5 ms·

Other than a few top posts, our bureaucracy is non-partisan and doesn't change with the whims of the White House.

by saryant 11y ago

Solanaceae 11y ago
Human behavior is not precisely rational. Take Iraq as an example. Would you have predicted such things in 1999?
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  Conditional on a Republican presidency and some national disaster happening? Conditional on the son of the first Gulf War's President getting elected President? Some people were certainly speculating in that direction.
  - akgerber 11y ago
    As reflected in this classic Onion article of January 2001, "Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'" http://www.theonion.com/article/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros-464 http://www.theonion.com/article/bush-our-long-national-night... "During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years."
foxhedgehog 11y ago
This is demonstrably untrue.
electronvolt 11y ago
Yes and no. You are true that the bureaucracy is non-partisan and bureaucrats are not necessarily beholden to political leaders or process. However, leadership (in a company, in a country, whatever) will set the priorities and tone of any group under them. Even if that leadership is in some ways going against the current of the bureaucracy, it's certainly possible for a dynamic leader (or group of leaders) to change the direction of an organization. And if there's one thing most people in politics must be exceptionally good at, it's getting people to agree that their plan or policies is the best plan or policies. There's also a lot of power in being able to say "These are the criteria upon which all of you will be evaluated for raises and promotions", too. I'd expect the US bureaucracy is a little more ossified than most large corporations, but not so much so that appointing leadership doesn't change the direction of the bureaucracy.

Other than a few top posts, our bureaucracy is non-partisan and doesn't change with the whims of the White House.

by saryant 11y ago

Other than a few top posts, our bureaucracy is non-partisan and doesn't change with the whims of the White House.

Solanaceae 11y ago

Human behavior is not precisely rational. Take Iraq as an example. Would you have predicted such things in 1999?

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Conditional on a Republican presidency and some national disaster happening? Conditional on the son of the first Gulf War's President getting elected President? Some people were certainly speculating in that direction.
- akgerber 11y ago
  As reflected in this classic Onion article of January 2001, "Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'" http://www.theonion.com/article/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros-464 http://www.theonion.com/article/bush-our-long-national-night... "During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years."

foxhedgehog 11y ago

This is demonstrably untrue.

electronvolt 11y ago

Yes and no. You are true that the bureaucracy is non-partisan and bureaucrats are not necessarily beholden to political leaders or process. However, leadership (in a company, in a country, whatever) will set the priorities and tone of any group under them. Even if that leadership is in some ways going against the current of the bureaucracy, it's certainly possible for a dynamic leader (or group of leaders) to change the direction of an organization. And if there's one thing most people in politics must be exceptionally good at, it's getting people to agree that their plan or policies is the best plan or policies. There's also a lot of power in being able to say "These are the criteria upon which all of you will be evaluated for raises and promotions", too. I'd expect the US bureaucracy is a little more ossified than most large corporations, but not so much so that appointing leadership doesn't change the direction of the bureaucracy.