Trump Regime proves why we NEED a "Deep State"

ChristianProgressive

Master Poster
C
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
2,860
The absolute impotence of the FBI under Barr and the fact that the most damning testimony against Trump on Ukraine has come from career bureaucrats inside the government just goes to show why having a buraucracy utterly divorced from elections and politics is vital to the functioning of a free society.

Discuss.
 
During this whole Trump debacle I often thought about a song from They Might Be Giants...

Where's The Shadow Government When You Need It?

 
No. No. A thousand time no. Absolutely no.

I'm not gonna spend the rest of my life either under Trump's heal or under the heal of "We have to do to this to prevent another Trump."
 
It's been said before, but Trump has never been a CEO, answerable to a Board of Directors. He's trying to run the country like one of his companies, so he thinks that he's the absolute authority and every single person in the government works directly for him, answers to him, and has to either show total loyalty to him or get out.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No. No. A thousand time no. Absolutely no.

I'm not gonna spend the rest of my life either under Trump's heal or under the heal of "We have to do to this to prevent another Trump."
Click to expand...

Heel*

Also, the rest of your life? How old are you? Trump's only here until 2024 at the most.

Also, what's wrong with living under the heel of "we have to do term limits to prevent another Trump"?
 
As usual, US debate suffers from a desperate need to boil everything down to a dichotomy.

Trump isn't fighting against any kind of organized resistance within the Bureaucracy - he is fighting against Experts.
If all the experts disagree with you, it requires a certain kind of victim mentality to assume that you are the only one who is correct.
 
If by "Deep State" you mean "career bureaucrats" - which is apparently what it means in reality - then yes, it is needed. Professionals who know how to follow a set of rules and who's motivation at work is to help the country function.
 
Last edited:
It is entirely unreasonable to put the burden of stopping a power-hungry administration on career bureaucrats.
We need better whistle-blower protection in order to make it harder for this kind of abuse to go undetected.
 
I'm not a fan of bureaucracy but I've certainly known some excellent bureaucrats who are competent and generally better-informed than many (most?) elected officials. They tend to have a more long-term perspective than politicians. My experience has been with engineers and land-use planners. I don't know really know any diplomats but I'm sure there's a lot of expertise there. Trump targeted the State Department for deep cuts, maybe to have a less oversight of his own machinations. I'll bet he's been dumping on Pompeo for having people who don't grovel at Trump's feet.

I can't say for a fact that all diplomats are models of integrity. I'm sure some of them have their own little fiefdoms to protect. I would certainly trust them over Trump but I do know we also have to have elected officials answerable to voters. I'd feel better about that if more people voted and took it seriously enough to educate themselves and actually vote.
 
it is, of course bonkers to hand out Ambassadorships according to campaign donations;
the fact that it is done anyway shows how much work the career diplomats are doing to pick up the slag.
 
As a career government employee, I'm torn on this. On the one hand, yes, we should ultimately be subject to the orders of elected officials, because sometimes "the way we've always done it" is a problem, and they were elected to fix that problem. But on the other hand, I should also always have the right to tell them, "Doing it that way is a really stupid idea, and I'm not responsible for the outcome if you order me to do it that way anyways."

Basically, if you want to upset the apple cart, don't go blaming me when all your apples end up in the dirt.
 
Funny that a "Christian" "progressive" throws all this democratic stuff under the carpet and wants us longing back for the days when a king, preferably chosen by the god he wants us to believe in, ruled things. Comes as a total surprise.
 
Horatius said:
As a career government employee, I'm torn on this. On the one hand, yes, we should ultimately be subject to the orders of elected officials, because sometimes "the way we've always done it" is a problem, and they were elected to fix that problem. But on the other hand, I should also always have the right to tell them, "Doing it that way is a really stupid idea, and I'm not responsible for the outcome if you order me to do it that way anyways."

Basically, if you want to upset the apple cart, don't go blaming me when all your apples end up in the dirt.
Click to expand...

You don't seem torn on this. You seem firmly on the side of "do the job you're told to do, and if you think it's a bad idea, go ahead and call that out before doing it anyway."

To me, being "torn" on this issue would mean seeing the value of doing what's asked or resigning, but also seeing the value of secretly not doing what's asked "for the good of the nation". You don't seem to be torn between those two options.

Which is kind of a bummer, because the insights of a career government employee who saw value in secretly not doing what they've been asked would be a valuable contribution to any discussion of the "deep state".
 
JoeMorgue said:
No. No. A thousand time no. Absolutely no.

