2 ms·

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

by 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.

by croon 10y ago

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.