Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change | Hacker News Reader

Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change

bostonglobe.com

211 pointsGuiA96 comments

The U.S. President appoints about 3,000 high-level people in the U.S. Government. This includes all the cabinet members, the entire National Security Staff, the directors of the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc. He can fire most of them at will. The Buck Stops Here, as Harry Truman's desk sign used to say.

The quality of a president's cabinet appointments determines how well the government functions during their presidency. The problem is, where do you get 3,000 people able to perform at that level? They're usually drawn from the usual suspects. When that's not the case, the result looks like amateur hour. How many people are qualified to be Secretary of State? The pool of people who have been around enough countries and political leaders to operate at that level is small.

The role of the White House staff varies from administration to administration. Eisenhower probably had the most effective staff in many decades. He knew how to make a military staff work together, and modeled the White House on that basis. Eisenhower was very good at putting the right person in the right job. (How Eisenhower deployed Montgomery and Patton is a famous example.)

None of the recent presidents have had that kind of experience.

I'd contend that the problem is the "secret" part, rather than the "double government" part.

Maybe that's the problem with western governments? They have erroneously interpreted their job to be "running the country", and the typical elected official is not qualified to do this? Perhaps they should cede the running of the country to the public service and recognise that their true role as an elected official is to keep the public service transparent, accountable and honest?

The problem with the above is that once a government sacrifices transparency, as most seem to have done, they have no useful purpose and have to resort to (incompetently) trying to run things to justify their existence.

In my perspective it is often expediency; it takes a large and sustained effort to redirect a civil service as large as the US, kind of like trying to steer a 400m long container vessel.

Here's a look at one of the most extreme bureaucracies the world ever produced, it is the result of expediency and unchecked power combined with ideology over evidence; http://www.galorebot.com/bureaucracy/essay.htm

Keeping such large organisations in check requires the fortitude to keep hitting your head against a brick wall while also remaining sharp minded and sane; all the while making progress.

> it takes a large and sustained effort to redirect a civil service as large as the US, kind of like trying to steer a 400m long container vessel.

That's why Thomas Jefferson and others straight out of Enlightenment wanted for the Federal government top be very limited and for the law-making power to be left to the states. Each US state is much smaller than the US.

This isn't about white house staff or the teams that presidents select - this is about the huge bureaucracies run by unelected civil servants who usually reached their position through a combination of nepotism, cover-my-ass, corruption, and coercion. I know that sounds like an overly cynical view, but from first-hand experience and knowledge, it's just the way things are. There are a few who fill these posts and actually wish to do their jobs well, but they're the exception, not the rule, and are being increasingly pushed out - most are there to line their pockets and bask in their own perceived glory.

The whole democratic process is just smoke and mirrors to prevent the populace from revolting - and I think we all know it - which means that it can't work as it does now for much longer - hence the increasing militarisation of police, creeping liberty reduction, and all the rest - as they know this too, and power, once attained, is clung to at pretty much any cost, by the kind of individual to whom power over others appeals.

The Iron Law of Bureaucracy at work:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

"How many people are qualified to be Secretary of State? The pool of people who have been around enough countries and political leaders to operate at that level is small."

That's actually an interesting question, what sort of qualifications are needed to do a job like that

I actually think that the universe of people who could do those jobs is actually pretty large

the real limiter is that if you pick someone too far out of the box, you're going to take political fire for it

like Bush did when he tried to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court

in contrast, when you nominate a known entity, ie Clinton to Secretary of State, they have the political clout to keep unhappy hopefuls (and their bidders) quiet

> I actually think that the universe of people who could do those jobs is actually pretty large

I'd like to believe that, but it's not just a matter of inherent capability, talent and intelligence.

A very large part of the qualifications is experience with bureaucracies, politics, management, power-games, diplomacy. I'm talking 2 decades of experience, at least. Not the kind of stuff you can learn in school (mainly because school just doesn't last long enough), and definitely not the kind of stuff you can pick up on the job, no matter how talented and super bright somebody is.