I'm not gonna spend the rest of my life either under Trump's heal or under the heal of "We have to do to this to prevent another Trump."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understood the OP's point.

A functioning, unelected bureaucracy is a good thing for a number of reasons, one of which is that it makes it difficult for out-of-control administrations to get their way.
 
theprestige said:
You don't seem torn on this. You seem firmly on the side of "do the job you're told to do, and if you think it's a bad idea, go ahead and call that out before doing it anyway."

To me, being "torn" on this issue would mean seeing the value of doing what's asked or resigning, but also seeing the value of secretly not doing what's asked "for the good of the nation". You don't seem to be torn between those two options.

Which is kind of a bummer, because the insights of a career government employee who saw value in secretly not doing what they've been asked would be a valuable contribution to any discussion of the "deep state".
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong Prestige. A career professional's job is to serve the country. And the country is a democratic republic with rules. A career professional's job is to serve the duly elected officials unless they are violating the laws/rules. Only then do they have an obligation to ignore the order. If Trump wants it done a different way, I should advise him why that may not be the best approach if that's my opinion. The boss may not always be right, but he's always the boss. Now if the career professional thinks it is wrong even if it might be legal, then he may have a duty to his own conscience. Then it might get complicated as to what you might do.
 
theprestige said:
Heel*

Also, the rest of your life? How old are you? Trump's only here until 2024 at the most.

Also, what's wrong with living under the heel of "we have to do term limits to prevent another Trump"?
Click to expand...

He hasn't respected any of our other laws...a lot of people (myself included) are skeptical he will respect the Constitution term limit.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Funny that a "Christian" "progressive" throws all this democratic stuff under the carpet and wants us longing back for the days when a king, preferably chosen by the god he wants us to believe in, ruled things. Comes as a total surprise.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with elections or kings. We NEED an untouchable bureaucracy that can't be captured or corrupted by whoever manages to claim (temporary) electoral supremacy.

Many European nations have such entirely apolitical systems in place. I will give an example of such "Deep State" agencies at work: the British OfComm bureau (responsible for media regulations much like the FCC here). It dropped the hammer on Fox news for pushing propaganda back in 2017. That is because OfComm is politically neutral. I don't see the FCC ever doing something like that. I think the US needs more of it.
 
Belz... said:
A functioning, unelected bureaucracy is a good thing for a number of reasons, one of which is that it makes it difficult for out-of-control administrations to get their way.
Click to expand...

I think we need to be very careful with our definitions here.

Is the "out-of-control administration" behaving in a reckless, stupid way? In which case the unelected bureaucracy should advise them but ultimately follow their directives.

or...

Is the "out-of-control administration" behaving in a criminal, unconstitutional way? In which case the unelected bureaucracy should respond by whistleblowing and perhaps attempting to subvert those policies which are blatantly unconstitutional.

Also, if you think an "out-of-control administration" is behaving in a criminal, unconstitutional way... are all of it's policies fair game for subversion, even the reckless and stupid (but probably legal) ones? (I'd say no, you have to limit 'la résistance' to fighting the things that are actually criminal).
 
acbytesla said:
I think you're wrong Prestige. A career professional's job is to serve the country. And the country is a democratic republic with rules. A career professional's job is to serve the duly elected officials unless they are violating the laws/rules. Only then do they have an obligation to ignore the order. If Trump wants it done a different way, I should advise him why that may not be the best approach if that's my opinion. The boss may not always be right, but he's always the boss. Now if the career professional thinks it is wrong even if it might be legal, then he may have a duty to his own conscience. Then it might get complicated as to what you might do.
Click to expand...

and when the elected officials appoint leaders of the bureaucracy specifically to prevent them from doing their job (Barr preventing DoJ from indicting Trump on his criminal acts) only goes to show why the bureaucracy should be totally seperate from the elected offices and their appointees.
 
Giz said:
Is the "out-of-control administration" behaving in a criminal, unconstitutional way? In which case the unelected bureaucracy should respond by whistleblowing and perhaps attempting to subvert those policies which are blatantly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I would prefer one with the authority and the balls to say "NO! This is criminal/ unconstitutional and I will NOT COMPLY. You, sir, are under arrest. THEN tell the public what happened and why.

Also, if you think an "out-of-control administration" is behaving in a criminal, unconstitutional way... are all of its policies fair game for subversion, even the reckless and stupid (but probably legal) ones? (I'd say no, you have to limit 'la résistance' to fighting the things that are actually criminal).
Click to expand...

