3 ms·
This is true because the non-political departments of US government have ultimately very limited power, so there is little incentive to either capture them or d
by xyzzyz 4y ago
This is true because the non-political departments of US government have ultimately very limited power, so there is little incentive to either capture them or destroy them by partisan actors. Political operatives would much rather control something like FBI or EEOC instead of LoC or USFS. This should motivate us to ensure that each department’s capabilities are as restricted as possible to achieve its mandate, so that Library of Congress can focus on archiving materials, and not, say, drafting rules on what is required and banned from public libraries across the country (a very contentious topic these days, apparently).
Of course, the political operatives want the opposite: they want to concentrate and extend the power of government agencies as much as possible. The incentive to do so for administrative agencies is strong: elected politicians can be voted out, so they have to be more careful, but career bureaucrats are effectively not removable. The result is a fight for the control of the agency, and then, if one side wins the control, to diminish the power/funding of the agency, which obviously is not conducive to agency being effective at its stated goals.
- toss1 4y agoGood description of the essence of democracy and the path of it sliding into authoritarianism. In a democracy all of the institutions of government and society are relatively independent, with power spread out and relatively balanced between them. This goes for the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of govt, as well as the civil service, the press, the academy, industry. In contrast, as politicians start controlling "something like FBI or EEOC", and start forcing the justice department, the press, academic institutions and other government and societal structures to bend to the will of the leader, you soon have authoritarianism. Once it goes that way, it is very difficult to restore a democracy.
- yucky 4y agoI would argue that's an inevitability with democracy, since short term thinking tends to dominate.
- toss1 4y agoYou are certainly right, it is not constantly and actively maintained. After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, it's said that when Ben Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall, someone yelled: “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin responded: “A republic, if you can keep it.” Wise Words. And, as Plato said: "The penalty for good men not participating in politics is to be ruled by evil men.".
- toss1 4y ago*oops, "...+IF+ it is not constantly and actively maintained."
- mherdeg 4y agoHuh I always thought of the Library of Congress as having pretty strong political power -- under the DMCA Section 1201, every 3 years the Librarian of Congress enacts new rules proposed by the Copyright Office (part of the LOC) and can broadly determine that entire categories of software are not illegal DRM-circumvention devices.
- Natsu 4y agoThey see that power as very, very narrow. For one, they have to renew exceptions every 3 years, for another, they've shied away from doing anything at all to some of the broader categories that have been proposed.
- WalterBright 4y agoNote the recent mission creep of the CDC where they tried to extend eviction moratoriums.
- xyzzyz 4y agoWhat a great example. Only reason this did not happen is because the Supreme Court managed to call foul, belatedly though as it had. Can we always depend on Supreme Court doing the right thing and limiting the government’s overreach? The answer is, clearly no, as history gives plenty examples of SCOTUS rubber-stamping clear overreach. The best example is, I think, Wickard v. Filburn, which opened the floodgates, and gave the federal government powers that the writers of the constitutions would have never believed. There are more recent examples as well, for example Kelo v. City of New London, which ruled that government can kick you out of your home and give it to someone else, if it believes that it will create jobs and bring more tax revenues, even if it doesn’t end up happening.