OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics
Economics Education Ethics Foreign Policy Government History Politics Religion Science


Beating a 'Yes Minister' system

is4junk          8 January 2016 08:29 AM


In the 'Yes, Minister' world, the Bureaucracy is the permanent opposition to the administration. While it leans leftist, it is beneficial to both parities. A political donor that wants a change in government will need to do all leg work to make it happen if it is against the Bureaucracy's interests. That donor will need to pay off lots of politicians, regulators, and bureaucrats. Finally, the courts may roll it back (in part or in full) even if it is done. If we assume the political parties are driven mainly by greed and a little by principle then the system works for both parties. An expensive and opaque system with large opportunities for graft. Note: "pay off" isn't just money but can be power and influence.

Assuming this world, what is a President Donald Trump to do? His donor base will be small - he is largely a populist and isn't courting the donors. He will need to push his own policy through the Bureaucracy at his own cost! In the 'Yes, Minister' world, his appointed cabinet will be sabotaged, misinformed, leaked against, ect. To really take on the Bureaucracy he will need replace the head, neck, and shoulders of many of the agencies. Can he hire enough Czars to take over the rolls and responsibilities of all those groups (while sidelining the current bureaucrats to something meaningless - firing would be difficult)? Can he effectively stall any judicial challenges to his policies?





Would you like to read similar articles in the future?
      
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
 

                  Post Comment                   




Recommended for You Optimates Populares Centrists

Show comments            Sort by        



ChristianKl 9 January 2016 04:19 AM
67%

I don't think "Yes Minister" has something to do with the burocracy being leftist.
If you take the issue of equal opportunity you have Humphrey saying that he's pro-women because his wife is a woman.
Humphrey doesn't care about civil liberties. In the US contexts Humphrey would be on the side of the policy when a policyman shots a black person.

"Yes Minister" works without saying whether the prime minister is left or right because the political questions aren't about left or right.

If we look at the US, it's worth noting that it has a different system then the UK. In the US any minister has no problem with choosing his private secretary. In the US it's much easier to fire people.

That said it's very unclear what Trump even wants to do when elected. He purposefuly doesn't make specific promises. A lot of moves are to create a good negotiating position.
That includes speaking positively of Modi and Putin.
Claiming that the Mexican's will pay for the wall is also about creating a negotiating position.

Unfortunately I fear that one of the biggest legacies of Trump will be that the Republican party doesn't hold itself anymore to what Karl Rove called the 100% truth test.
Having an Anti-Vaxxer as president will result in a lot of unnecessary deaths. You will have an enviroment where people one side of the debate doesn't dare to say that Trump lied about issues like Muslims in the US celebrating 9/11.

Then Trump is going to pick fights and make people inside the administration afraid of him. He wouldn't tolerate the kind of behavior of Humphrey. He will fight, likely producing an administration that is at the beginning even more disfuncitonal than what we have at the moment.

It's also worth noting that there are cases where Trump won't fight the administration. If the US military doesn't want to fight a war, I doubt Trump tries to get them to fight it. Trump won't fight the NSA and maybe even help the NSA with outlawing crypto.


stars0
Reply


melian 10 January 2016 06:47 AM
73%

I don't think "Yes Minister" has something to do with the burocracy being leftist.

In democracies, government employees tend to support the left (though there are exceptions, such as police). In a large part this is just economic self-interest. Whereas for private sector employees more taxes means more money out of their pockets, for government employees more taxes means that government has more money to pay them higher salaries and pensions.
Republican party doesn't hold itself anymore to what Karl Rove called the 100% truth test.

Are there serious candidates (Republican or Democrat) that do pass this test?


stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 11 January 2016 10:29 AM
65%

In democracies, government employees tend to support the left (though there are exceptions, such as police). In a large part this is just economic self-interest. Whereas for private sector employees more taxes means more money out of their pockets, for government employees more taxes means that government has more money to pay them higher salaries and pensions.
Goverment employes might want a higher tax rate but they don't aren't automatically left in the sense of pro-union and supporting workers rights.

If you look at the SEC, they don't seem like a leftish organisation to me. The SEC likely wants to have more employees but they don't want to throw more bankers into prison. You might call Eliot Spitzer leftish and the SEC doesn't bring those kind of suits.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 11 January 2016 04:58 AM
65%

Are there serious candidates (Republican or Democrat) that do pass this test?
I don't think that what Hillary says is significantly more false than the campaign of George Bush with Karl Rove's 100% truth test.