I kind of wish it wasn't sometimes (although other times I'm not so sure of the consequences..) but the fact of the matter is that medium-smart experienced politicians are going to out-politic a super-smart rookie every time.

This is why the US should be devolved into five or ten sovereign entities with free movement and a customs union, like the EU. That would break up the pernicious parts of an imperial government and keep the good properties.

Or, you know, 50 semi-sovereign entities, like it was originally intended to be, before the civil war.

I think anything that gives more power to the states, and unburdens the federal government from that responsibility would generally be a win-win for everybody.

The problem with that is that it leaves the military industrial complex intact. That's what needs breaking up.

It's a shame that "states' rights" has largely been associated with slavery (or these days, other hot-button issues like abortion). I think America has benefitted greatly from per-state experimentation of policy and governance, and it's high time the pendulum swung back their way, even if the federal government still has an important role to play.

In addition to the benefit of 50 petri dishes to gather data on what works and what doesn't, there's a human rights component, in that it's more feasible to move to a new state than a new country if policies are disagreeable. While not a perfect solution (especially for the poor), it does move further along the spectrum towards an active social contract, where people literally vote with their feet, rather than a passive one, where you're stuck with the rules of wherever you happen to be born.

And further down, for that matter. The closer the government is to the people, the more representative it will be. With, y'know, caveats...

There is a downside to too much power in individual states: the "race to the bottom" where capital can make states compete for resources and jobs by allocating them to whoever makes the most concessions, whether it's tax breaks, labor laws, environmental protections, etc. (We live with this already on the world scale; our protections on labor are great, but have mostly resulted in exporting poor working conditions overseas rather than eliminating them.)

That said, the more local the government is, the more effective and responsible it tends to be: each vote counts more, constituents resemble humans rather than numbers, and it's a more manageable scope to engage in the nitty-gritty of governance. Balancing this reality with the benefits of collective solidarity is what Charlie Stross would call a Wicked Problem [1].

[1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/07/wicked-1...

Those would be a few of the caveats, to be sure. Though not, themselves, entirely unqualified negatives.

He can fire most of them at will.

Except that he's dependent on them to protect his very hide. Or in the case of the heads of military and intelligence agencies, he's desperate just to have someone he can talk to. That's why he keeps hanging on to Brennan, for example.

"Yes Minister" was a 1980s UK series on exactly this topic: the Public Service vs. the Government. It was a satire, but its brilliance was that most of the satire was quite plausible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister

It was partly so plausible because the writers had several moles inside the UK civil service at the time, who fed them information that couldn't be reported without getting into serious legal difficulties, but could be spun into a fictionalised narrative.

Also its spiritual successor for our post-911 world, The Thick of It.

Veep was an adaptation for the American market, but it kinda lost its satirical teeth.

its

Thanks!

...did that just happen?

I could go on a tirade about nitpicking, but since I was actually wrong, and there were no insults involved, why bother?

Just shocked to see it, even on HN.

I'm sorry, but any theory that has "I think the American people are deluded" as an important point should have a lot of other evidence to it. This article is lacking that.

One thing the theory seems to gloss over is that it assumes dishonesty of current and past presidents. If the president wielded no real power, wouldn't at least one of them have said something about it? Out of 44 men elected for their vision and mentality, not one was brave enough to break the cycle of lies? And why would some, like Teddy Roosevelt, stand up for a second term after a hiatus if they didn't have any real power to change policy?

There are better explanations for the continuity in policy and the differences between candidate-Obama and elect-Obama. One is that they base their viewpoints on different information. As president, Obama has to base policy on classified information, secret dealings made by predecessors and staff, corporate interests, and in general "the big picture". As a campaigner, he wasn't burdened by any of those and could provide an idealistic view. At least we have evidence that all of these exist.

