Mr. Holding, being a political neophyte who believes that his prior experience (and indeed, excellence) as Christian apologist enables him to take his personal vendetta against an unremarkable Florida governor as a proper topic of general political conversation, is currently making regrettably overwrought noises about how we need to vote for the most morally exemplaricious people for office, and that if such people do fall, the even MORE morally exemplaricious community they lead need to harangue them back into good behavior.
Like most ideals, this is something I can appreciate, but can only condone to the extent it actually matches reality. Naturally, he's banned beavers like me who may be perhaps a little too eager to correct him from his threads, but I do see that he's being roundly rebutted by nearly everyone else on the forum. I am grateful to see that a spirit of realism and experience with regard to politics and the civics it arises from has inspired all of you to make the same corrections I might have made, but in, perhaps, a kinder, gentler, and more good-humored Christian spirit than I'm capable of.
I do have the feeling, however, that we want a proper idealistic deprogramming module for other men of good will and talent who regrettably stumble into American politics and government for one reason or another, and have so far found no one better than a man whose parents were in the civil service for their whole life. The post is about Ron Paul's campaign and British television but the lessons are always true:
Do read the whole thing. At least there's no doubt about the moral haranguing! And if you remember any historical, media, or personal experience that exemplifies the power of organizational career structure (oligarchy, if you want to get technical) against meritocratic human judgment of the democratic or monarchical variety, feel free to add your own examples, that we may educate each other better.
Like most ideals, this is something I can appreciate, but can only condone to the extent it actually matches reality. Naturally, he's banned beavers like me who may be perhaps a little too eager to correct him from his threads, but I do see that he's being roundly rebutted by nearly everyone else on the forum. I am grateful to see that a spirit of realism and experience with regard to politics and the civics it arises from has inspired all of you to make the same corrections I might have made, but in, perhaps, a kinder, gentler, and more good-humored Christian spirit than I'm capable of.
I do have the feeling, however, that we want a proper idealistic deprogramming module for other men of good will and talent who regrettably stumble into American politics and government for one reason or another, and have so far found no one better than a man whose parents were in the civil service for their whole life. The post is about Ron Paul's campaign and British television but the lessons are always true:
Originally posted by Mencius Moldbug
There are no Ministers or Private Secretaries in DC. Crossman's opposite number in Washington, especially Washington today, would be surrounded by a small platoon of so-called "sched Cs," known to the punters as "political appointees." There are a couple thousand of these jobs, which are listed in a wonderful little volume called the Plum Book. From the Beltway's viewpoint, the primary purpose of your vote this November is to decide who shall consume these plums, "so sweet / and so cold."
My mother was a GS-15 at DoE, working on budget and policy for renewable energy, in the Clinton administration. The other day I asked her about the sched Cs. "They get very nice offices," she said. "And they can do pretty much whatever they want. They're encouraged to find something and work on it." A legion of little Jim Hackers. Here in America, everything comes in a bigger box.
Of course, the politicians have another option. They can try to fight. Sometimes this is done by the so-called "Republicans" among them. Perhaps you have seen stories in the press that indicate that some elected mannequin or other is trying to "politicize" the operations of some responsible and professional arm of USG. This indicates that someone is struggling. Of course, the classic example of an American politician who really went to war with the civil service was old Tailgunner Joe, and we all know what happened to him.
The basic strategy of the civil servant, when attacked by a politician or political appointee, is to make his attacker or the attacker's political sponsor look bad in the press. Since politicians cannot be elected without the cooperation of the press, this strategy always works. Since the press is effectively part of the civil service (if the news desks at the Post, the Times, and CNN were reorganized into a Department of Journalism, perhaps not unlike the BBC, the lives of reporters would hardly change at all), this game is always "on."
My mother was a GS-15 at DoE, working on budget and policy for renewable energy, in the Clinton administration. The other day I asked her about the sched Cs. "They get very nice offices," she said. "And they can do pretty much whatever they want. They're encouraged to find something and work on it." A legion of little Jim Hackers. Here in America, everything comes in a bigger box.
Of course, the politicians have another option. They can try to fight. Sometimes this is done by the so-called "Republicans" among them. Perhaps you have seen stories in the press that indicate that some elected mannequin or other is trying to "politicize" the operations of some responsible and professional arm of USG. This indicates that someone is struggling. Of course, the classic example of an American politician who really went to war with the civil service was old Tailgunner Joe, and we all know what happened to him.
The basic strategy of the civil servant, when attacked by a politician or political appointee, is to make his attacker or the attacker's political sponsor look bad in the press. Since politicians cannot be elected without the cooperation of the press, this strategy always works. Since the press is effectively part of the civil service (if the news desks at the Post, the Times, and CNN were reorganized into a Department of Journalism, perhaps not unlike the BBC, the lives of reporters would hardly change at all), this game is always "on."
So what do you think would happen to Ron Paul if he tries to stay on Carlyle's horse? I'm afraid there are exactly two possibilities. I believe Dr. Paul is an honorable man, so we need only consider the first, which is that he will fight the system and actually try to downsize DC.
Of course, beyond his ability to block Congressional legislation (a courtesy Senate rules grant to every single Senator - people in DC who can stop things from happening are a dime a dozen), his power to nominate Supreme Court justices (who must still be confirmed by the Senate; and note also that Republican Presidents chose seven out of the last four conservative Justices), and his nominal command of the armed forces (whom he can at least order to stop whatever they are doing right now and come home; but so can Barack Obama), President Paul will have no power whatsoever.
But don't worry. He will still have the power to make a fool of himself - at least as portrayed in the eyes of the press. His popularity will descend into the single digits. The result will be that Americans will consider libertarianism "discredited" for at least the next twenty years. Except for the same kinds of diehards who support him now, everyone who voted for Ron Paul in 2008 will realize, by 2012, that they were swept up in a wave of craziness, they had no idea what they were thinking, and they will certainly never think it again.
In other words, the problem with believing in Dr. Paul is that Dr. Paul is a candidate in a democratic election. To vote for him and believe you are doing something meaningful and important, it is necessary to believe not just in one thing - Ron Paul - but in two: Ron Paul and contemporary American democracy.
Of course, beyond his ability to block Congressional legislation (a courtesy Senate rules grant to every single Senator - people in DC who can stop things from happening are a dime a dozen), his power to nominate Supreme Court justices (who must still be confirmed by the Senate; and note also that Republican Presidents chose seven out of the last four conservative Justices), and his nominal command of the armed forces (whom he can at least order to stop whatever they are doing right now and come home; but so can Barack Obama), President Paul will have no power whatsoever.
But don't worry. He will still have the power to make a fool of himself - at least as portrayed in the eyes of the press. His popularity will descend into the single digits. The result will be that Americans will consider libertarianism "discredited" for at least the next twenty years. Except for the same kinds of diehards who support him now, everyone who voted for Ron Paul in 2008 will realize, by 2012, that they were swept up in a wave of craziness, they had no idea what they were thinking, and they will certainly never think it again.
In other words, the problem with believing in Dr. Paul is that Dr. Paul is a candidate in a democratic election. To vote for him and believe you are doing something meaningful and important, it is necessary to believe not just in one thing - Ron Paul - but in two: Ron Paul and contemporary American democracy.
Comment