often act with little oversight by political appointees, so those offices become like a permanent legislature that's insulated from voters.
Others respond that the criticism itself "undermines democracy" -- as if "democracy" were defined by a permanent bureaucracy that doesn't answer to voters. It reminds me of when people on the left took the view that "real democracy" wasn't about citizens having a voice in their own governance, but about a party or a dictator imposing supposedly egalitarian policies, and brutally suppressing dissent.
More generally, "democracy" is often understood simply as "policies I like." From this perspective, bureaucratic legislating is fully "democratic" if the bureaucrats who both write and enforce the rules tend to share one's own views.
Some readers seem to come to the Bulwark expecting nothing but unqualified affirmation of their own views, along with the joy of seeing disaffected Republicans bash other Republicans -- and then they get offended by the expression of viewpoints that differ even slightly from their own. Some are offended by the idea that Republicans might ever have been right about anything and Democrats might ever be wrong. There are other sources of commentary that would more reliably spare readers from such a suggestion.
Most of the people who complain about the Administrative State have never given any real thought to what they want it to look like, as opposed to what they want to gripe about. Here's the real question; do you want to encounter a bureaucrat who can solve your problems today, in one stop? Then you're going to have to give them enough leeway to interpret the rules themselves, and accept that eternal vigilance for error and abuse is necessary and unavoidable. And yes, to trust them as professionals with a particular skillet, rather than viewing them as petty dictators there to make people's lives harder. Alternatively, do you want to ensure that such errors and graft are as close to impossible as can happen? Then you're going to have to accept a longer, more irritating process with more humans approving up and down the scale, whole rigidly adhering to the letter of a policy.
A lot of people want neither; they want their stuff today, and for everybody else to have to prove their worthiness to the system. Part of why we are where we are is that giant chunk of society who refuse to be grownups and accept that tradeoffs and balancing acts are a necessary part of life, not a sign of immorality or corruption.