OK. Announcing new topic!!!
As some of you may have noticed, I've been thinking more about the bureaucracy, in part because of a letter Bill had written to an editor and posted on the DFA blog.
Thinking about this some more, I was reminded of Rep Conyer's statement, as reported in Michael Moore's documentary, that our representatives don't have time to read the legislation they vote on. Just in the last couple of days, Conyer's expanded that statement by observing that they have staff to do the reading and researching.
And that's true. But what's also true is that while it is sometimes reported that the Congressional staffing levels have been increasing significantly (mostly in conjunction with stories that touch on how other departments in the government are shrinking), this cadre of bureaucrats tends to be almost totally ignored.
I think we assume that Congressional staff are largely composed on interns who rotate out after a relatively short tenure and that when a Congressperson is "retired" the staff leave Washington as well. But, that's not really what happens.
On bureaucrats--continued
If you look at the biographies of people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc, what becomes apparent is that mid-level bureaucrats in the executive and legislative branches enjoy a "revolving door" that never even gets them out of Washington for decades at a time. The only thing that's different now is that some members of this invisible cadre of bureaucratic operatives have become visible and if we take a real close look, we can come to realize that the policies they are implementing now, are policies they have been pushing for decades. Moreover, the deceptive practices they are engaged in now are practices they have similarly employed for decades.
When you come to think of it, the revolving door between government and the so-called "private" corporate sector, about which there are occasional articles and which has been addressed by legislative action, is actually a lot less insular and persistent. When people return to the private corporate sector, they are at least living in real America beyond the Washington circuit. The people that rotate through the executive and legislative stall levels, never get out into the real world. Oh, sometimes, they land in a think-tank for a while, but that environment is no more realistic than their usual venues.
On bureaucrats--continued further
I think what we need to pay attention to is that, just as a close observer of the House and Senate proceedings will eventually notice that the people running the sessions are either working from a script prepared by some staffer or getting prompted by someone off to the side as to what they are supposed to say in order to keep the meeting on schedule and make sure that nothing unexpected happens, our representatives, except for a few like Senator Byrd, don't really know what they are doing or saying. They are mouth-pieces for their staffs.
And so is the President of the United States.
On bureaucrats--even more
What makes this President so popular with the coterie in his administration is that he does and says exactly what they tell him and then, when what they told him turns out to be wrong, he supports them with a straight face by claiming that he still believes that what he did and said was right. And he does. He believes it because he's a trusting fellow and an optimist.
What that does is it makes the current resident of the White House the perfect shill. But attacking him as such is not going to impress the people who want to believe him.
So, it seems to me that the only effective strategy we can follow is to expose the real liars and the pullers of strings. It isn't Bush that needs to be skewered and exposed; it's all those people who have been pursuing their own agenda to rule the world without seeming to.
On bureaucrats--the invisible ones
In theory, the longevity of the technical and even legislative bureaucracy is supposed to be a good thing because it balances the anticipated turnover at the top (the decision-makers) through the electoral process. Also, it's sort of assumed that this turnover at the top will be associated with changes at the next several levels down the hierachy. But, that's not what happens. When someone gets unelected, regardless of their party affiliation, their subordinates just move over into the offices of whoever new comes in.
In other words, just as grassroots politics has been replaced by election experts and consultants, the staffing of legislative committees and executive departments is done by "experts" whose performance tends to get a pass from the press. Why? Because these are the people on whom the press relies for the information for their stories. It's all those "un-named sources" who curry the press. So, in exchange, the press protects them. And the people who get blamed are the people who don't really know a thing.
On bureaucrats--their falibility
We have all become familiar with the fact that sometimes there are unanticipated consequences that are the exact opposite of what we expect. Having a permanent legislative buraucratic staff is one such.
When it became necessary for our elected representatives to spend almost all their time and energy getting and staying elected, most of us probably assumed that a permanent staff cadre would keep the legislative process moving. But, our desire for permance and their desire for longevity does not have the same result. Indeed, what guarantees continued employment at the staff level is legislation that needs to be constantly corrected and ammended. So, there's no incentive to get it right the first time.
To a certain extent, we have the same problem with the press. Every messed up story is an opportunity for a correction. Every mis-quote is an opportunity for an elaboration. As a result we end up with more and more verbiage and ever less information.
At least when it comes to legislation there is an opportunity for another branch, the judicial, to step in and correct the most eggregious messes. Of course, that's also why there is so much effort to put a muzzle on the courts. Both the executive and the legislative bureaucracies have a vested interest in not having their "work-product" reviewed and thrown out.
So, what do we conclude? I think we can fairly reasonably conclude that the American government has been hijacked by the mid-level bureaucracy and that our elected representatives have been distracted from their legislative responsibilities by the need to concentrate almost full time on raising money for the media coverage they won't get unless it is sanctioned by their legislative staffs.
Should we say that our representatives have been kidnapped?
On bureaucrats--finally
I guess what started me thinking about all of the above was my encounter with two New Hampshire democrats vying to replace one of the Republicans this state has sent to Congress.
Bob Bruce and Justine Nadeau are two very different people. One is old and retired from a couple of careers in the military and in law enforcement. The other is young, barely out of law school and intent on continuing the family tradition of public service. Or, perhaps just drumming up business by running for a seat that seems unwinnable.
One has a real shoe-string operation with a wife who totes campaign materials and sets them out at meetings. The other has a staff person following him around on whom he already relies to answer the simplest questions.
The candidates appeared together, along with about seven others for various positions, at our candidate forum last month. While the old fellow's presentation, which he read from notes, was not particularly inspiring or spirited, the younger gave an impression of enthusiasm and energy but, on reflection, really said nothing much, except that his grandfathers had held opposite political persuasions.
Oh, yes, there's another real difference between these two. The old fellow had barely $800 in his campaign account at the end of the quarter and the young up-start, though his filing was late, reported having $10,000.
So, who's going to win the primary in September. Stay tuned.