“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Is there Treachery in the US Civil Service?
A Guest Post from "skipsailing", who writes a blog helm's alee and is a poster at The Elephant.
Look, I can understand all the Bush Bashing that goes on now. People of every stripe are piling on, but while we whine about "the snub" we ignore a much more serious problem.
There is a coup d'etat underway in the US.
It is my considered opinion that the established, protected and insular civil service bureaucracy in Washington is using every means at its disposal to thwart this duly elected presidential administration.
This steady stream of leaks to a duplicitous and un-American press corps is no accident. Like minded people are clearly attempting to subvert the leaders that the people of this country selected to govern them.
We need to understand the implications of this. Think about it this way: a president who behaves in a manner that the civil service bureaucracy finds acceptable will receive what he or she is supposed to receive from the billions in salary expense the Americans pay. That is, of course, executive action in support of policy goals.
A president that this bunch finds unacceptable will be damaged, if not destroyed by those same people. So who is really in charge now? The American people? Or the guys inside the beltway with press contacts and the secrets to be leaked?
What we have here, it is now quite clear, is an overt effort by Washington insiders on the federal payroll to subvert our president. These people are so intent on this goal that they will damage our international standing and cause us to lose a vital battle in the war on terror, simply because they disagree with an elected president and are convinced that they cannot be halted.
Ramadi be damned, we are about to lose our democracy to people whose salaries we pay.
If we elect a person that the Washington bureaucracy finds acceptable they will work to advance that person's policy goals. If we elect someone that these people don't approve of, they will grind the ensuing administration to a halt.
Am I being paranoid? That's not the correct question. The correct question is Am I being paranoid enough?
We are losing, or indeed may have already lost, our democracy to a faceless, nameless bunch of overpaid cubicle dwellers who, recognizing that there is no downside to their behavior, have simply taken control of a bloated and unwieldy government.
This string of incredible leaks has one unifying theme, all of them has made the achievement of the Bush Administration's goals more difficult, if not impossible.
People who are sworn to uphold our constitution are now quite clearly telling us whom we may elect and whom we may not. Oh sure we could send another Reagan to the White House but this entrenched bureaucracy will fight tooth and claw against him.
We have a serious problem and we ignore it at our peril.
Go ahead, tell me I'm crazy, but I think I've got it right and I welcome the opportunity to respond to any objections that arise here, simply because that will strengthen my arguments or cause me to alter my view.
Have at it.
6:10 AM, November 30, 2006