7 ms·

While I think the stated concern about a 'deep state' is rather exaggerated, I think there is a legitimate concern about friction between the executive and the

While I think the stated concern about a 'deep state' is rather exaggerated, I think there is a legitimate concern about friction between the executive and the bureaucracy. There is broad tradition of non-partisan civil service taking orders from the partisan government of the day across the Western world, and it exists for two very good reasons: If the civil service is partisan, worthy public servants will lose their positions upon any change in government; and if the civil service is partisan, governments will not trust them. We saw this in Canada under the Harper government in the early part of this decade, with civil servants actively undermining the government and the government retaliating with gag orders; it didn't take long before the government, knowing that any research they asked for would be leaked in the most damaging way possible, abandoned evidence-based governing in favour of seat-of-the-pants policy-making. Now, what took a decade in Canada seems to have happened in a matter of weeks in Washington; but the fact remains that when the civil service is overtly opposed to their political masters, good government becomes impossible. It's one thing to have a bungling fool in charge of the ship of state; it's quite another to have a bungling fool who knows his crew are in the process of staging a mutiny.

int_19h 10y ago
US already had this debate a long time ago. When Andrew Jackson got elected, he proceeded to stuff the civil service with his supporters, freeing positions by kicking people out, and handing out the now vacant positions essentially as a reward for loyalty during the campaign. It was, quite appropriately, called the "spoils system" - as in, "to the victor go the spoils" (a phrase uttered by one of the people involved in that process). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system This then became the norm for several decades, gradually declining until it was formally sunset by a federal law prohibiting the associated practices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform... And that system is the one that we had in place basically until Trump. But it should be made clear that it wasn't the civil service that made it partisan again - it was the incoming administration, by doing things like these: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/505041927/trump-transition-asks-energy-dept-which-employees-work-on-climate-change http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/505041927/... http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/506629695/trump-team-asks-state-dept-to-name-those-working-on-gender-equality http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/506629695/... And then, of course, there was the process of building the cabinet based largely on loyalty. The Trump administration (coincidentally, Trump is a great admirer of Jackson: http://www.salon.com/2017/02/19/trump-embraces-legacy-of-andrew-jackson/ http://www.salon.com/2017/02/19/trump-embraces-legacy-of-and...) had effectively revived the spoils system. The civil service responded accordingly. Whether it's good or bad is a difficult question to answer. Like you say, there's a bungling fool in charge. If the crew is in mutiny, the obvious disadvantage is that the ship cannot be easily steered away from dangers... but the advantage is that it cannot be steered towards them, either. Sometimes, dysfunction is really better than energetic action towards the wrong goals. But, yes, it does set a bad precedent.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  In the Jackson era most employeees were direct appointments. So that was typical. The civil service is the backbone of what makes the Federal government a great institution. The fact that the IRS functions at all after two decades of undermining by congress is a testament to that. The hardest thing about Trump is figuring out where the incompetence ends and malice begins. The admiration of Jackson is one of those scary things. In addition to being a corrupt racist, even by the standards of the day, Jackson and his policy positions were a shitshow that created depressions and smashed the financial system.
- Oxitendwe 10y ago
  There is no advantage. Like it or not, he won the election fair and square. The people in the civil service did not, by definition they have no authority or legitimacy to undermine him. If the civil service can just stop obeying him for no other reason than because they don't like him, we might as well not have an executive branch, because then "undermine the president" becomes a completely valid tactic for either side to try and steer the ship without actually bothering to win the democratic process that would have let them do it legitimately. This should be absolutely unacceptable to everyone from either party.
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    None of this is as black and white as people like to think. To jump to an extreme, Nazis were legitimately elected and we usually scoff at the idea that "I was just follow orders" is a reasonable defence. If we accept that some form of resistance is justifiable in some situations we have to ask ourselves if these specific forms of resistance are legitimate for these particular circumstances rather than just saying democratically elected leaders can do whatever the hell they want and the civil service should go along with it.
    - Oxitendwe 10y ago
      I don't believe any form of resistance is acceptable. If the president is medically unfit to carry out his duties, there is a constitutional and democratic process by which he can be relieved of them. If he is fit to carry them out, then there is no excuse for disobeying his orders other than that they are illegal. If they feel they cannot morally carry out his orders, then they should quit. Nowhere along the line should insubordination and undermining his authority as the democratically elected leader of their country occur. >democratically elected leaders can do whatever the hell they want and the civil service should go along with it. Isn't this literally the point of democracy? These people should have no say in what our national interests are other than the vote to which they are entitled.
angry_octet 10y ago
