3 ms·

> Executive branch employees should have no ability to resist or frustrate those changes. Yes, they should. Unless you believe that it's so easy to run the gov

by SR2Z 2y ago

> Executive branch employees should have no ability to resist or frustrate those changes. Yes, they should. Unless you believe that it's so easy to run the government that you can replace all the workers every four years (doubtful at best), you need to keep these people in their roles. It doesn't matter what the Constitution theorizes; the simple truth is that an advanced country needs career civil servants capable of thinking for themselves. That inherently means they will loudly disagree if they think the president is doing something stupid.

rayiner 2y ago
Sorry, no. The constitution matters and democracy matters. We do not have a system of governance by credentialed technocrats. Those people are absolutely necessary. But they must abide by democratic values. Their job is to put their talents to work implementing the agenda of the guy people elected to set policies, no matter who wins. It’s like a lawyer representing a client. You owe the voting public—through the president duly elected to represent it—zealously advocacy, regardless of your personal opinions. It is unconscionable to have a system where the federal workforce enthusiastically implements the policies of the president from one party, but hinders the policies of the other. And to be clear, I don’t think most federal employees think this way. I think most federal employees, especially the old school ones, see it as their duty to do their job the best they can regardless of who sets the policy. So I was shocked and upset by what I saw in 2017. Not just that a vocal minority of federal employees declared they were bad at their jobs and disloyal to the duly elected president. But moreso because the silent majority of good federal employees stood quiet and didn’t say anything.
- goosedragons 2y ago
  Okay. And what if those policies actively hurt people and do more damage than good? Should they just give in? When does it stop? When can they say no? Only when a judge explicitly says it's illegal despite it obviously being illegal?
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The whole point of democracy is to have a way for people who don’t agree on what’s “good” or not to live together and make collective decisions. You completely throw that away if you allow federal employees to substitute their own judgment and value system for those of voters. That’s absolutely corrosive to democracy. And remember the Resistance wasn’t about things that were “obviously illegal.” It was federal workers trying to frustrate immigration and environmental policies they disagreed with. That’s simply way out of the proper lane.
    - goosedragons 2y ago
      No you don't. Civil servants disagreeing with stupid policy or malicious policy is a feature. It says the policy is bad, full stop. Civil servants generally have more knowledge about what they do and are doing than elected leaders. It's just a consequence of working in it. Blind yes men is corrosive to democracy.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Show me where in the federalist papers it says that civil servants can frustrate policies they think are “stupid.” What you’re talking about is full mask-off “people should be governed by their betters” technocracy.
        dttze 2y ago
        No one cares about the federalist papers.
        rayiner 2y ago
        I’m beginning to see that. “Ruled by credentialed technocrats” seems to have become the civic religion that has replaced it.
        goosedragons 2y ago
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Again, this is the law and their job. See 'The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946' which prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and the multitude of case law around it over the last 70 years.
- Wololooo 2y ago
  I will give you a little thing to read that might shed another light on the issue, which runs deeper than just doing what you are told https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/how-and-why/why/radicalisation-of-nazi-administration/ https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/how-and-why/why/radica... This is why people actually speaking out about swooping changes in their administration is important. I find it very odd that you find that upholding democracy matters, even if it means to enact and act on behalf on people that are actively dismantling it or have a proven track record at effectively ignoring the popular vote, which since you are a fervent democratic believer, I am guessing you are also against various different problems such as: gerrymandering, purging voters of certain groups from the ballots, attempting to manipulate election results and even in some case ignoring the popular vote altogether in a more than dodgy manner (see this description of the 2000 election https://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/pomper.htm https://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/pomper.htm ) This is without counting that an important number of members of the current administration, refused to acknowledge January 6 or admit that the previous administration was indeed legitimate... So yes people should do their jobs, but should be held to standards, even a soldier is bound by the oath to the constitution, as does everyone appointed to a Federal position: "An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." Again you pledge not to the administration but to the institution and the constitution, so I do not think your point do really stand here.