The article reads a bit like "buy my book to learn more!", but as someone pointed out below, that seems to be the bulk of the source material: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Fin...

I'll have to save that paper for later and see if he has some decent sources. If he does have proper evidence, maybe the theory has merit. On the other hand, if there was a 'smoking gun', it would be mentioned on the first page and in every article about it.

Or less charitably, candidate-Obama said things he didn't believe in that would get him elected, and elect-Obama acted based on his beliefs.

I agree that the head of the executive and the legislature could change things if they wanted to - the problem is lack of will by the leaders. Even irrational tough on crime / terrorism / communism / the-latest-bogieman rhetoric wins more votes than civil rights rhetoric, at least until the majority feel adversely affected by the lack of rights. In addition, supporting large government transfers to private sectors like defence and national security brings in more campaign funds than supporting rights for natural people.

That also requires serious dishonesty on Obama's part, something which doesn't seem supported by people's accounts before his campaign. Unless you believe he kept up the pretense even years before holding a public office, the evidence is more in line with his viewpoints having changed than with constant dishonesty.

So if I make a promise, and then "change my viewpoint" on it, then I'm allowed to break said promise? Am I understanding your argument there, or is there more to it?

Or, we could go back to the author's point about the public being deluded. Which is supported by them voting the guy in a second time, even after they say him with his "changed viewpoint", and lack of promise-keeping.

You're allowed to break your promise if it turns out it would do more harm than good. If you're unwilling to change your views based on new information, you would be a zealot and unfit for government. I don't know what information Obama does base his policy on, but you bet there's a million factors we (and he in his campaign) don't consider that he now must.

He has enacted positive policy changes too. He did pull troops out of Iraq, he did bring gay marriage equality forward by decades. Whatever you think of the man, saying he broke all his promises and essentially acted like a tyrant is unfair. The same can be said of Bush and others before them. On a related note, getting reelected isn't a measure of delusion. It depends on a lot of things, such as quality of the opponent, general approval, party approval, desire for stability, etc. People also reelected Bush, who had some of the same policies as Obama, and whose approval rating was even worse.

We never said anything about the promises being "harmful". It's also not his place to decide what is/isn't harmful, he was elected based on certain premises and promises of certain actions. Of course, he get's to interpret stuff/meaning, but directly not doing the things he promised without a valid reason to explain is quite immoral.

Now if you want to argue that "he has a good reason, we just don't know it" then you're pretty much conceding that your people aren't really running the country a la democracy. It means that they're picking a president on completely imperfect information, and have nothing but promises and character to go by. Heck, they can't even rely on the candidates keeping/breaking their promises.

Positive policy changes - good. No one is saying that he did only bad things or anything, that's not being discussed at all, and neither is his character or how good of a person he is. That's like saying: "Yeah, sure, my husband beats me... But yesterday he said he loved me, and he bought me flowers. I'm sure he beats me for a reason, and I don't know what information he bases my beatings on."

The example is ridiculous, but it shows the irrelevancy of good deeds outweighing the bad, through extreme points.

> It's also not his place to decide what is/isn't harmful, he was elected based on certain premises and promises of certain actions.

It is his place. We elect leaders, not robots. Elected officials are supposed to govern, not just read popularity polls and enact the opinions they see there.

The U.S. is very purposefully and carefully constructed to not be a direct democracy. We are a representative democracy.

"The people" are kept at some distance from the daily decision-making of the government. We have the power to choose leaders, to remove them from power, and to freely express to them what we think they should do. But while in office, our leaders have broad power to use their own judgment and discretion, within the bounds of the law.

This architecture arose from an awareness of the shortcomings of direct democracy. It's not a mistake.

Perhaps if a president like Eisenhower, who came up through the military, warned about a "military industrial complex", that would be some evidence that the power of elected politicians is limited in some real way.