With respect, I'd have to disagree with your portrayal of Harper as an honest toiler, betrayed by revanchist public servants at every turn, and forced by circumstances to take harsh but fair measures. Harperites didn't like the facts, and did their absolute best to hide them. The woolly headed policy making was conducted in defiance of the facts. When the objective facts were highlighted by public servant, in full concordance with the espoused values of their organisations, the conservatives got nasty. Harper didn't like ridicule, and he proved what a small man he is when he had his satirist sacked. A remote wildlife ecologist public servant writing funny rhymes! What a coward to manufacture a dismissal. As to Trump: he might think it a mutiny, others would characterise it as obeying the law and understanding the Constitution.
- 67726e 10y ago
  It would appear your analysis is marred by personal politics, as are most analyses of Trump.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Ensorceled 10y ago
    I voted for Harper (at least the first time) and would have to say it's a pretty accurate analysis.
- blusterXY 10y ago
  In Canada civil servants and researchers would go on the record when they spoke to the press. Those type of "leaks" were very different from the current ones that have anonymous people attributing beliefs to 3rd parties that promptly deny. The real lesson is that when the media doesn't do its job of ensuring leaks are accurate (where is the proof? can I see some documents?) they descend into partisan attacks which discredit them and weaken the role of the media as a check against executive power. Wikileaks is the role model: its leaks were factual and credible and could be checked for accuracy.
  - 10y ago
croon 10y ago
The reasoning in your first two paragraphs are sound in that a balance is necessary in government adapting to research, and that research being honest to begin with. It takes two. But your last part: > the fact remains that when the civil service is overtly opposed to their political masters, good government becomes impossible. It's one thing to have a bungling fool in charge of the ship of state; it's quite another to have a bungling fool who knows his crew are in the process of staging a mutiny. I'm not sure what you mean to say by this. I mean, your statement could technically be true, but what are you suggesting? The phrasing indicates that the civil service has made good government impossible, while I think most would agree with the reverse. If honest facts from civil service has become "partisan", then the problem is entirely elsewhere.
- cperciva 10y ago
  I mean, your statement could technically be true, but what are you suggesting? I'm suggesting an analogy to the privilege afforded to communication with lawyers or priests. It is widely accepted that there is a value to people being able to seek advice without worrying that what you say is going to be used against you. To take a concrete example, suppose the government is considering implementing Policy X. They know that Policy X could be politically problematic, but think it might be good policy anyway -- imagine something like raising taxes or shutting down a military procurement program which creates manufacturing jobs in key swing districts. In an ideal world, the government would go to the civil service and ask for research -- What would be the macroeconomic implications of this policy? Would it in fact be good for the country? Are there ways the adverse impacts of the policy could be mitigated? -- and bring forward the best possible version of the policy (or not bring it forward at all, based on what the experts say). In a world where the civil service is perceived as actively working against the government, those questions will never get asked, because there will be a fear that even suggesting that the mere suggestion that Policy X is being considered would be immediately leaked for maximum political damage. The problem isn't the answers -- rather, it's the risk of stifling questions.
empath75 10y ago
Allow me to play the world's smallest violin for the man who begged Russia to hack into his political opponent's emails.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"While I think the stated concern about a 'deep state' is rather exaggerated," We've been involved in a lot of scheming stuff esp in Middle East for decades. The same names keep turning up in the higher ranks regardless of who is President in U.S.. Especially Cheney's. We also find a lot of it comes from the CIA's meddlings despite the public not wanting any of those particular operations. At one point, they were straight-up funding themselves with drug money to do whatever they wanted with their own private military. Recently, esp with Iraq, it's close-knit groups of civilians in think tanks, civilians in defense contractors, executive-branch officials who sometimes pull six digits on side from defense contractors, and Congress committee reps with stock in same companies. There's definitely a deep state going on. It got cemented, though, when continuity of government legislation was enacted after passing of State of Emergency and Patriot Act. The power it gives the executive branch, esp ignoring Constitution and accountability, is likely why they reinstate it every year. I imagine Congress is just too afraid to fight with them. GAO said Congress hasn't even read any of their reports on the NSA and such. They're totally uninterested in reigning in deep state whether it's not giving a shit, making money off it, blackmail via surveillance system, or death threats.
- shard972 10y ago
  Remember that the NSA was busted by Snowden for spying on the head of the intelligence oversight committee Dianne Feinstein, targeting the computers they stored information related to their work in intelligence oversight.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    I thought that was the CIA hacking into the servers they set up for them during the torture investigation. If I'm wrong, please give me a link to evidence showing it.
- mcguire 10y ago
  True. But, do you think "Mr. Trump, apparently seeking to cut the intelligence community, State Department, and other agencies out of the policy-making process almost entirely, may have triggered a conflict whose escalation we are seeing in the rising number of leaks." is a good way to oppose that?
Shivetya 10y ago
if you think the civil service people are non-partisan you have completely missed the boat. There are very politically bent people in the system willing to cross whatever lines necessary to support their party. This has been made evident more than once in recent history. The reason they are not losing jobs is for the most part in many countries they are immune to job loss unless they get arrested and convicted.

