4 ms·

The other problem -- despite the changing of the guard in the Executive branch -- other branches and workers stay the same.

SkyMarshal 13y ago
Exactly. I find it confounding how people are still attributing this stuff to Presidents when it should be obvious by now it's not the elected officials running this show. They're being led along by an entrenched bureaucracy with its own goals and agenda, no term limits, and with the ability to shape the world view and hence decisions of our elected officials by what information they choose to provide or withhold. Stop talking about this in terms of Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat. The problem transcends any one elected individual or even political party.
- bcoates 13y ago
  This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. The two of them have been a radical departure from previous administrations. Two presidencies does not make an immutable law of nature. Recent political events have demonstrated just how autonomous the President is, there is no reason to think there is some sort of hidden power at play here. If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law.
  - csallen 13y ago
    I understand your point, but I don't see any reason to believe it. It seems to me that it's in the NSA's (and every other gov't organization's) best interests to do everything in its power to increase its own reach and influence. It's naive to assume they are working against their own best interests unless you have some sort of evidence to back that up.
  - SkyMarshal 13y ago
    >This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. No, he ran on the exact opposite - being the anti-Bush. Maybe you saw through that are remembering what you perceived instead. And there's no "hidden power" in so far as the Federal bureaucracy is anything but hidden. Secretive maybe, but not hidden. >If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law. Agreed. That would be ideal. There are elements of it, but it's not universal.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Well let's be fair, they both ran on some part by being "not Bush". The GOP couldn't find a corner dusty enough to stick GWB in during that election cycle.
MartinCron 13y ago
That's not exactly a problem. Asynchronous turnover in the branches helps provide operational stability while still allowing for accountability by voting the bastards out. At least that's the theory.
Millennium 13y ago
It wasn't always this way, at least in the US. There was a time when many more high positions were appointed, and could be replaced by incoming administrations, though especially at first it didn't tend to happen all that often. But then certain figures got the idea that they could use government jobs as rewards for campaign support, and after a couple of decades of this, the "spoils system" (as it was called) was pretty much ruined for everybody.

SkyMarshal 13y ago

Exactly. I find it confounding how people are still attributing this stuff to Presidents when it should be obvious by now it's not the elected officials running this show. They're being led along by an entrenched bureaucracy with its own goals and agenda, no term limits, and with the ability to shape the world view and hence decisions of our elected officials by what information they choose to provide or withhold. Stop talking about this in terms of Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat. The problem transcends any one elected individual or even political party.

bcoates 13y ago
This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. The two of them have been a radical departure from previous administrations. Two presidencies does not make an immutable law of nature. Recent political events have demonstrated just how autonomous the President is, there is no reason to think there is some sort of hidden power at play here. If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law.
- csallen 13y ago
  I understand your point, but I don't see any reason to believe it. It seems to me that it's in the NSA's (and every other gov't organization's) best interests to do everything in its power to increase its own reach and influence. It's naive to assume they are working against their own best interests unless you have some sort of evidence to back that up.
- SkyMarshal 13y ago
  >This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. No, he ran on the exact opposite - being the anti-Bush. Maybe you saw through that are remembering what you perceived instead. And there's no "hidden power" in so far as the Federal bureaucracy is anything but hidden. Secretive maybe, but not hidden. >If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law. Agreed. That would be ideal. There are elements of it, but it's not universal.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well let's be fair, they both ran on some part by being "not Bush". The GOP couldn't find a corner dusty enough to stick GWB in during that election cycle.

MartinCron 13y ago

That's not exactly a problem. Asynchronous turnover in the branches helps provide operational stability while still allowing for accountability by voting the bastards out. At least that's the theory.

Millennium 13y ago

It wasn't always this way, at least in the US. There was a time when many more high positions were appointed, and could be replaced by incoming administrations, though especially at first it didn't tend to happen all that often. But then certain figures got the idea that they could use government jobs as rewards for campaign support, and after a couple of decades of this, the "spoils system" (as it was called) was pretty much ruined for everybody.