And perhaps "limited in ways that the public doesn't understand" is a better synthesis of the author's point rather than "wields no real power"

That is a very good point, but I don't think corporate influences like the MIC are necessarily limiting the president's power. It's an influence, and a very strong one at that, but they can go against it. It's just one of the many datapoints that a president has to manage.

"Limited in ways that the public doesn't understand" is undoubtedly correct, but I disagree more on the extent. The author seems to think the president has no real control over the policies he sets, at least in some areas. I believe he does have real control, but he is limited by reality being far more complex than in an ideal world.

For most of us this is not a problem as we don't get to vote for the US government anyway.

As a non-US citizen I am spared the illusion that voting can prevent the US government spying on me, murdering me by drone or imprisoning me without trial. And those are primarily things the US does to non-US citizens.

Most of us in the U.S. don't really get to vote either. There is no anti-drone party, no anti-NSA party, and no anti-Drug-War party: the two dominant parties agree more than they differ, especially when looking at actions rather than rhetoric. Moreover, huge numbers of people are completely disenfranchised if they support the minority party in the wrong district or state.

Our democracy isn't completely ineffectual; some good people sneak through now and then, and there is some counter-balance to blatant abuses of power. But it's a far cry from government by/of/for the people.

(Incidentally: it's worth nothing that the Constitution repeatedly refers to "person" and not "citizen". I think it is deeply shameful that we do not afford basic human rights protections to persons of all nationalities, as a matter of first principles.)

> There is no anti-drone party, no anti-NSA party, and no anti-Drug-War party: the two dominant parties agree more than they differ, especially when looking at actions rather than rhetoric.

There is! It isn't one of the big two, but there is a party that is anti-drone, anti-NSA, anti-drug war, etc.: The Libertarian Party[0].

[0] http://www.lp.org

Something in-between Obama/Bush and Libertarian Party would be nice

I am not sure what you mean – in-between relative to what? The LP is to the left of Obama (e.g., individual rights for social matters such as marriage) and also to the right of Bush/Obama (e.g., taxation).

I was referring to the points that you brought up in your previous reply (anti-drone, anti-NSA and anti-drug war) ... I don't think that they need to disappear but a strong refocus is definitely needed in all 3.

The Green Party also holds all three of those views, if that's your preference.

Unfortunately, since most elections in the US are winner-take-all and not proportionally representative, voting for any party other the big two generally decreases the chance of one's desirable election outcome.

(I say this as a registered Green(-Rainbow). I'll be voting for Hillary unless it looks like she has a wide margin.)

To a point. To the degree that policies are determined by political triangulation, someone deciding between Green and Democrat is only half as important as someone deciding between Democrat and Republican. Actually voting for the Green party decreases the odds of ones preferred outcome this election (down to what it would be if you did not vote), but increases the credibility of your threat for the next election.

Math-wise, the optimal strategy depends on the size of the effect that pull is likely to have, weighed against the odds your vote will change which of the frontrunners wins times the difference between the frontrunners.

Of course, ideally we could switch away from FPTP voting, but getting that to happen in selecting electors is a reach (though at least the Electoral College means we don't have to do it nationwide at once).

Regarding Hillary in particular, I think an overgrown security apparatus is the biggest threat this country faces, and she has decisively lost my vote with her self-serving and revisionist account of the Snowden affair.

As others have mentioned, first-past-the-post makes third party voting counter-productive (although it's a better protest vote than not voting at all). I look forward to the day when individual states enact ranked/approval voting by popular referendum, so that third parties have a shot at viability.

That said: the current Libertarian Party has a lot of baggage regarding the religion of markets. While I think the market is a powerful and worthwhile engine of growth, I don't believe it is the only valid or effectual form of social contract. (I've come to adopt the term "Chomsky Libertarian". [1])

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

We have to be more strategic with our votes. Even if there were an anti-NSA party, it's likely that there's another deal breaker there (see: Paul, Ron). It'll take several steps before we can steer government in the direction we'd like, and the first step is to get a government that's more responsive to our vote.