Criminal in one area, potentially criminal in all.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
I would prefer one with the authority and the balls to say "NO! This is criminal/ unconstitutional and I will NOT COMPLY. You, sir, are under arrest. THEN tell the public what happened and why.
Click to expand...

Everyone has the authority to say no. Everyone has the authority to resign and tell the public why.

It's still not clear to me why it's so important that people say yes, then do the opposite, and tell the public nothing.
 
theprestige said:
Everyone has the authority to say no. Everyone has the authority to resign and tell the public why.

It's still not clear to me why it's so important that people say yes, then do the opposite, and tell the public nothing.
Click to expand...

why should they have to resign for doing their jobs? That's part of my point.
 
I see the GOPERS here continue to be totally blind to why Trump is a clear and present danger to Democracy in America.
And I think it is willful, deliberate blindness or maybe they secretly want America to become a one party authoritarian state...provided it's the rifht people in control.
 
A Deep State would undoubtedly undercut a peacenik. If a democratically elected president sought to reduce the military budget, surrender leverage over smaller countries, and withdraw troops, career bureaucrats would be leaking to the NYT and WaPo about how "national security" has been "imperiled" by a "know-nothing America-hater." A Deep State will exist regardless of who is president. Trump is currently butting up against due to his own corruption.
 
As I have said before

1. Term limits on Senate appointments such as judges and heads of departments. Appointees could serve longer that the term but would have to go back to the Senate for re-appointment to do so.

2. A Senate rule that forbids the use of the nuclear option for appointing the above, and would require a very large majority (say, over 3/4) for the nominee to pass appointment.

3. Remove the President's absolute power of pardon. He would only have the power to nominate a person for a pardon, and the Senate would need to agree by a 2/3 majority to ratify.

4. Remove the President's power to appoint people who have not been previously approved by the Senate, as Acting heads of Departments . In the absence of such an approved person, the Deputy Head of Department will automatically assume the role of Acting head of Department until the Senate can pass a replacement.

5. No family members of the President may be appointed to a White House staff position or a cabinet position unless approved by the Senate as per item 2 above.

These five things alone would have helped put a stop to the political back-door dealings, nepotism and corruption that has been going on in the Trump Administration
 
theprestige said:
Everyone has the authority to say no. Everyone has the authority to resign and tell the public why.
It's still not clear to me why it's so important that people say yes, then do the opposite, and tell the public nothing.
Click to expand...

These people are servants of, and owe their loyalty to the country and the constitution and to the people of the country, NOT the President. The oath they take is to defend their country and the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic... it is not a loyalty oath to Dear Leader, and nor should it even be,

I would consider the actions you suggest to be an abrogation of their responsibilities. This is why I was disappointed when Mattis chose to step down - your country needed him to stay and fight Trump.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not sure you understood the OP's point.

A functioning, unelected bureaucracy is a good thing for a number of reasons, one of which is that it makes it difficult for out-of-control administrations to get their way.
Click to expand...

It also helps to ensure that some level of experience and competence is retained. Before Civil Service laws were enacted, nearly all government jobs were awarded based on political patronage -- if you contributed money or time to the person who got elected president, you got rewarded with a government job. This meant that every time there was a new president, especially if from a different party than the previous president, a whole new batch of government employees had to learn their jobs from scratch.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
The absolute impotence of the FBI under Barr and the fact that the most damning testimony against Trump on Ukraine has come from career bureaucrats inside the government just goes to show why having a buraucracy utterly divorced from elections and politics is vital to the functioning of a free society.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

If you mean that the State Sector Departments are staffed with non-politically hired people who are sworn to protect the Constitution which implementing the policies of the Government, then yeah it's probably a good idea.

Here all Government State Sector jobs are filled via the State Services Commission, which is a non-partisan group. Being in these jobs, from the head of the department down, is done by non-partisan Career Civil Servants.

Seems to work pretty well, and year after year we are in the top 3 for transparency and lack of corruption in Government.
 
smartcooky said:
As I have said before

1. Term limits on Senate appointments such as judges and heads of departments. Appointees could serve longer that the term but would have to go back to the Senate for re-appointment to do so.

2. A Senate rule that forbids the use of the nuclear option for appointing the above, and would require a very large majority (say, over 3/4) for the nominee to pass appointment.

3. Remove the President's absolute power of pardon. He would only have the power to nominate a person for a pardon, and the Senate would need to agree by a 2/3 majority to ratify.

