> I think a better question is whether having a federal workforce of 4 million people managed by an unaccountable bureaucracy is in the best interests of any country
Is having a federal workforce that's managed by an unelected, and unaccountable, oligarch more in line with the best interests of any country?
> Centralized power is very susceptible to grift and corruption.
Isn't putting oligarchs with significant conflicts of interests in charge of the federal bureaucracy also susceptible to graft and corruption? Isn't halting enforcement of the law banning Americans from bribing foreign government officials also susceptible to graft and corruption? Doesn't pardoning a former governor convicted of literally selling a Senate seat make us more susceptible to graft and corruption? Doesn't the Supreme Court continually narrowing the conditions for bribery, making all but impossible to ever charge someone for accepting a bribe make us more susceptible to graft and corruption?
Honestly, it seems strange to me to say that the current administration is reducing graft and corruption, when the policies of this administration and the current conservative Court all seem to be *pro* graft and corruption.
Eh, oligarchs are already in positions of significant power. If you're talking about Elon, then to be accurate, he is not managing the federal workforce, but rather overseeing an audit of it. He himself has no executive powers. Those reside in the elected official (the President). It is also the case that most of the federal workforce is already managed by unelected officials but they are accountable to the President (elected by the people). The problem becomes when the President's assigned administrators are met with widespread #resistance from federal career civil servants who choose to ignore the will of the majority, embodied in the person of the President.
This will all make more sense when you incorporate the concept of "lawfare" into your framework. Laws at this level are very often used as political tools. The courts are not immune to practicing lawfare, either.
The current administration is reducing graft and corruption of necessity because they are breaking up established patronage networks (NED, USAID) and Tammany Hall-style vote harvesting progams (welfare, immigration policy, voter id) that rely on graft and corruption to function. If you understand networks as political weapons then these acts can be understood as disarming your political opponents.
Is having a federal workforce that's managed by an unelected, and unaccountable, oligarch more in line with the best interests of any country?
> Centralized power is very susceptible to grift and corruption.
Isn't putting oligarchs with significant conflicts of interests in charge of the federal bureaucracy also susceptible to graft and corruption? Isn't halting enforcement of the law banning Americans from bribing foreign government officials also susceptible to graft and corruption? Doesn't pardoning a former governor convicted of literally selling a Senate seat make us more susceptible to graft and corruption? Doesn't the Supreme Court continually narrowing the conditions for bribery, making all but impossible to ever charge someone for accepting a bribe make us more susceptible to graft and corruption?
Honestly, it seems strange to me to say that the current administration is reducing graft and corruption, when the policies of this administration and the current conservative Court all seem to be *pro* graft and corruption.