Hence, I give money to https://mayday.us, and the issue that I primarily vote on is reform. If my vote "doesn't matter" (whether it's because I can't tell the R and D candidates apart or because it's not a close race), then I vote for the most viable third party.

"People will say with a straight face that having one choice for dear leader is tyranny – but having two is freedom. Is that second choice on the ballot really the qualitative difference?" [1]

[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/why-i-w...

http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Fin... [pdf] This appears to be some or all of the content of the book mentioned in the article. It was published as an article in the Harvard National Security Journal. Very interesting, and I think I agree with the premise that the elected parts of our government exercise less power than we imagine.

The source alleges that if Obama pushed for troop withdrawal, the top staff generals would resign. For someone unfamiliar with US politics, what would happen if he went for that regardless?

It is my understanding that, being military people, they cannot simply walk off the job without orders from their commander to do so. As the PotUS is commander of the entire military, he could prosecute them with formal charges of insubordination, or perhaps demote a stubborn general to major and reassign him to collect grizzly bear poop on Kodiak Island.

The withdrawal would happen, but the military would not support that particular president on anything for the rest of his tenure, because they're a good ol' boy's club.

Obama would have to clear out all colonels, generals, and admirals, and promote replacements from the lower ranks based purely on merit to get any sort of cooperation back, and that would be a colossal undertaking. Secret Service protection detail would be pissed, because there would be insider threats multiplying everywhere.

I like Douglas Adams take on this:

"The President in particular is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had - he has already spent two of his ten Presidential years in prison for fraud. Very very few people realize that the President and the Government have virtually no power at all, and of these very few people only six know whence ultimate political power is wielded. Most of the others secretly believe that the ultimate decision-making process is handled by a computer. They couldn't be more wrong."

Here in the UK, I think that if you want to change home policy, you can do that by voting. However, if you wish to affect the wider economic policy you would do better by getting a job with the Bank of England, and if you want to change UK foreign policy, you get a job with the US government.

Most western countries are run by a civil service, typically within a framework of legislation enacted by governments passed.

Perhaps here, we are just being reminded that we should (unfortunately) consider the civil service as being a fourth component to a modern western democracy alongside the legislature, executive and judiciary. A separate animal so to speak from the executive branch to which it would normally belong.

That so much authority is devolved to these often opaque and unaccountable institutions by the executive is something all should be wary of. Particularly in the USA in regards to national security, there is a climate of fear and intimidation about questioning any official policy.

Well, much of this shadow government consists of the executive branch. Obama is still obviously wholly accountable, as he can likely issue executive orders unconditionally changing the policy and operation of agencies at will. Of course, he has to make good appointments and get reliable people to carry out any semblance of that, and most of his work has to be indirect. But, like the CEO of a large corporation, the job is whatever it takes to get it done, and is judged by the results without regard to the difficulties.

I don't necessarily agree with all of this analysis. I think the more likely reasons are that it's very easy to be against the war when you are not in power. But once you are in power it's not sufficient to be against it, you need to work out what you need to do instead. And then you run into the reality that even though you don't agree with the war, the previous government did it for reasons. And even if the response is not what you would ideally have chosen many of those reasons are still valid.

It's interesting how many parallels the US government shares with other governments around the world, like Turkey. There is an existence of a "deep state", or "state within a state". I often wonder if a sufficiently sophisticated AI would do a better job of running our government than the system that we have in place.

If you think about it, having AI run our government is the next logical step, and a natural evolution. All governmental systems are inhuman systems that self-correct.

at some point, government analysts will construct a platform that gets lots of data (including both public and private data) shoveled in and produces actionable insights. For those who aren't current, "actionable" means, in the form of, "do this", or "think about doing that".

Of course, this system will still be constructed according to the biases and fears of real humans. Most people wouldn't call it an "AI government" because there's already an elected government calling the shots ... to a certain extent.

