3 ms·
You don't need God's intervention. If you trust the scientific establishment to make decisions on how to allocate taxpayer dollars, then vote for an executive w
by rayiner 5mo ago
You don't need God's intervention. If you trust the scientific establishment to make decisions on how to allocate taxpayer dollars, then vote for an executive who promises to do that. Definitely don't vote for the guy who campaigned on taking discretion away from unelected bureaucrats.
- unclebucknasty 5mo agoMany of us did vote for sane ideas, like allowing scientists to make decisions about science. For instance, we knew RFK Jr would be a disaster and here we are, dealing with a resurgence of preventable diseases. In fact, "unelected bureaucrats" have been the key to whatever degree of success this democracy has enjoyed. Politicizing everything replaces non-partisan expertise with political loyalty and favoritism. It's a direct path to the destruction of critical institutions, undermining the public trust, and authoritarianism.
- decremental 5mo ago[dead]
- rayiner 5mo ago[flagged]
- InsideOutSanta 5mo agoYou start your comment with "False", but then fail to provide any actual evidence for why it's false.
- kelnos 5mo agoPerhaps if we'd had "unelected bureaucrats" in the 1800s, we would have done even better? Hard to say, really. We had all these "unelected bureaucrats" post-WWII, and we did quite well in the following decades. Scientists and academics fleeing the US is a new phenomenon, driven in no small part by these "unelected bureaucrats" being fired and replaced by political loyalists. While you're correct in saying that we had lots of success before the establishment of the administrative state, it doesn't then follow that we'd have more (or better) success by abolishing it now. It seems like the opposite is slowly becoming true.