int_19h 10y ago

US already had this debate a long time ago. When Andrew Jackson got elected, he proceeded to stuff the civil service with his supporters, freeing positions by kicking people out, and handing out the now vacant positions essentially as a reward for loyalty during the campaign. It was, quite appropriately, called the "spoils system" - as in, "to the victor go the spoils" (a phrase uttered by one of the people involved in that process). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system This then became the norm for several decades, gradually declining until it was formally sunset by a federal law prohibiting the associated practices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform... And that system is the one that we had in place basically until Trump. But it should be made clear that it wasn't the civil service that made it partisan again - it was the incoming administration, by doing things like these: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/505041927/trump-transition-asks-energy-dept-which-employees-work-on-climate-change http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/505041927/... http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/506629695/trump-team-asks-state-dept-to-name-those-working-on-gender-equality http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/506629695/... And then, of course, there was the process of building the cabinet based largely on loyalty. The Trump administration (coincidentally, Trump is a great admirer of Jackson: http://www.salon.com/2017/02/19/trump-embraces-legacy-of-andrew-jackson/ http://www.salon.com/2017/02/19/trump-embraces-legacy-of-and...) had effectively revived the spoils system. The civil service responded accordingly. Whether it's good or bad is a difficult question to answer. Like you say, there's a bungling fool in charge. If the crew is in mutiny, the obvious disadvantage is that the ship cannot be easily steered away from dangers... but the advantage is that it cannot be steered towards them, either. Sometimes, dysfunction is really better than energetic action towards the wrong goals. But, yes, it does set a bad precedent.

Spooky23 10y ago
In the Jackson era most employeees were direct appointments. So that was typical. The civil service is the backbone of what makes the Federal government a great institution. The fact that the IRS functions at all after two decades of undermining by congress is a testament to that. The hardest thing about Trump is figuring out where the incompetence ends and malice begins. The admiration of Jackson is one of those scary things. In addition to being a corrupt racist, even by the standards of the day, Jackson and his policy positions were a shitshow that created depressions and smashed the financial system.
Oxitendwe 10y ago
There is no advantage. Like it or not, he won the election fair and square. The people in the civil service did not, by definition they have no authority or legitimacy to undermine him. If the civil service can just stop obeying him for no other reason than because they don't like him, we might as well not have an executive branch, because then "undermine the president" becomes a completely valid tactic for either side to try and steer the ship without actually bothering to win the democratic process that would have let them do it legitimately. This should be absolutely unacceptable to everyone from either party.
- Eridrus 10y ago
  None of this is as black and white as people like to think. To jump to an extreme, Nazis were legitimately elected and we usually scoff at the idea that "I was just follow orders" is a reasonable defence. If we accept that some form of resistance is justifiable in some situations we have to ask ourselves if these specific forms of resistance are legitimate for these particular circumstances rather than just saying democratically elected leaders can do whatever the hell they want and the civil service should go along with it.
  - Oxitendwe 10y ago
    I don't believe any form of resistance is acceptable. If the president is medically unfit to carry out his duties, there is a constitutional and democratic process by which he can be relieved of them. If he is fit to carry them out, then there is no excuse for disobeying his orders other than that they are illegal. If they feel they cannot morally carry out his orders, then they should quit. Nowhere along the line should insubordination and undermining his authority as the democratically elected leader of their country occur. >democratically elected leaders can do whatever the hell they want and the civil service should go along with it. Isn't this literally the point of democracy? These people should have no say in what our national interests are other than the vote to which they are entitled.

angry_octet 10y ago

With respect, I'd have to disagree with your portrayal of Harper as an honest toiler, betrayed by revanchist public servants at every turn, and forced by circumstances to take harsh but fair measures. Harperites didn't like the facts, and did their absolute best to hide them. The woolly headed policy making was conducted in defiance of the facts. When the objective facts were highlighted by public servant, in full concordance with the espoused values of their organisations, the conservatives got nasty. Harper didn't like ridicule, and he proved what a small man he is when he had his satirist sacked. A remote wildlife ecologist public servant writing funny rhymes! What a coward to manufacture a dismissal. As to Trump: he might think it a mutiny, others would characterise it as obeying the law and understanding the Constitution.

