5 ms·

DOGE has shown how screwed up the balance between the 3 branches has gotten. The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated department

DOGE has shown how screwed up the balance between the 3 branches has gotten. The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated departments/employees, obviously. The executive should not be able to authorize drone strikes/war without congressional hearings (which has been occurring for decades at this point) etc.

alistairSH 2y ago
That ignores the history of how the government came to be run by a class of largely apolitical, professional bureaucrats. The government used to turn over almost entirely with each administration. This wasn't good - the loss of institutional knowledge was largely thought to be harmful. So, the country decided to protect many of the bureaucrats, with only the top tier being political appointees.
- diogocp 2y ago
  Well, the problem is that they are not "largely apolitical". They should be, but if they aren't, and if they are incapable of faithfully executing orders that go against their political preferences, they should be fired. The loss of institutional knowledge is unfortunate, but the loss of democratic control over the bureaucracy is unacceptable.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Except that's largely not true - government agencies always (with very rare exception) implement the will of Congress, as directed by the President. Never (in modern times) have rank-and-file government employees been required to pledge fealty to the president (vs the Constitution). That's happening now. Never (in modern times) has the President purged massive swaths of agencies with whom he's had run-ins in the past (DoJ, FBI, etc). Or, in the case of USAID, it's Musk taking revenge because they had the nerve to investigate Starling outages over Ukraine. Much of what we're seeing today is petty revenge.
    - diogocp 2y ago
      > Except that's largely not true - government agencies always (with very rare exception) implement the will of Congress, as directed by the President. That was indeed the norm. When Trump became President in 2017, things changed. It became politically acceptable to be political. [1] I don't know why things changed. It coincided with a period of increasing political polarization, but some of it can only be described as Trump derangement syndrome. What is clear is that things did change, and dramatically so. Unelected bureaucrats came to believe that their understanding of "the national interest" superseeded that of the elected President, and that that justified not just dissent, but insubordination and sabotage. Democracy cannot work like this. What is happening now is the logical consequence of the short-sighted actions of these people 4-8 years ago. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house... / archived: https://archive.ph/jROnq https://archive.ph/jROnq
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        > It became politically acceptable to be political. [1] Miles Taylor was a political appointee, not a nonpartisan career federal employee.
- LastTrain 2y ago
  What do you mean by "The government" and "used to" here?
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    The executive branch.
    - LastTrain 2y ago
      How much of and what parts of the executive branch would turn over, and to what period are you referring?
      - alistairSH 2y ago
        The big change followed the Pendleton Act (passed following the assassination of Garfield by an upset donor). 1880s, with a steadily increasing percentage of professional bureaucrats (vs donors/friends) ever since.
        LastTrain 2y ago
        OK. That only speaks to the fact that the government has grown. Your original point was about turnover. What I am driving at is surely, even going all the way back to 1880, mean that rank and file federal employees, until recently, turned over with every change in administration. Because that is what we’re talking about, not cabinet members or appointed positions.
        alistairSH 2y ago
        I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make? Prior to the 1880s, most of the government turned over with each administration. There largely was not a career bureaucratic class. Between the ending of patronage and the growth of the government, we collectively have added more protections for rank and file bureaucrats in order to keep stability. Trump and Musk are upending that tradition. The first post asserted Trump is within his rights to recompose the entire government as he sees fit. That simply isn’t true and ignores how we got here.
Volundr 2y ago
> The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated departments/employees, obviously. I don't actually see why this is obvious. Firing employees, sure, good amount of leeway there, but I fail to see why an executive should "obviously" be able to remove or hamstring a department that the legislature has passed a law creating. The entire job of the executive is to "execute" on the agenda passed by the legislature. Removing or interfering with departments doing their job is the opposite of that.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated departments/employees, obviously. The executive has that power—with legal constraints on the how and in what circumstances it can be used. These constraints exist, in large part, because of widespread corruption and abuse before they existed, when executive branch positions top to bottom were both sold corruptly and used as currency to buy favors. (They also exist because of the fundamentl role of the executive is to execute laws; policy primacy rests in the legislature, and if it determines and puts in law that a department is to exist and serve a function, then the President’s job is to make sure that happens, not overturn it because he has other preferences.) It is not an “imbalance” that the US is not set up as an executive dictatorship with an advisory legislature where Congress can pass laws but the executive branch is free not to execute them if it has other preferences.