Otherwise you get Skynet.

My point was, it would be SkyNet, but on one hand fed with the desires of the Intelligence tools industry (need more data on everything) and on the other hand with a front of humans that will act on its behalf with the best of intentions.

> at some point, government analysts will construct a platform that gets lots of data (including both public and private data) shoveled in and produces actionable insights.

There are already quite a few platforms for doing this. Constructing and running many of them is the job of the MITRE Corporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitre_Corporation

A friend of mine works there, constructing quite complex computer models to estimate the impact of (sometimes very small) changes in government policy or services.

To some extent, it was tried in Chile in 70s during Allende. British computer scientists wanted to build massive computer network which could analyze and manage entire Chilean economy. The (never finished) project was called Cybersyn - http://www.damninteresting.com/nineteen-seventy-three/

There's a disconnect between the people who develop policy, and those who enact it. One group is elected, the other is not.

I think that this is somewhat correct. Obviously, I don't have the evidence and haven't done the research he has done (over 800 footnotes - how many sources?!).

I do however think it could be more nuanced than what he says - it may just be that the bureaucracy changes course much more slowly than the presidency or congress or state governments change - so it takes much more time for those institutions to truly catch up with the public sentiment.

Of course, once the bureaucracy begins to actively fight changing with public sentiment is when the problems begin. Those institutions that do should probably be "reset", i.e. disbanded and reformed with a better founding base.

Anyone remember that quote from The Cube?

    There is no conspiracy
    Nobody is in charge
    It's a headless blunder 
    operating under the illusion of a master plan.

It's only half wrong ;-)

(It's been a while since I've seen that film so I forgot, but they apparently talk a lot more about this topic, about half the quotes on this page: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cube_%28film%29 )

Perhaps, when one is elected president, they take you to a dark theater and show you unreleased footage of the Kennedy assassination from different angles!

-Doug Stanhope

In Japan, the concept of beaurocrats who hold the true power to determine policy, with elected officials being unable to make effective lasting changes, has been around and part of public discussion for decades.

I don't think they've come up with a solution, but then the political landscape is even more fossilized than the one in the USA.

Don't forget, when members of the military-industrial complex come out against "big government," what they really mean is they don't want any resistance from the elected government. Not that they get much resistance to start with.

It's been a saying in the UK for decades; "The Civil Service runs the country".

Pragmatically, this means the only way to change the government is to join it?

The storyline involving the young, ambitious, and I'd say mostly 'well-intentioned' politician Tommy Carcetti in season 3 of The Wire gives an interesting insight in how difficult it (probably) is to join the government apparatus without turning into the thing you meant to fight.

Hmmm... The people who actually call the shots, the head of the NSA for example, what were their career paths?

Looks like they all were career military.

Is that not what Obama promised to do?

This got off the front page fast. Anything that points to the conclusion that the US is unrepresentative of the governed is contrary to the dogma.

Neat theory, but a more plausible explanation for Obama's current policy is that he was simply dishonest in his campaigning. He exploited voters' anxiety about war and surveillance by pretending to be against these things and therefore won the election. This happens all the time, all around the world, voters are gullible and want to believe a good story ("Change").

My other gripe with this article is that it concludes it's the people's responsibility to change the way government is functioning, but if it can't be done through voting, what does the author expect them to do, short of a rebellion? It effectively discourages the reader from voting and suggests we should just give up trying to do anything about the situation.

While dishonesty is a plausible explanation too, I think the article's argument makes just as much sense. In fact, I recall the same basic argument brought forward by a Political Science professor here in Holland: because the apparatus of civil servants and experts doesn't really change so much between elections, these people wield much more power than we think they do and policy often stays continuous as a result.

Somehow it must be beneficial for the elected officials to keep these non-changing people in charge.

