[rayiner]

Your model doesn’t eliminate politics, it just entrenches the particular politics of the kind of people who go to T10 schools then get jobs as division heads at federal agencies.[1]

There is no such thing as “following the rules” in an apolitical way. Congress writes very broad laws, and the executive branch exercises a tremendous amount of discretion in enforcing and executing those laws. The founders understood that, and their solution to the problem was frequent elections, not the fiction of neutral, apolitical credentialed bureaucrats.

[1] A good example of this is the bank bailouts in the first Obama administration. Even though the voters were outraged at Wall Street, Obama followed the bailout strategy developed by Wall Street. He replaced Hank Paulson (Goldman Sachs) with Tim Geithner (NY Fed then private equity), but everyone underneath stayed the same and the bailout strategy stayed the same.

[fragmede]

It's not a fiction. People do their jobs even if they don't like the current or past President. I'm sure you can pull out a long list of people who didn't, but unless you name everybody, it simply isn't a fiction. My claim isn't bureaucrats are always apolitical, it's that they mostly are. Showing that some aren't doesn't show that they mostly are.

Take the executive assistant to the American diplomat to, say, Sweden. They file paperwork and schedule appointments for the diplomat. Their role is operational. Logistics stuff. Coordinating what goes where. Setup a meeting between three very important busy people and juggle their calendars. Does that position really need to be someone we vote for? They do operations, not make policy.

[rayiner]

If career bureaucrats were just scheduling appointments and filing paperwork, I’d agree with you. But that’s not how these agencies work. Career civil servants are doing entire rulemakings, creating rules that have the force of law. They are preparing enforcement campaigns targeted at entire industries. They are setting internal priorities and policies. And the elected officials have limited ability to control what’s going on if the careers don’t cooperate.

In law school I was an intern for a Commissioner at the FCC. The Bureaus, which were staffed by career civil servants, would send entire rules and orders (hundreds of pages) fully formed up for the political appointees to vote on. Now, I think the career folks at the FCC are fantastic and very responsive to policy changes between administrations.[1] But that’s not true for many agencies. And in those agencies, the career civil servants wield tremendous power and make it very hard for appointees to implement policy the careers disagree with.

[1] Part of this is that, some high-profile stuff aside, there is a consistent ideology between the parties at the FCC. The republicans completely won in the 1980s and almost everyone takes a “law and economics” approach to communications regulations. So the careers are operating from the same analytical framework as the political appointees regardless of who is in power.

[lazide]

‘Because I say so’? Really?

[convolvatron]

I understand this argument that by establishing these agencies with career technocrats, you are giving them agency to make up rules in a bubble. with a revolving door and active steering by invested parties. it is in fact antidemocratic. net neutrality shouldn't be a rule published by the FCC, but a serious policy issue that gets chewed up by the congressional sausage machine.

what I don't understand is the remedy you seem to support makes these decisions autocratically, with more external steering by the ostensibly regulated parties. instead of a bunch of little independent fiefdoms with hysteresis and oversight, now we have a giant unitary federal fiefdom, and the only democratic input is a red or blue ever 4 years, if that.

maybe you could put some framing about how you think federal enivironmental/financial/communications/health/housing policy should be managed? because I don't see this shift as being in any way more empowering to the taxpayers.

[rayiner]

I think we should eliminate the filibuster so Congress can do actual policymaking. Your example of net neutrality is a great one. Congress should be doing this, perhaps based on recommendations from the executive agencies. There’s thousands of examples of that, such as EPA regulation of CO2 emissions. The executive branch has way too much discretionary authority, especially in the area of rule making.

But I also think that, whatever discretion has been allocated to the executive, it should be exercised by the President and political appointees who are directly accountable to voters. I want Democrats to emulate what Trump did in 2024: get on stage with their proposed appointees to key positions, who can speak about what they want to do in particular areas. The executive runs a huge fraction of the government, and voters should get to see who is going to be in charge. And once they vote, their vote should be effective. These appointees should actually be able to make the big changes they promise.

I think bureaucrats that can’t be voted out are a bigger risk than anything else. You raise the concern about steering by regulated entities, but that happens with bureaucrats too. The department heads of these agencies have a revolving door relationship with the regulated agencies. It’s just not out in the open.