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    You don’t get to take away power from voters and give it to civil servants by waving your hands about the Holocaust. Yes, there is a line when a civil servant has to decline to follow orders. But the line is way over there. Obama blew up plenty of Muslim weddings and I think that the UAV operator was correct to follow those orders. Look at the Blusky group linked here. What holocaust is the national park service “Resistance Team” preventing? You’re invoking the Holocaust to justify defying the duly elected president’s policy choices on legitimate political issues: the environment, immigration, etc. And Trump won the popular vote.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  Trump has the power to fire them! Even if I accepted your premise, he still can't require their personal loyalty. Their job is to do what they were hired to do, not swear fealty to the president. There is a reason why some positions are political and some are career - it's because you do in fact need "credentialed technocrats" if you're trying to run a developed country in the 21st century.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    You do need credentialed technocrats to run a country. But the whole premise of “non-political technocrats” is that they do the job they’re hired to do regardless of their political views. Democracy can’t work if non-political appointees feel licensed to put a thumb on the scale of their preferred party. That’s what was happening in the 2017 resistance.
    - SR2Z 2y ago
      > But the whole premise of “non-political technocrats” is that they do the job they’re hired to do regardless of their political views. What if their job is against the whims of an administration working in direct opposition to the laws passed by Congress? Musk has attempted to shut down USAID, which is a Congressionally mandated agency. Are you still going to call it "putting a thumb on the scale of their preferred party" when the employees inevitably resist this? There is a spectrum. An FCC employee tasked with ensuring a device won't emit interference can easily do their job with very little reference to politics! But an FCC employee tasked with ensuring free and fair access to broadcast licenses now no longer can, because Donald Trump has put HIS hand on the scale in opposition to the law and Constitution. The executive branch is not allowed to ignore a law passed by Congress, only interpret it in good faith. This is written into the Constitution (the part that goes "shall faithfully execute"). This means that executive branch employees disobeying the president in accordance with US law are in fact working within the system. If your suggestion is that in such a case they should kowtow to the president, you are deluding yourself. That is not democracy; Congress is the voice of the people and are the only federal lawmakers. If the GOP would like to use their majority to undo existing laws, great! They actually have to vote and go through the motions instead of handwaving it away as executive privilege. Historically, this has not worked very well for them - it turns out that a platform of "tear it all down" works a lot better in on the campaign trail than in practice and they've been unable to repeal laws because they simply could not come up with a replacement.
- loeg 2y ago
  > The constitution matters and democracy matters. This is pretty ironic in defense of Trump's actions here. He's initiating multiple constitutional crises.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The constitutional crisis started in 2017 when the unelected civil service declared “Resistance” to the elected President’s policies. That goes to the heart of whether the executive branch—the largest and most powerful branch today, to which Congress has unwisely abdicated much of its constitutional authority—is under democratic control. Whatever arguments people have about whether the President can stop payment on block grants versus earmarks are trifles in comparison.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      So... Where do you stand on the 2nd Amendment on gun control, and why? (Yes, trust me, it is relevant.)
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  Those "credentialed technocrats" are implementing the laws, as written by the Congress of the United States of America. The President is supposed to execute the laws that Congress passes, and to spend money as Congress appropriates it. He does not have carte blanche to do whatever he would like with the Federal government. There are some areas where the President has more freedom of action (like foreign policy), but when it comes to administering government, he is not all-powerful.