Obama was probably simply persuaded by the many-many human faces of the administration currently carrying out the atrocities (War on Drugs, NSA, foreign policy), and focused more on the soft-programs (stimulus, healthcare; and random acts of obama, that largely failed), plus got completely broken and stonewalled by an uncooperative House.

> Somehow it must be beneficial for the elected officials to keep these non-changing people in charge.

Yes, because the vast majority of them are simply the bureaucrats that keep things ticking over because they know how to do their jobs.

I suppose a big benefit is just not having to worry about it. I think in practice that's one of the most common reason to leave things be. Any change will create enemies within, might lead to worse outcomes, and will cost significant work.

I've been in a number of situations where a 'bad' manager remained while new upper management was busy with 'an entirely new approach' and changing things left and right. In one case, I had the luck of being a good friend of someone in upper management, so I could discuss this issue. This manager indicated that he was well aware of the problem, but he explained that it simply wasn't worth the trouble to deal with this 'bad' manager right now, for pretty much the reasons I mentioned above.

Of course, 'right now' remained the argument, since there were always more important things to do. For all I know the guy's still there, or maybe even promoted.

Hell, come to think of it, it's very much like the code I work with. Significant chunks are a mess, but there never seems to be time to refactor. New features and 'big changes' always take priority, and somehow the big changes rarely impact that shitty code, so it stays. I'm not sure if that's coincidental.

tl;dr: apparently refactoring is avoided in most (bureaucratic) human endeavors.

Perhaps the situation is different in Holland and the USA, but I know for a fact that favoritism towards party members, relatives and their friends is very common after elections among higher ranks of civil servants, both in Austria and Greece (where it was common in the 80's to "recolor" large parts of the public sector when the ruling party changed). This weakens the "static bureaucracy" hypothesis in my book.

As others have pointed out, the POTUS directly appoints many key people and therefore cannot be completely powerless to actually "change" policy (assuming there isn't a closed pool of like-minded people to choose from).

I must admit I don't know enough about Holland to say anything with certainty. However, I'm inclined to think that the 'static bureaucracy' is much stronger in Holland because we're very consensus-driven in our politics. As such, large-scale recoloring is probably either undesired by the new powers, deemed unnecessary, or frowned upon too much by everyone involved to be a viable option.

But I'd love to hear from someone who knows more about the Dutch system!

The US bureaucracy is vast, and although POTUS has the ability to directly appoint many, that ability is neither unilateral (since the Senate must confirm most of the most important appointees) nor wide-ranging. Civil service hiring rules has much more impact on the makeup of a bureaucracy than the President himself does. It's simply not possible to "recolor" the public sector at a whim in the USA.

And there's the narrative as told in the (much recommended on HN) book "Command and Control": Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon administrations all arrive outraged at the military's nuclear war strategy. And then after much attempt at reform, they leave with virtually the same strategy intact. Partly just due to getting draw into the military's way of thinking, partly due to not being able to present compelling alternatives to the military command. And then when changes do happen, they are driven bottom-up by particular events/catastrophes which make clear that the current strategies are utterly untenable. It's tough to a replace one leaky abstraction with another (potentially leaky) abstraction!

Pretty much. In fairness to Kennedy (and by Kennedy I mean McNamara), he at least did get the train rolling on buffing up U.S. conventional forces so that it was at least theoretically possible to deter Soviet use of armed force without being forced to immediately escalate to nuclear use.

AFAIK it took until Carter to significantly revise nuclear doctrine, and even that was only because Carter got tired of being publically outfoxed by the Soviets.

"short of a rebellion": Once that's off the table, then yeah, we're stuck with ridiculously ineffective outcomes. Either we pull the lever like gamblers in a rigged game ("voting"), or give up.

Intelligent rebellion simply amounts to fixing your society. There was never any time in history where people should just coast by, letting their masters decide the system's rules for them.

>My other gripe with this article is that it concludes it's the people's responsibility to change the way government is functioning, but if it can't be done through voting, what does the author expect them to do, short of a rebellion?

