The United States is generally considered a representative democracy. Such a system implies certain responsibilities; that those elected to exercise power do so to the best of their ability on behalf of those they represent (and not simply those who voted for them). When their expertise is lacking in particular domains, particularly those confirmed by the Senate for appointments to executive positions, those appointees are expected to rely on politically neutral subject matter experts in the civil service. Such is an "ideal world".
Granted the real world isn't like that, and the degree to which reality diverges from such an ideal varies from time to time. J. Edgar Hoover, for example, used the FBI for what came to be seen as political ends. But for fifty odd years, it was largely taken for granted that the Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve, the FBI, and the civil service (including the IRS) were "fonctionnaires", implementing whatever policy agenda the legislative and executive branches set out, guided by their understanding of the domain, any legal constraints (and perhaps some ethical considerations though one might argue that those are the preserve of their political masters). And the judicial system was there to implement the law fairly and without political bias (although with elected judges and judges appointed by politicians, that was always going to be wishful thinking).
For better or worse, we are now entering a particularly uncertain time. Donald Trump, as he has most of his life, has charted his own course. Three actions at the start of his second term stand out. First is his pardoning of those convicted of offenses related to the January 6th insurrection. In pardoning members of a domestic terrorist organization and those convicted of acts of violence against law enforcement, he has signalled that the law may be selectively applied; his friends and allies are not constrained by, or subject to, the same legal standards as his enemies. He has made quite clear his intent to exact personal and political revenge on his enemies using the Department of Justice.
Second, in seeking appointments to the executive branch of individuals with little or no subject matter expertise, but rather on the basis of pledges of loyalty, he has undermined notions of meritocaracy and overtly has politicised the executive branch. While that's not illegal, the majority in the Senate should consider carefully whether the country is better served by political lackeys in key positions in the administration rather than people with domain knowledge, relevant experience and demonstrated management ability.
Third, in "Schedule F" Trump will further politicise the civil service. That will likely have three consequences. Decisions will be made on political grounds and without sufficient (if any) reference to subject matter expert advice; outcomes may therefore by quite different from intent. This will further undermine already abysmal levels of trust in the institutions of government. That in turn will, for some-- particularly those who have already demonstrated a willingness to take the law into their own hands--lead to more acts of subversion and the erosion of a well ordered society.
It is also worth noting that Trump's blatant self-dealing (e.g. the implicit requirement to stay at his Washington DC hotel, charging the secret service to stay at Mar-a-Lago, his refusal to place his investments in a blind trust, his refusal to release his tax returns, his selling of branded merchandise and his own cryptocurrency while regulating that nascent industry) further seemingly legitimise what is already a fundamentally corrupt system in which policies are influenced by the possibility of financial gain for those responsible for their creation. That breeds further cynicism and distrust.
And as power is increasingly centralised around one individual, ironically, the US begins to resemble other countries where getting ahead means cosying up to (and bribing) those in power. It is puzzling as to how America got here with such a strong supposedly religious people, who often claim the moral high ground (though more often it is an economic rather than a morel argument). This is only one aspect of the decline of democracy in America, but is is an important one. Only time will tell whether the country can get back to a more just society; for now the signs are far from hopeful.
No comments:
Post a Comment