4. Remove the President's power to appoint people who have not been previously approved by the Senate, as Acting heads of Departments . In the absence of such an approved person, the Deputy Head of Department will automatically assume the role of Acting head of Department until the Senate can pass a replacement.

5. No family members of the President may be appointed to a White House staff position or a cabinet position unless approved by the Senate as per item 2 above.

These five things alone would have helped put a stop to the political back-door dealings, nepotism and corruption that has been going on in the Trump Administration
Click to expand...
Problem is all of the above would require a Constutional amendment, and those are not easy to get...two thirds of both houses of congress, followed by ratification of two thrids of the states.
 
smartcooky said:
These people are servants of, and owe their loyalty to the country and the constitution and to the people of the country, NOT the President. The oath they take is to defend their country and the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic... it is not a loyalty oath to Dear Leader, and nor should it even be,

I would consider the actions you suggest to be an abrogation of their responsibilities. This is why I was disappointed when Mattis chose to step down - your country needed him to stay and fight Trump.
Click to expand...

I think Mattis decided it was a losing battle...that Trump was ignoring him anyway.
I don't blame Mattis for quitting.
 
dudalb said:
Problem is all of the above would require a Constutional amendment, and those are not easy to get...two thirds of both houses of congress, followed by ratification of two thrids of the states.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, I am aware of that.

However the difficulty of getting them done does not make it any less important that these things, or some things like them, need to be done.

Over the last few decades, far too much power has been ceded to the executive branch.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
The absolute impotence of the FBI under Barr and the fact that the most damning testimony against Trump on Ukraine has come from career bureaucrats inside the government just goes to show why having a buraucracy utterly divorced from elections and politics is vital to the functioning of a free society.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

One good thing about the Trump Presidency is that it has revealed the true totalitarian nature of the Left. Red-pilled people were already aware of this, but Trump's Presidency has unmasked the Left for many normies.

George Orwell's 1984 was meant as a warning to future generations. But the Left does not see it as a warning but as a blueprint on how to on how to establish oligarchical rule. The machinations of the Deep State mirror what Orwell described as the Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism. So here we are, the anti-Democratic Left on full display.

The Great Zaganza said:
Trump isn't fighting against any kind of organized resistance within the Bureaucracy - he is fighting against Experts. If all the experts disagree with you, it requires a certain kind of victim mentality to assume that you are the only one who is correct.
Click to expand...

Who exactly are these experts and what are they experts in? How well did "experts" serve us in the Iraq War, in the Housing crash, the opioid epidemic, on urban policy, on foreign policy etc? It has been one disaster after another. The only thing these people are experts in is snake-oil salesmanship. They are good and deceiving and swindling people. I suppose this is a kind of expertise but it doesn't really benefit society.

Experts = BS vendors.

dudalb said:
I see the GOPERS here continue to be totally blind to why Trump is a clear and present danger to Democracy in America.
And I think it is willful, deliberate blindness or maybe they secretly want America to become a one party authoritarian state...provided it's the rifht people in control.
Click to expand...

Trump was elected to the Presidency in the same manner as every other President. But somehow it was only his election that is a threat to our "democracy". When the Left uses the term "democracy" today they don't mean it in the traditional sense. Democracy is just a catch-all term for a desirable form of government to them. When Communists took over countries they would often refer them as the People Republic of [Insert country name]. Anything called a People's Republic was likely a totalitarian system of government.

The above posts praising the Deep State and "experts" is an indication that the Left really favors collective oligarchy, not democracy.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
He hasn't respected any of our other laws...a lot of people (myself included) are skeptical he will respect the Constitution term limit.
Click to expand...

I've been hearing that one for literally EVER single administration since at least Reagan from the opposition party. Democrats said it about Reagan & both Bushes, Republicans said it about Clinton and Obama.

American politics are so ******* paranoid and hysterical when there's really very little de facto difference between the two major parties.
 
smartcooky said:
These people are servants of, and owe their loyalty to the country and the constitution and to the people of the country, NOT the President. The oath they take is to defend their country and the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic... it is not a loyalty oath to Dear Leader, and nor should it even be,

I would consider the actions you suggest to be an abrogation of their responsibilities. This is why I was disappointed when Mattis chose to step down - your country needed him to stay and fight Trump.
Click to expand...

Responsibility does not grant authority.

While they have an oath to the Constitution (responsibility) the Constitution is not a fount of authority for them. Executive authority is vested in a president, not any subordinate office. They really don't have independent authority to act contrary to a president's direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom