Comments on: The Permanent State vs. Democratic Government

By: Cleansing Diet

Cleansing Diet — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:27:08 +0000

Even if civil servants do agree to carry out explicit orders from their elected leaders, they still have vastly more influence than contemporary accounts of democratic theory assigns to them.

By: Personalized Address Labels

Personalized Address Labels — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:17:01 +0000

Are you saying any of these permanent civil service would refuse to carry out an order from their political masters?

By: Honey Cayenne Pepper Diet

Honey Cayenne Pepper Diet — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:11:59 +0000

The time to plan and debate is now. This is a test of our adulthood as a democracy. Washington, as long as our Chinese lenders enable it, can practice denial for a while longer. But for states the real world is about to arrive.

By: Lemonade diet

Lemonade diet — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:39:35 +0000

Jurgen Habermas spends a lot of time thinking about this problem in Between Facts and Norms, though I don't know if you consider Habermas a liberal political theorist.

By: Printable address labels

Printable address labels — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:34:20 +0000

Jurgen Habermas spends a lot of time thinking about this problem in Between Facts and Norms, though I don't know if you consider Habermas a liberal political theorist.

By: Printable Address Labels

Printable Address Labels — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:46:03 +0000

Another systemic problem.

Systemic failure is looking more and more likely for democracy. The only way democracy works is having solid leaders every so often who ignore the wants and whims 'of the people' and do what is right.

"Oh, you want free healthcare? Well isn't that special? I want it to rain candy too. How would you feel about being treated by a doctor whose salary was capped at 30k for the greater good? No, you wanted to be treated by someone who is paid well for their talents? Then no free healthcare, moron."

By: mk

mk — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:26:59 +0000

This is brilliant spam.

By: เครื่องสำอางเกาหลี

เครื่องสำอางเกาหลี — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:29:37 +0000

By: Etude House

Etude House — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:02:02 +0000

By: lemonadediet

lemonadediet — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:43:19 +0000

Even if civil servants do agree to carry out explicit orders from their elected leaders, they still have vastly more influence than contemporary accounts of democratic theory assigns to them.

By: korean fashion wholesale

korean fashion wholesale — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:15:08 +0000

By: Jeff Graver

Jeff Graver — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:02:02 +0000

"Is this a problem?" A really interesting question, to which I think the answer is "no", unless you constrain "liberal accounts" strictly to "consent of the governed", as Paul seems to suggest doing.

If we think of the elected/appointed as a "liberal" force, then we can think of the civil service as a "conservative" force (small 'c' - not talking about GOP here). It's basic tendency is to keep things running smoothly, as much like they are alreday doing as possible.

As with so many other facets of American gov't, redemption comes in the friction between the two. They work, not in harmony, but in discord, and maintain (we hope) legitimacy between the two.

Not sure if that's coherent, but lunch calls.

By: Paul G. Brown

Paul G. Brown — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:23:05 +0000

A bit before your time, Will – but might I recommend “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”? These were BBC sitcoms from the 1980s which brilliantly expresses the attitudes of the permanent bureaucracy and their political masters.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:56:43 +0000

I was a civil servant, albeit in a Westminster system. The permanent bureaucracy is basically a force for inertia. Lots of formality and rules ensure that money is spent for the purposes for which it was appropriated, citizens are treated the same way and in accordance with legislation, and political neutrality (the ability to work with whichever party happens to be in government) is preserved. They are terrified of causing political embarassment (in the US cabinet secretaries do not have to stand up in Parliament every week and answer for their agencies' cock-ups, so maybe things are different there), and changing personnel is hard. This leaves very limited latitude to do things that elected officials (or courts) have not directed, or to innovate. Most of the time in my experience the civil service is not trying to push an independent ideological agenda.

Of course, every adminstration inherits a huge number of programs that they can't just stop. The scope and scale of a large agency's activities can be mind-boggling and, often by design, hard to change. When mistakes (inevitably) occur new policies, laws and executive orders are issued to ensure that the bureacracy does what politicians want in the way they want. These just accumulate, which can make the system unresponsive and inefficient.

Given the huge size and myriad functions of government I would say you have a choice between a responsive, agile system and one that remains scrupulously within the mandates established by elected officials. All real democracies choose the latter. In the abstract the public might want more responsive, activist government, but everytime a screw-up happens everyone says 'This must never be allowed to happen again' and make more rules for the bureacracy to comply with.

So a big public sector bureaucracy isn't really a problem for legitimacy, unless you expect it to act both quickly and efficaciously - then you can really get into trouble.

By: JB

JB — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:38:24 +0000