I worked as a civilian contractor at DoD before and after the 2020 election. My observation was that while many of the people I work with were conservative, they were relieved to see the return of competency with the Biden administration. The Trump administration had left key positions unfilled throughout the department in the name of cost cutting. In other cases, key positions were filled with unqualified cronies. The result was that very important work took longer or didn’t get done.
I’m all for reducing the size of the government bureaucracy. It Hass to be done and smart and thoughtful way, not by simply leaving positions unfilled.
I dint think there is a military cabal . I do remember that Secret Service phone for January 6th were all wiped in a "routine upgrade" I do recall that one of Trumps men remained in the Secret Service while being Trumps aide . Secret Servicee is not the US military, but they were in very deep
For 50 years, almost no one complained about bureaucrats (& bureacracy) more than I did (just ask my former coworkers about me and the B-word). Then the MAGA cult came along, and I grudgingly saw bureaucrats as the "lesser of 2 evils." The many bureaucrats I had to deal with (directly & indirectly, many even in the private sector) knew that giving people the runaround meant job security. As long as they pleased "mangement" the people they are supposed to serve be damned. But techically we are their "bosses," and until that gets rubbed in everywhere, there will always be a problem. With bureacuacy, though, there's usually a workaround. The job gets done, though at unnecessarily high cost and/or low efficiency. If the MAGA cult completes its hijacking of the Republic, there may not be workarounds.
I am a bureaucrat, and I feel the need to correct you on one thing; you, the person sitting in front of me, are not my boss. My boss is the the people of the State for whom I work, and I work for the interests of all of them. This includes you, but it's not limited to you. I don't like sending people away unhappy, believe me. It's often soul-crushing, especially in the job I work. But I dislike treating people unequally far more, and that's what a lot of the requests to disregard the rules I get amount to. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the people who complain about inflexible bureaucrats are also the same ones who complain about corruption when someone greases the wheels for a customer who's not them. Can't have it both ways.
In an era with people like Trump and Bannon wanting to turn the government into patronage factories, it's more important than ever that the rules be maintained, even if it means people figure I'm a lazy parasite. If that makes you angry, I recommend calling your state legislature. I just do what they tell me to do, after all.
There are some reasonable criticisms of legislation by bureaucracy -- which is often done because elected lawmakers want to evade responsibility -- and of the power of executive agencies both to write and enforce rules and then, in effect, to adjudicate the interpretation of laws. The people who call this criticism itself an attack on "democracy" are basically saying that democracy has little if anything to do with the people's voice in their own governance. They don't object to policymaking by people insulated from the voters as long as those people share their own perspective. And because the permanent bureaucracy leans left, Democrats tend to equate it with "democracy" itself.
The Trump cult totally corrupted the argument by aligning it with Trump's sociopathic understanding of right and wrong, his disregard for rules, and his envy of despots. Trump and his loyalists cultivated the belief that the government is supposed to be obedient to him personally and always serve his wishes and interests. And because Trump has no respect for law, the rule of law itself has been painted as sinister and antidemocratic.
When "democratic accountability" is equated with unconditional deference to a sociopath, it rather destroys the case against the "administrative state."
I mostly agree. But the villains are not the "unaccountable" bureaucrats who are just workers trying to do their jobs amidst the shitshow the politicians created.
The villains are the legislators who fail to do their jobs and hold them accountable.
"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.
I worked as a civilian contractor at DoD before and after the 2020 election. My observation was that while many of the people I work with were conservative, they were relieved to see the return of competency with the Biden administration. The Trump administration had left key positions unfilled throughout the department in the name of cost cutting. In other cases, key positions were filled with unqualified cronies. The result was that very important work took longer or didn’t get done.
I’m all for reducing the size of the government bureaucracy. It Hass to be done and smart and thoughtful way, not by simply leaving positions unfilled.
that is not what I said! I said ts very suspicious the phones were all wiped .
I dint think there is a military cabal . I do remember that Secret Service phone for January 6th were all wiped in a "routine upgrade" I do recall that one of Trumps men remained in the Secret Service while being Trumps aide . Secret Servicee is not the US military, but they were in very deep
yeah, those people whose job it is to literally take a bullet for president if need be for 80k a year. cant trust those greedy bastards.
For 50 years, almost no one complained about bureaucrats (& bureacracy) more than I did (just ask my former coworkers about me and the B-word). Then the MAGA cult came along, and I grudgingly saw bureaucrats as the "lesser of 2 evils." The many bureaucrats I had to deal with (directly & indirectly, many even in the private sector) knew that giving people the runaround meant job security. As long as they pleased "mangement" the people they are supposed to serve be damned. But techically we are their "bosses," and until that gets rubbed in everywhere, there will always be a problem. With bureacuacy, though, there's usually a workaround. The job gets done, though at unnecessarily high cost and/or low efficiency. If the MAGA cult completes its hijacking of the Republic, there may not be workarounds.
I am a bureaucrat, and I feel the need to correct you on one thing; you, the person sitting in front of me, are not my boss. My boss is the the people of the State for whom I work, and I work for the interests of all of them. This includes you, but it's not limited to you. I don't like sending people away unhappy, believe me. It's often soul-crushing, especially in the job I work. But I dislike treating people unequally far more, and that's what a lot of the requests to disregard the rules I get amount to. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the people who complain about inflexible bureaucrats are also the same ones who complain about corruption when someone greases the wheels for a customer who's not them. Can't have it both ways.
In an era with people like Trump and Bannon wanting to turn the government into patronage factories, it's more important than ever that the rules be maintained, even if it means people figure I'm a lazy parasite. If that makes you angry, I recommend calling your state legislature. I just do what they tell me to do, after all.
There are some reasonable criticisms of legislation by bureaucracy -- which is often done because elected lawmakers want to evade responsibility -- and of the power of executive agencies both to write and enforce rules and then, in effect, to adjudicate the interpretation of laws. The people who call this criticism itself an attack on "democracy" are basically saying that democracy has little if anything to do with the people's voice in their own governance. They don't object to policymaking by people insulated from the voters as long as those people share their own perspective. And because the permanent bureaucracy leans left, Democrats tend to equate it with "democracy" itself.
The Trump cult totally corrupted the argument by aligning it with Trump's sociopathic understanding of right and wrong, his disregard for rules, and his envy of despots. Trump and his loyalists cultivated the belief that the government is supposed to be obedient to him personally and always serve his wishes and interests. And because Trump has no respect for law, the rule of law itself has been painted as sinister and antidemocratic.
When "democratic accountability" is equated with unconditional deference to a sociopath, it rather destroys the case against the "administrative state."
I mostly agree. But the villains are not the "unaccountable" bureaucrats who are just workers trying to do their jobs amidst the shitshow the politicians created.
The villains are the legislators who fail to do their jobs and hold them accountable.
"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.