Two other options that are available to average citizenry are protest, strikes and sabotage (the latter two are possible only if you are directly involved - which a lot of people are).

These are, in fact, how most large social changes that benefit the people come about. Not through voting.

We got the right to vote, the civil rights act, social security, medicare, the weekend, the formation of the middle classes and most other goodies this way.

Another possible explanation is that government policy is hard. Presidents are mostly competent people trying to do the best for the country. Faced with difficult choices they come to similar policy decisions based on a rational course of action. Once they are inside the White House they have a different perspective and perhaps have a much better understanding of why their predecessors made similar choices.

> if it can't be done through voting, what does the author expect them to do, short of a rebellion?

I personally don't want a part in the corruption, so I choose not to vote myself. What would happen if less than 5% of the people "governed" voted for that government? The establishment would lose its legitimacy. It would fall apart pretty quickly from there.

I keep encountering this line of reasoning:

1. Almost everyone refuses to vote. 2. The establishment loses legitimacy. 3. ... ? 4. Profit.

What's step 3? My guess would be a lot of turmoil, and if civil society remains as apathetic as they are now, the replacement won't be any better.

The President relying on experts instead of telling them what to do and trusting their expertise as if they will execute what they are told effectively. If you read biographies of great leaders, ie pope John Paul 2nd or President Reagan you will notice common pattern: the burocracy told what to do screaming in utter shock that they are "under attack". The burocrats just needed some time to get adjusted to a new situation where they don't call the shots anymore, but are there to execute the Leaders policy. For example JP2 was famous for totally ignoring his personal security team demands. At the beginning the pope was banned from travel by his own security team as this is "how it has always been". And they were the experts after all. It took them some getting used to new situation where the pope was deciding where he goes, when and how. Obama seems to be a bit weak. He seems to be someone who would rather have someone else make though decisions, so the result can't be blamed on him. With Syria he actually took advise from... putin😁

The problem is the crisis of leadership above anything else.

emma goldman

>The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute.

What a bizarre world when an academic will say such a thing, almost comical really.

Care to elaborate please?

I am honestly trying to understand what is comical about it? Is it the assumption about public opinion inaccurate or the point about government hierarchy?

Says a lot about forms of "democracy" where people pull a lever every 4 years for their next king.

(And even real kings don't have absolute power. There's a lot of people and institutions through whom they must attempt to project their policies.)

This adds nothing.

Upon reflection I can see your perspective but I also agree quite completely with the article. It is of course true that the 'President' holds much power but if you break down the semantics, you might as well be saying that people are Patriotic and readily willing to serve their country. (ie. clicking their heels...)

What this article is analyzing (the government...and people) is a very complex system and there are many layers. Don't let this article confuse you into thinking that the ideas therein signal a perception that the oval office is not, in a sense, a center of power. Because all available evidence and common sense, as you imply in your comment, points to the obvious fact that the Whitehouse is a center of power in the government and the world.

What the article is saying is that there are other centers of power within the government which, evidence strongly suggests, actually challenge the President's authority on certain geopolitical and bureaucratic concerns, and in some cases, actually wield far more impressive levels of capabilities in terms of influence and direct control. And you better believe that these capabilities are being utilized.

I would even pin a target on the notion that there are significant operational units (assets) which have limited to non-existent communication and reporting to high-ranking government members. And what sane person even entertains the belief that they know every single activity and segment of the US government?

In an organization as staggeringly large as the federal government, there's bound to be plethora of secrets. Some of them are probably pretty benign. Some of them are probably capable of destabilizing the 'united' aspect of government we take for granted. And...really, it's clear to see the fact that the government is not in fact nearly as united as people speak of. This kind of obvious mismatch in mental conception is well-known: cognitive dissonance.

Comical; your allegiance to over-simplified models of megalithic civil structural posturing for political gain of power for variously held personal values.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com