3 ms·
Those are mostly orthogonal concerns to the ones raised in the GP. If the GP are correct in the details (I am not familiar with the situation), then the civil s
by mseebach 10y ago
Those are mostly orthogonal concerns to the ones raised in the GP. If the GP are correct in the details (I am not familiar with the situation), then the civil service acted purposefully to circumvent and undermine the government. No matter how bad they perceive the government to be (as described, we're not talking about crimes, but deep and probably reasonable disagreements on policy and execution), that's not what they are supposed to do. This is exactly what a "deep state" does: It opaquely keeps the power in the bureaucracy to "protect" the nation against the government, and that is obviously not compatible with democracy. Protecting against bad governments is what term limits and the electorate are meant to do, the civil service is supposed to loyally staff (within reason, of course -- civil servants are also citizens) the actually elected government.
> As to Trump: he might think it a mutiny, others would characterise it as obeying the law and understanding the Constitution.
The article isn't about the legitimacy of any individual leaks, rather:
Even if each individual leak is justifiable, as insubordination becomes more sustained and overt, it inches deeper into the gray zone of counter-democratic activities.
The distinction between deep-state meddling and acceptable protest is difficult to draw in the United States, Ms. Zegart said, because this degree of opposition is so unusual.
- Retric 10y agoI strongly disagree. We get one election every X years. Institutional inertia is a very important check on elected officials. The classic US example is the unelected and appointed for life supreme court. In many way civil servants like juries are the most direct form of democracy. There have been a few quiet revolutions where the system effectively said enough is enough.
- shard972 10y agoThe question is begged then, what actions do the people take to say enough is enough (Aside from the bloody revolution talked about by the founders)?
- Retric 10y agoAt the individual level leaks are the most common 'fix'. Importantly, the population does not care is someone leaks an FDA study demonstrating that water is safe to drink. They are inherently useful when people disagree with what's happening. Further, the government leaks constantly at all levels which is how the '5th estate' had all that power. For more a more extreme example striking is mostly associated with working working conditions and pay. But, it's also one of the way governments can fall with minimal violence. Not paying the police for months just does not work.
- gukov 10y agoThey vote.
- shard972 10y agoHuh? How do you vote out unelected bureaucrats?
- refurb 10y agoCivil servants are hired to do a job. That's it. They are not elected. It's not their place to restrict the power of elected officials unless their activities are illegal.
- beat 10y agoBut we've had example of illegal activities in this administration (ie the immigration ban). What are civil servants to do then? Follow obviously illegal orders?
- skybrian 10y agoThat's an important restriction though. There are lots of laws. Some laws give some civil servants some independence from elected officials' decisions.
- curun1r 10y agoCivil service employees take an oath to defend The Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to faithfully discharge the duties of their position. Their loyalty to elected officials comes after their loyalty to those first two precepts. In as much as they believe they are fulfilling their oath, they are absolutely supposed to resist the efforts of elected officials.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]