5 ms·

What happens when you eliminate the independence of agencies like the DOJ and FTC, replace experienced leaders with party loyalists, and tee up opportunities fo

What happens when you eliminate the independence of agencies like the DOJ and FTC, replace experienced leaders with party loyalists, and tee up opportunities for selective prosecution? Equal justice under law collapses into a race to see which competitor can pay the largest ransom.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
This is what makes me so angry and sad. My objections to the incoming administration largely have nothing to do with policy (I may disagree with policies, but I think it's easy to have an honest disagreement about that, and many of the purported policies I can agree with), but it's that it's now completely overt that the number one qualification for political appointees is obsequious fealty. I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee. Paul Krugman (who I often disagree with) had a good article on how the rise of tariffs will be perfect for crony capitalism: the executive branch can't pick and choose who pays income taxes, but currently the executive branch has extremely wide latitude over tariffs, and especially, who gets exemptions. Watch as corporations line up to pledge allegiance in order to get tariff exemptions. I'm just completely at a loss at how this behavior, which would have been looked on with disgust on both sides of the political spectrum until very recently, is now so readily accepted.
- sleepybrett 2y ago
  > I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee. my dude, we passed that in 2016
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    my dude, we passed that in 2008
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      Why do you think that?
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    I respectfully disagree. Sure, we may have been on our way, but I think the contrast between Jeff Sessions and Matt Gaetz/Pam Bondi really just shows how we're truly off the rails now. Jeff Sessions appropriately recused himself from investigations into the Trump campaign, because 8 years ago we still expected the Justice Department to act impartially. In doing that, Sessions got nothing but the deep ire of Trump, solely because he wasn't willing to act as the President's personal lawyer. Now, though, both Gaetz and Bondi have basically fallen over backward saying they'll do whatever Trump asks. The only reason Gaetz wasn't confirmed wasn't because he said flatly that he would weaponize the Justice department, but it was because he's basically loathed by everyone on Capitol Hill (IMO the sex and drug allegations were more of a convenient out to not confirm him rather than the true reason for his withdrawal). The current situation is completely without precedent in my lifetime.
- QuarterReptile 2y ago
  Trump 45 never got off the ground because he just tried to pick the smartest generals, who in turn disagreed with him on many things and eventually broke with him. Republican legislature is similarly undisciplined. On Democrat agendas, a single senator will defect during important bills. When Republicans have control, some random Rep stages a coup against the leadership. I think they're realizing that you don't win at party politics by failing to have a party, and the party is more than just cheerleaders and fundraising. They're clearly not done consolidating power yet, considering the withdrawal of Gaetz and the lingering of a few impeachment representatives. Hopefully what he gains in consistency and teamwork isn't totally overshadowed by the fact that his loyal people are, in many cases, not longtime government officials.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  It used to be the status quo, before the civil service reforms ~1875.
  - wyldfire 2y ago
    Ah, yes - let's make it great again. Like it was in 1875!
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Thanks for your comment, it led me to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_reform_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_reform_in_the_..., which I think gives a very good overview of the history of civil service reforms in the US.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      I went down a rabbit hole on the history of the US civil service, after reading a Teddy Roosevelt biography. It was surprising to see just how corrupt/archaic the then system was, by modern standards. But yet the country still functioned. My takeaway was that the existence of the civil service at all, rather than its particular virtue, dominated value. There's benefit from even a pretty corrupt one!
PKop 2y ago
I don't want independent agencies. I want agencies with accountability to the voters through their elected representatives. What you describe is madness. Government bureaucrats that aren't elected, cannot be fired by the people, and... outside the power of the president who is supposed to be in charge of the executive branch? What kind of government is this? Not democracy.
- guhidalg 2y ago
  All US government agencies are created through congress, by your elected representatives. It is the executive branch (the president, who is also elected) that is then responsible for carrying out the agency's mission. All the high-level government bureaucrats are confirmed by the senate, all elected officials. If a president dismisses them, the senate has to confirm their replacement. This kind of government is described in the US constitution.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    This is a disingenuous take. The agencies as they currently function (creating rules) isn't "described in the US constitution". We got here via a combination of practice, legislation and court decisions over decades and decades and decades. And recently court cases are swinging back against the power of the agencies.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      It has always been the responsibility of agencies to implement the strategic objectives passed by Congress i.e. create the rules. It is not reasonable nor sensible for Congress to shift towards defining in minutiae every detail about how the laws should be implemented. Which are then locked in stone until a new bill is passed. Or not passed as in the case with Congress these days. Because as we've seen time and time again innocent mistakes will be made and you want them rectified as quickly and easily as possible.
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
danielmarkbruce 2y ago
Trump was elected. The president is supposed to be the head of the administrative branch of the government. He has actually been quite straightforward about what he wants to do. If a country elects a bunch of bad eggs, it all falls over. There isn't a way around it.
- treyd 2y ago
  Let's hopw this whole federalism thing works out and states pick up the slack when the federal government can't.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    As far as the specifics against MSFT, I hope no one does anything. A company can choose to deal with MSFT or not, it's no mystery what they are signing up for. There are good alternatives.
MrHamburger 2y ago
You just described what was happening in 1950s in Eastern Europe when communism came to town and started purging every "evil capitalist pig". It has turned out that loyalty can't be exchanged for merit and all the countries slowly declined until 1990s when communism just imploded. But instead of paying ransoms, result would be concentration camp. We were calling them "Labor camps" because communism is not Nazism. However sign "Work to Freedom" was used on the entrance of such camps.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