alistairSH 2y ago

That ignores the history of how the government came to be run by a class of largely apolitical, professional bureaucrats. The government used to turn over almost entirely with each administration. This wasn't good - the loss of institutional knowledge was largely thought to be harmful. So, the country decided to protect many of the bureaucrats, with only the top tier being political appointees.

diogocp 2y ago
Well, the problem is that they are not "largely apolitical". They should be, but if they aren't, and if they are incapable of faithfully executing orders that go against their political preferences, they should be fired. The loss of institutional knowledge is unfortunate, but the loss of democratic control over the bureaucracy is unacceptable.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Except that's largely not true - government agencies always (with very rare exception) implement the will of Congress, as directed by the President. Never (in modern times) have rank-and-file government employees been required to pledge fealty to the president (vs the Constitution). That's happening now. Never (in modern times) has the President purged massive swaths of agencies with whom he's had run-ins in the past (DoJ, FBI, etc). Or, in the case of USAID, it's Musk taking revenge because they had the nerve to investigate Starling outages over Ukraine. Much of what we're seeing today is petty revenge.
  - diogocp 2y ago
    > Except that's largely not true - government agencies always (with very rare exception) implement the will of Congress, as directed by the President. That was indeed the norm. When Trump became President in 2017, things changed. It became politically acceptable to be political. [1] I don't know why things changed. It coincided with a period of increasing political polarization, but some of it can only be described as Trump derangement syndrome. What is clear is that things did change, and dramatically so. Unelected bureaucrats came to believe that their understanding of "the national interest" superseeded that of the elected President, and that that justified not just dissent, but insubordination and sabotage. Democracy cannot work like this. What is happening now is the logical consequence of the short-sighted actions of these people 4-8 years ago. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house... / archived: https://archive.ph/jROnq https://archive.ph/jROnq
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      > It became politically acceptable to be political. [1] Miles Taylor was a political appointee, not a nonpartisan career federal employee.
LastTrain 2y ago
What do you mean by "The government" and "used to" here?
- alistairSH 2y ago
  The executive branch.
  - LastTrain 2y ago
    How much of and what parts of the executive branch would turn over, and to what period are you referring?
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      The big change followed the Pendleton Act (passed following the assassination of Garfield by an upset donor). 1880s, with a steadily increasing percentage of professional bureaucrats (vs donors/friends) ever since.
      - LastTrain 2y ago
        OK. That only speaks to the fact that the government has grown. Your original point was about turnover. What I am driving at is surely, even going all the way back to 1880, mean that rank and file federal employees, until recently, turned over with every change in administration. Because that is what we’re talking about, not cabinet members or appointed positions.
        alistairSH 2y ago
        I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make? Prior to the 1880s, most of the government turned over with each administration. There largely was not a career bureaucratic class. Between the ending of patronage and the growth of the government, we collectively have added more protections for rank and file bureaucrats in order to keep stability. Trump and Musk are upending that tradition. The first post asserted Trump is within his rights to recompose the entire government as he sees fit. That simply isn’t true and ignores how we got here.

Volundr 2y ago

> The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated departments/employees, obviously. I don't actually see why this is obvious. Firing employees, sure, good amount of leeway there, but I fail to see why an executive should "obviously" be able to remove or hamstring a department that the legislature has passed a law creating. The entire job of the executive is to "execute" on the agenda passed by the legislature. Removing or interfering with departments doing their job is the opposite of that.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated departments/employees, obviously. The executive has that power—with legal constraints on the how and in what circumstances it can be used. These constraints exist, in large part, because of widespread corruption and abuse before they existed, when executive branch positions top to bottom were both sold corruptly and used as currency to buy favors. (They also exist because of the fundamentl role of the executive is to execute laws; policy primacy rests in the legislature, and if it determines and puts in law that a department is to exist and serve a function, then the President’s job is to make sure that happens, not overturn it because he has other preferences.) It is not an “imbalance” that the US is not set up as an executive dictatorship with an advisory legislature where Congress can pass laws but the executive branch is free not to execute them if it has other preferences.