Project 2025 Ground Work Has Started.

what's your recommendation to make the career bureaucrats answerable to voters?

 

As I've already said, my recommendation would be get rid of them and don't replace them.

Having said that, if you, as a politician, replace bureaucrat A with bureaucrat B then bureaucrat B is your guy and you're answerable for what he does. So, if Trump appoints a bunch of people under project 2025 then he owns whatever they do whether it's popular or unpopular.

 

Not at all, but decisions need to be made as to where to set the bar. The alternative is anarchy, which I assume you are not a proponent of.
Or are you a proponent of no regulations at all and to hell with clean water, air, and land?

 

I often call myself an anarchist.

Then reality, and I’m like “whoa now!”

The anarchy l I have in mind is where it’s me versus my d-bag neighbors, who I’ll send on that next journey they are desperate to get to.

But writ large, yah, that’s a no-go.

 

OK, just to make sure I understand you ... your preference would be to eliminate the DOD, DOT, Postal Service, etc.
If not that, then you're suggested that when Trump took office in 2017, he replace everyone in those departments with new employees. Then, in 2021, Biden replaces them all again.
Is that it?

 

I gave ya a Fail+ and was being charitable.

 

Also the EPA and OSHA. We don't need no environmental or worker protections.

 

I didn't say eliminate them I would certainly downsize them considerably. The post office, if I remember correctly, is actually written in to the constitution.

Did I say "replace everyone"? I don't think so. I'm open to suggestions but you can't attack one side for being undemocratic and then turn right around defend a system that is the very definition of undemocratic.

 

You just threw out a Proof by assertion. I don't need charity from the guy who's only answer is a logical fallacy.

 

Most things in life involve trade-offs and opportunity costs. If I were inclined to go down the environmental rabbit hole, I'm sure that I would find examples where government regulations, and the attendant bureaucrats, produced exactly the intended results. I'm also confident that I would find a plenty of examples where they produced worse results than less, or even no, regulation would have.

 

This is actually a really ineffective argument. The democratic process produced the protections that federal workers benefit from. While it would be idiotic of Congress to unwind that, it would be a democratic decision. The President doing it unilaterally is undemocratic. And it is idiotic. We already have democratic accountability within the "federal bureaucracy" because agency leaders (excepting the independent agencies) are appointed by and accountable to the President.

 

That’s why I wanted to make sure I understood what you’re saying. When you said “get rid of them and don’t replace them” who are you talking about?

 

Cool, so now you've at least attempted to learn something about logical fallacy (you're welcome). Might wanna revisit that post I initially responded to now.

 

So, if congress does something then, by definition, it can't be undemocratic? Is that what you're saying? Or do you allow for the possibility that the "democratic process" can itself undercut democracy?

 

Are there extreme hypothetical scenarios where Congress could do something dangerous that undermines the democratic process (like giving all its powers to the President)? Yes. Is this one of them? No. You not liking something doesn't make it undemocratic. After all, Congress can repeal those protections at any time.

 

So, Congress can undermine the democratic process by taking extreme actions but they can't undermine the democratic process incrementally. Is that what you're saying?

 

Correct. Your argument doesn't make any real sense when Congress can always undo any incremental changes it disfavors. What you're actually talking about is just the democratic process. As I said, the exception would be something so extreme that it would threaten to unravel our system of government entirely.

And I guess, now thinking about it, the other exception would be direct attacks on the electoral process (i.e., making it harder for people to vote or unwinding protections that promote democracy). But that's arguable.

 

There are many areas in life where incremental changes become irreversible at some point. It's possible, even likely, that Congress COULD still undo SOME of the incremental changes, right now. You can't guarantee that they will "always" be able to undo "any" incremental changes.

The bureaucracies are part of the Executive branch. I would argue that your extreme example is exactly what's happening and that you're just in denial because it's happening in bite sized chunks instead of one fell swoop.

 

Why do they become "irreversible"? That's the question. And we both know the answer. You not liking it does not make it "undemocratic."

Congress could repeal all protections for federal employees at any time (except constitutionally mandated protections). They're not irreversible. They remain in place because there is a lack of political desire to change it. Maybe that changes in the future. But plenty of folks dislike and disagree with your Reaganesque philosophy. That's why it isn't happening today.

Your argument would be wrong. It would be especially wrong in 2024. Like so wrong that I don't know if we're operating from the same factual reality. Have you kept track of the federal judiciary's handling of administrative law over the past few years?

 

Trump doesn’t agree with it because it doesn’t feed his ego for immortality and make his family rich. They stupidly left that part out.