by SR2Z 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

Sorry, no. The constitution matters and democracy matters. We do not have a system of governance by credentialed technocrats. Those people are absolutely necessary. But they must abide by democratic values. Their job is to put their talents to work implementing the agenda of the guy people elected to set policies, no matter who wins. It’s like a lawyer representing a client. You owe the voting public—through the president duly elected to represent it—zealously advocacy, regardless of your personal opinions. It is unconscionable to have a system where the federal workforce enthusiastically implements the policies of the president from one party, but hinders the policies of the other. And to be clear, I don’t think most federal employees think this way. I think most federal employees, especially the old school ones, see it as their duty to do their job the best they can regardless of who sets the policy. So I was shocked and upset by what I saw in 2017. Not just that a vocal minority of federal employees declared they were bad at their jobs and disloyal to the duly elected president. But moreso because the silent majority of good federal employees stood quiet and didn’t say anything.

goosedragons 2y ago
Okay. And what if those policies actively hurt people and do more damage than good? Should they just give in? When does it stop? When can they say no? Only when a judge explicitly says it's illegal despite it obviously being illegal?
- rayiner 2y ago
  The whole point of democracy is to have a way for people who don’t agree on what’s “good” or not to live together and make collective decisions. You completely throw that away if you allow federal employees to substitute their own judgment and value system for those of voters. That’s absolutely corrosive to democracy. And remember the Resistance wasn’t about things that were “obviously illegal.” It was federal workers trying to frustrate immigration and environmental policies they disagreed with. That’s simply way out of the proper lane.
  - goosedragons 2y ago
    No you don't. Civil servants disagreeing with stupid policy or malicious policy is a feature. It says the policy is bad, full stop. Civil servants generally have more knowledge about what they do and are doing than elected leaders. It's just a consequence of working in it. Blind yes men is corrosive to democracy.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Show me where in the federalist papers it says that civil servants can frustrate policies they think are “stupid.” What you’re talking about is full mask-off “people should be governed by their betters” technocracy.
      - dttze 2y ago
        No one cares about the federalist papers.
        rayiner 2y ago
        I’m beginning to see that. “Ruled by credentialed technocrats” seems to have become the civic religion that has replaced it.
        goosedragons 2y ago
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Again, this is the law and their job. See 'The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946' which prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and the multitude of case law around it over the last 70 years.
Wololooo 2y ago
I will give you a little thing to read that might shed another light on the issue, which runs deeper than just doing what you are told https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/how-and-why/why/radicalisation-of-nazi-administration/ https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/how-and-why/why/radica... This is why people actually speaking out about swooping changes in their administration is important. I find it very odd that you find that upholding democracy matters, even if it means to enact and act on behalf on people that are actively dismantling it or have a proven track record at effectively ignoring the popular vote, which since you are a fervent democratic believer, I am guessing you are also against various different problems such as: gerrymandering, purging voters of certain groups from the ballots, attempting to manipulate election results and even in some case ignoring the popular vote altogether in a more than dodgy manner (see this description of the 2000 election https://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/pomper.htm https://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/pomper.htm ) This is without counting that an important number of members of the current administration, refused to acknowledge January 6 or admit that the previous administration was indeed legitimate... So yes people should do their jobs, but should be held to standards, even a soldier is bound by the oath to the constitution, as does everyone appointed to a Federal position: "An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." Again you pledge not to the administration but to the institution and the constitution, so I do not think your point do really stand here.
- rayiner 2y ago
  You don’t get to take away power from voters and give it to civil servants by waving your hands about the Holocaust. Yes, there is a line when a civil servant has to decline to follow orders. But the line is way over there. Obama blew up plenty of Muslim weddings and I think that the UAV operator was correct to follow those orders. Look at the Blusky group linked here. What holocaust is the national park service “Resistance Team” preventing? You’re invoking the Holocaust to justify defying the duly elected president’s policy choices on legitimate political issues: the environment, immigration, etc. And Trump won the popular vote.
SR2Z 2y ago
Trump has the power to fire them! Even if I accepted your premise, he still can't require their personal loyalty. Their job is to do what they were hired to do, not swear fealty to the president. There is a reason why some positions are political and some are career - it's because you do in fact need "credentialed technocrats" if you're trying to run a developed country in the 21st century.
- rayiner 2y ago
  You do need credentialed technocrats to run a country. But the whole premise of “non-political technocrats” is that they do the job they’re hired to do regardless of their political views. Democracy can’t work if non-political appointees feel licensed to put a thumb on the scale of their preferred party. That’s what was happening in the 2017 resistance.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    > But the whole premise of “non-political technocrats” is that they do the job they’re hired to do regardless of their political views. What if their job is against the whims of an administration working in direct opposition to the laws passed by Congress? Musk has attempted to shut down USAID, which is a Congressionally mandated agency. Are you still going to call it "putting a thumb on the scale of their preferred party" when the employees inevitably resist this? There is a spectrum. An FCC employee tasked with ensuring a device won't emit interference can easily do their job with very little reference to politics! But an FCC employee tasked with ensuring free and fair access to broadcast licenses now no longer can, because Donald Trump has put HIS hand on the scale in opposition to the law and Constitution. The executive branch is not allowed to ignore a law passed by Congress, only interpret it in good faith. This is written into the Constitution (the part that goes "shall faithfully execute"). This means that executive branch employees disobeying the president in accordance with US law are in fact working within the system. If your suggestion is that in such a case they should kowtow to the president, you are deluding yourself. That is not democracy; Congress is the voice of the people and are the only federal lawmakers. If the GOP would like to use their majority to undo existing laws, great! They actually have to vote and go through the motions instead of handwaving it away as executive privilege. Historically, this has not worked very well for them - it turns out that a platform of "tear it all down" works a lot better in on the campaign trail than in practice and they've been unable to repeal laws because they simply could not come up with a replacement.
loeg 2y ago
> The constitution matters and democracy matters. This is pretty ironic in defense of Trump's actions here. He's initiating multiple constitutional crises.
- rayiner 2y ago
  The constitutional crisis started in 2017 when the unelected civil service declared “Resistance” to the elected President’s policies. That goes to the heart of whether the executive branch—the largest and most powerful branch today, to which Congress has unwisely abdicated much of its constitutional authority—is under democratic control. Whatever arguments people have about whether the President can stop payment on block grants versus earmarks are trifles in comparison.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    So... Where do you stand on the 2nd Amendment on gun control, and why? (Yes, trust me, it is relevant.)
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
Those "credentialed technocrats" are implementing the laws, as written by the Congress of the United States of America. The President is supposed to execute the laws that Congress passes, and to spend money as Congress appropriates it. He does not have carte blanche to do whatever he would like with the Federal government. There are some areas where the President has more freedom of action (like foreign policy), but when it comes to administering government, he is not all-powerful.