67726e 10y ago
It would appear your analysis is marred by personal politics, as are most analyses of Trump.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Ensorceled 10y ago
  I voted for Harper (at least the first time) and would have to say it's a pretty accurate analysis.
blusterXY 10y ago
In Canada civil servants and researchers would go on the record when they spoke to the press. Those type of "leaks" were very different from the current ones that have anonymous people attributing beliefs to 3rd parties that promptly deny. The real lesson is that when the media doesn't do its job of ensuring leaks are accurate (where is the proof? can I see some documents?) they descend into partisan attacks which discredit them and weaken the role of the media as a check against executive power. Wikileaks is the role model: its leaks were factual and credible and could be checked for accuracy.
- 10y ago

croon 10y ago

The reasoning in your first two paragraphs are sound in that a balance is necessary in government adapting to research, and that research being honest to begin with. It takes two. But your last part: > the fact remains that when the civil service is overtly opposed to their political masters, good government becomes impossible. It's one thing to have a bungling fool in charge of the ship of state; it's quite another to have a bungling fool who knows his crew are in the process of staging a mutiny. I'm not sure what you mean to say by this. I mean, your statement could technically be true, but what are you suggesting? The phrasing indicates that the civil service has made good government impossible, while I think most would agree with the reverse. If honest facts from civil service has become "partisan", then the problem is entirely elsewhere.

cperciva 10y ago
I mean, your statement could technically be true, but what are you suggesting? I'm suggesting an analogy to the privilege afforded to communication with lawyers or priests. It is widely accepted that there is a value to people being able to seek advice without worrying that what you say is going to be used against you. To take a concrete example, suppose the government is considering implementing Policy X. They know that Policy X could be politically problematic, but think it might be good policy anyway -- imagine something like raising taxes or shutting down a military procurement program which creates manufacturing jobs in key swing districts. In an ideal world, the government would go to the civil service and ask for research -- What would be the macroeconomic implications of this policy? Would it in fact be good for the country? Are there ways the adverse impacts of the policy could be mitigated? -- and bring forward the best possible version of the policy (or not bring it forward at all, based on what the experts say). In a world where the civil service is perceived as actively working against the government, those questions will never get asked, because there will be a fear that even suggesting that the mere suggestion that Policy X is being considered would be immediately leaked for maximum political damage. The problem isn't the answers -- rather, it's the risk of stifling questions.

empath75 10y ago

Allow me to play the world's smallest violin for the man who begged Russia to hack into his political opponent's emails.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"While I think the stated concern about a 'deep state' is rather exaggerated," We've been involved in a lot of scheming stuff esp in Middle East for decades. The same names keep turning up in the higher ranks regardless of who is President in U.S.. Especially Cheney's. We also find a lot of it comes from the CIA's meddlings despite the public not wanting any of those particular operations. At one point, they were straight-up funding themselves with drug money to do whatever they wanted with their own private military. Recently, esp with Iraq, it's close-knit groups of civilians in think tanks, civilians in defense contractors, executive-branch officials who sometimes pull six digits on side from defense contractors, and Congress committee reps with stock in same companies. There's definitely a deep state going on. It got cemented, though, when continuity of government legislation was enacted after passing of State of Emergency and Patriot Act. The power it gives the executive branch, esp ignoring Constitution and accountability, is likely why they reinstate it every year. I imagine Congress is just too afraid to fight with them. GAO said Congress hasn't even read any of their reports on the NSA and such. They're totally uninterested in reigning in deep state whether it's not giving a shit, making money off it, blackmail via surveillance system, or death threats.

shard972 10y ago
Remember that the NSA was busted by Snowden for spying on the head of the intelligence oversight committee Dianne Feinstein, targeting the computers they stored information related to their work in intelligence oversight.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  I thought that was the CIA hacking into the servers they set up for them during the torture investigation. If I'm wrong, please give me a link to evidence showing it.
mcguire 10y ago
True. But, do you think "Mr. Trump, apparently seeking to cut the intelligence community, State Department, and other agencies out of the policy-making process almost entirely, may have triggered a conflict whose escalation we are seeing in the rising number of leaks." is a good way to oppose that?

Shivetya 10y ago

if you think the civil service people are non-partisan you have completely missed the boat. There are very politically bent people in the system willing to cross whatever lines necessary to support their party. This has been made evident more than once in recent history. The reason they are not losing jobs is for the most part in many countries they are immune to job loss unless they get arrested and convicted.