This is what makes me so angry and sad. My objections to the incoming administration largely have nothing to do with policy (I may disagree with policies, but I think it's easy to have an honest disagreement about that, and many of the purported policies I can agree with), but it's that it's now completely overt that the number one qualification for political appointees is obsequious fealty. I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee. Paul Krugman (who I often disagree with) had a good article on how the rise of tariffs will be perfect for crony capitalism: the executive branch can't pick and choose who pays income taxes, but currently the executive branch has extremely wide latitude over tariffs, and especially, who gets exemptions. Watch as corporations line up to pledge allegiance in order to get tariff exemptions. I'm just completely at a loss at how this behavior, which would have been looked on with disgust on both sides of the political spectrum until very recently, is now so readily accepted.

sleepybrett 2y ago
> I mean, we're closing in on banana republic levels of overt corruption: the only thing that matters is bending the knee. my dude, we passed that in 2016
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  my dude, we passed that in 2008
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Why do you think that?
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I respectfully disagree. Sure, we may have been on our way, but I think the contrast between Jeff Sessions and Matt Gaetz/Pam Bondi really just shows how we're truly off the rails now. Jeff Sessions appropriately recused himself from investigations into the Trump campaign, because 8 years ago we still expected the Justice Department to act impartially. In doing that, Sessions got nothing but the deep ire of Trump, solely because he wasn't willing to act as the President's personal lawyer. Now, though, both Gaetz and Bondi have basically fallen over backward saying they'll do whatever Trump asks. The only reason Gaetz wasn't confirmed wasn't because he said flatly that he would weaponize the Justice department, but it was because he's basically loathed by everyone on Capitol Hill (IMO the sex and drug allegations were more of a convenient out to not confirm him rather than the true reason for his withdrawal). The current situation is completely without precedent in my lifetime.
QuarterReptile 2y ago
Trump 45 never got off the ground because he just tried to pick the smartest generals, who in turn disagreed with him on many things and eventually broke with him. Republican legislature is similarly undisciplined. On Democrat agendas, a single senator will defect during important bills. When Republicans have control, some random Rep stages a coup against the leadership. I think they're realizing that you don't win at party politics by failing to have a party, and the party is more than just cheerleaders and fundraising. They're clearly not done consolidating power yet, considering the withdrawal of Gaetz and the lingering of a few impeachment representatives. Hopefully what he gains in consistency and teamwork isn't totally overshadowed by the fact that his loyal people are, in many cases, not longtime government officials.
ethbr1 2y ago
It used to be the status quo, before the civil service reforms ~1875.
- wyldfire 2y ago
  Ah, yes - let's make it great again. Like it was in 1875!
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Thanks for your comment, it led me to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_reform_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_reform_in_the_..., which I think gives a very good overview of the history of civil service reforms in the US.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    I went down a rabbit hole on the history of the US civil service, after reading a Teddy Roosevelt biography. It was surprising to see just how corrupt/archaic the then system was, by modern standards. But yet the country still functioned. My takeaway was that the existence of the civil service at all, rather than its particular virtue, dominated value. There's benefit from even a pretty corrupt one!

PKop 2y ago

I don't want independent agencies. I want agencies with accountability to the voters through their elected representatives. What you describe is madness. Government bureaucrats that aren't elected, cannot be fired by the people, and... outside the power of the president who is supposed to be in charge of the executive branch? What kind of government is this? Not democracy.

guhidalg 2y ago
All US government agencies are created through congress, by your elected representatives. It is the executive branch (the president, who is also elected) that is then responsible for carrying out the agency's mission. All the high-level government bureaucrats are confirmed by the senate, all elected officials. If a president dismisses them, the senate has to confirm their replacement. This kind of government is described in the US constitution.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  This is a disingenuous take. The agencies as they currently function (creating rules) isn't "described in the US constitution". We got here via a combination of practice, legislation and court decisions over decades and decades and decades. And recently court cases are swinging back against the power of the agencies.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    It has always been the responsibility of agencies to implement the strategic objectives passed by Congress i.e. create the rules. It is not reasonable nor sensible for Congress to shift towards defining in minutiae every detail about how the laws should be implemented. Which are then locked in stone until a new bill is passed. Or not passed as in the case with Congress these days. Because as we've seen time and time again innocent mistakes will be made and you want them rectified as quickly and easily as possible.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

Trump was elected. The president is supposed to be the head of the administrative branch of the government. He has actually been quite straightforward about what he wants to do. If a country elects a bunch of bad eggs, it all falls over. There isn't a way around it.

treyd 2y ago
Let's hopw this whole federalism thing works out and states pick up the slack when the federal government can't.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  As far as the specifics against MSFT, I hope no one does anything. A company can choose to deal with MSFT or not, it's no mystery what they are signing up for. There are good alternatives.

MrHamburger 2y ago

You just described what was happening in 1950s in Eastern Europe when communism came to town and started purging every "evil capitalist pig". It has turned out that loyalty can't be exchanged for merit and all the countries slowly declined until 1990s when communism just imploded. But instead of paying ransoms, result would be concentration camp. We were calling them "Labor camps" because communism is not Nazism. However sign "Work to Freedom" was used on the entrance of such camps.