Karl Rove considered it to be okay to make very misleading statements as long as the have a factual basis.

According to those norms politicians don't double down when caught in a lie. If you look at Hilary reaction to Fox news saying that she lied about Trump appearing in ISIS videos her aids argument that she meant to say that there are social media accounts belonging to ISIS followers that shared linked to video's of Trump.

When it came out that Ben Carson likely lied about major parts of his biography he lost in the polls. That's how it's supposed to work.

Trump manages to say things without any faint relation to the truth and get's away with ... read more


stars0
View Replies (8)
Reply


is4junk 9 January 2016 03:20 PM
67%

That said it's very unclear what Trump even wants to do when elected.

This is due to Trump's lack of donors. Normally, you'd know what the plan is by looking at who is buying the politician - funding the campaign, being the attack dog, people voting, ect.

Even the voters are confusing. The NYT article says 40% of Trump's Primary supporters are registered democrats. I guess this makes sense if their other options are {hillary,bernie}. Not sure how hard they will be to convert to Republican primary voters. In some states, it is very easy to vote in the alternate party primary.

Looking at the betting sites - they all favor Rubio. I assume this is due to the super-delegates all being GOPe. If there is mixed results by the states - like in 2008 then they will be the deciders.



stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 10 January 2016 06:17 AM
67%

. The NYT article says 40% of Trump's Primary supporters are registered democrats.
It's not that long ago that Trump said publically that he's nearer to the Democrats than to the Republicans and that the economy generally grows better under the Democrats.

Nixon went to China ;)
This is due to Trump's lack of donors. Normally, you'd know what the plan is by looking at who is buying the politician - funding the campaign, being the attack dog, people voting, ect.
Partly, but I don't think that's the whole story.

There was an interview where Hanniety intereviewed Trump on his book `Time to Get Tough`. Hanniety proposed that the book is Trump's answer to critics who critize that he isn't saying anything specific. Trump responded by saying that "No, the book doesn't contain specifics" Trump doesn't think that it's useful to speak about specifics ... read more


stars0
Reply


VoiceOfRa 9 January 2016 10:37 AM
66%


Having an Anti-Vaxxer as president will result in a lot of unnecessary deaths.


You do realize that term (probably intentionally) conflates a ton of different positions, some of them, such as my understanding of Trumps, totally reasonable.


stars0
Reply


is4junk 10 January 2016 05:53 PM
66%

I think he means President Hillary Or maybe Obama. She is also straddling the fence on this one.
From the article:

And Hillary Clinton has said the same thing about, well, we don't know. We should study it. Is it irresponsible for a major political figure to play Doubting Thomas on this issue?


Senator BARACK OBAMA (Democrat, Illinois): There are some people who are suspicious that it's connected to vaccines and triggers. But the science right now is inconclusive.



stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 11 January 2016 05:58 AM
65%

According to Forbes Trump believes and says publically that autism is caused by vaccines.

On Twitter Trump wrote:
A study says @Autism is out of control--a 78% increase in 10 years. Stop giving monstrous combined vaccinations


There doesn't seem to no attempt to walk back on the statement.
Let's say a Democratic candidate or even establisment Republican believes that autism is caused by vaccines and says it publically. What happens?

Afterwards he and his advisors say that he mispoke, and didn't really mean that autism is caused by vaccines. An estalishment politican doesn't double down on such a claim. That's something where Trump acts very differently and that matters.
... read more


stars0
Reply



is4junk 3 February 2016 12:25 PM
66%

Megan McArdle doesn't think Trump is going to beat the system.

The third problem is bureaucratic proceduralism. Yes, yes, I know: Everyone hates bureaucrats. But everyone loves Social Security checks. And federal funding for their local school. And Ö and Ö Iím not going to bore you with the list. Anything that gets done by Washington must be done by the civil service. These folks are lifers. You canít fire them. Because of the abovementioned legislative compromises required, you also canít push a bill through that will let you fire them. And they -- not the president, and not the cabinet secretaries -- are the folks who do most of what government does. The president can wave his hands like Jean-Luc Picard and say, ďMake it so.Ē But if they donít wanna, they ainít gonna.


stars0
Reply