3 ms·

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 hav

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
      They aren't ruling. Pushing back against bad policies is not ruling. Nor is it a religion. You're clearly American. The American founding fathers wanted to avoid tyranny of the majority. That is clear. Civil servants pushing back is exactly that! No, it's not documented in the Federalist papers but the world is a lot more complicated than the 18th century.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        The founding fathers wanted to prevent tyranny of the majority when it came to individual rights. And they created a very specific system for doing that: specific rights that could be vindicated in the judicial branch. What they didn’t do was empower an unelected, unappointed bureaucracy to have any role in that. And they certainly did not extend that concept to government policies of general application—the “guns versus butter” tradeoffs that governments must make. If a candidate wins the election promising more guns and less butter, the only job of the civil service is to make that happen. And there hasn’t been any material change since the 18th century. There were fierce debates over policies back in the 1700s, including some of the same debates we’re having today, like over tariffs. The federal government already had thousands of employees even during Jefferson’s time in 1802. Nobody imagined that those employees would have anything more than a ministerial role carrying out the agenda of the elected President. And yes, the only way to describe what you’re seeing among federal employees today is a religion. I’m in DC. Some people—and again to be clear it’s a minority—are literally crying over changes in government policies related to immigration, defriending people based on who they voted for, etc. These are not detached professionals who deserve the public trust. They’re religious nuts who believe they have the moral high ground and that gives them the right to override the constitutional design.

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
    They aren't ruling. Pushing back against bad policies is not ruling. Nor is it a religion. You're clearly American. The American founding fathers wanted to avoid tyranny of the majority. That is clear. Civil servants pushing back is exactly that! No, it's not documented in the Federalist papers but the world is a lot more complicated than the 18th century.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      The founding fathers wanted to prevent tyranny of the majority when it came to individual rights. And they created a very specific system for doing that: specific rights that could be vindicated in the judicial branch. What they didn’t do was empower an unelected, unappointed bureaucracy to have any role in that. And they certainly did not extend that concept to government policies of general application—the “guns versus butter” tradeoffs that governments must make. If a candidate wins the election promising more guns and less butter, the only job of the civil service is to make that happen. And there hasn’t been any material change since the 18th century. There were fierce debates over policies back in the 1700s, including some of the same debates we’re having today, like over tariffs. The federal government already had thousands of employees even during Jefferson’s time in 1802. Nobody imagined that those employees would have anything more than a ministerial role carrying out the agenda of the elected President. And yes, the only way to describe what you’re seeing among federal employees today is a religion. I’m in DC. Some people—and again to be clear it’s a minority—are literally crying over changes in government policies related to immigration, defriending people based on who they voted for, etc. These are not detached professionals who deserve the public trust. They’re religious nuts who believe they have the moral high ground and that gives them the right to override the constitutional design.