Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Make-Believe Administration
Many ideas have been battling in my brain regarding the Biden administration. In trying to make sense of it, I realized that there was an ideal way to describe what has been going on. For the Left, it’s all make-believe. Whether their actions are practical, realistic,
helpful; whether they will improve the lives of our citizens; whether they will make us a stronger and more resilient country—are all irrelevant. It is like watching a child playing with tinker toys, creating funny and weird figures that are fun but meaningless. Or watching them create card castles and then watch how far they can go before the entire structure collapses. When it does, they can always pick up the cards and start all over.
Only playing with the future of our country is not a game.
Let’s start with immigration. Biden’s policy will likely provide amnesty for illegal aliens. Homeland Security Secretary Majorcas has told migrants we want you to come; just don’t come now, which is like laying down the welcome mat. Housing for these migrants is quickly filling up, approaching 100%, with children being assigned to close quarters (and not safe spacing). Migrants with Covid-19 have reportedly been released into the country. There is clearly a crisis at the border, but the administration prefers to call it a challenge. Word-smithing the situation doesn’t change the fact that a disaster is imminent. And of course, come policies have changed to reverse actions by Donald Trump.
Then we can look at Iran. Biden assumes there will be some give-and-take with Iran that will justify our re-entering the Iran deal. There is no basis for even considering our re-entering the deal. Does Biden want to befriend Iran? It won’t happen. In fact, he will alienate most countries in the Middle East. Does Biden really think he can stop Iran’s developing a nuclear bomb?—it won’t work. Iran tells lies and sees no problem with making promises that they have no intention of keeping, to the U.S. or any other country. At this point, any realistic country knows that Iran can’t be stopped. But our re-entering the deal reverses a decision by Donald Trump, and will only frustrate the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, as well as other countries in that part of the world.
And there are the efforts surrounding climate change. We gain nothing at all by re-entering the Paris accords, and we are expected to comply with its requirements. It ignores the fact that we have made tremendous progress in limiting emissions, and gives other countries a pass for the foreseeable future in improving their own emissions. There is no accountability for anyone. Stopping the Keystone Pipeline has already put workers out of work; we can now use more dangerous, dirty and costly methods for transporting the oil. But it does reverse a decision by Donald Trump.
And finally there is Covid-19. Decisions are no longer about science. They probably never were. But the “experts” keep making up new policies so they can feel like they are actually doing something to maintain their power; they’ll just say they’re trying to save our lives. Masks at this point are probably stupid. Double masks are insane. We can now agree that they really don’t know what they are talking about, so they keep digging bigger holes filled with inanity. And they expect us to follow along. In spite of the fact that the virus is now likely less lethal (even the variants). But then Biden trusts the experts. The problem is, we don’t trust them or him.
* * * * *
I am aware that there are people higher than the Biden administration that might be pulling the strings of power. But Biden, his handlers, and the rest of his administration are playing the game of make-believe. There are many more actions that show the lack of maturity, foresight, wisdom, and practicality of the Biden Administration’s actions: rejoining the World Health Organization, systemic racism in law enforcement, the obscene provisions in the supposed Covid relief bill, to name a few. To review a straightforward summary as of February 25 of his executive orders, go here :
So far, Biden has signed more than 50 executive actions, 22 of which are direct reversals of Trump’s policies. Most of these actions have addressed the novel coronavirus, immigration and equity.
Biden defends the number of executive actions he has issued as necessary to undo what he considers ‘bad policy’ inherited from Trump, especially on immigration.
To date, nine of his 11 actions regarding immigration are reversals of Trump’s policies.
Biden has denied his actions are attacks on Trump. But the numbers speak for themselves. His decisions reflect the pettiness, the lack of analysis, and his lack of consideration of the impact on the American people, especially the middle class.
That’s why it’s clear to me that we are dealing with people who prefer to live in a state of “make-believe,” where outcomes are not relevant and people are only an inconvenience.
It allows you to toss the tinker toys into a pile, whenever you wish.
Unfortunately. they hope to bury us under the pile.
Sorry Mr. Biden. I live in the real world.
Published in Domestic Policy
Once upon a time individual laws were focused toward dealing with a specific set of issues or solving specific problems. Today, the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi craft wide-ranging bills covering almost any subject and include all of it in a single piece of legislation. If congressional committees get involved at all it is an afterthought. This is the way Democrats in the House avoid even allowing Republican members to get on the record with debate and questions. This is how the $15 federal minimum wage provision appeared in the “Covid Relief Bill” and got stripped out. Most of what should not have been in the bill survived.
I have a friend who believed that the Right had made up a story about Nancy Pelosi’s drinking. Of course, her source to discount the story was the MSM. So it had to be true.
@cowgirl, Hillsdale College has a free online course on the development of Congress and the Administrative State. It’s enough to make you want to tear your hair out. Then there is the Chevron Act that gets talked about now and then–I believe it has allowed the Admin State to do just what you and Crabtree are describing. There was some hope that some kind of case would come to the Supreme Court–Gorsuch has had serious questions about this process–but I don’t know is anything is up to be considered. You’re right–we are governed by the whims of the bureaucrats.
The funny thing is that entropy is not make-believe. The three bears did come home. Riot-burned stores do need to be rebuilt. Or else they will return to nature, even in the cities, with shells of houses, falling concrete, trees growing in the former living rooms and limbs growing out the bare windows, and feral animals.
And then there’s social entropy as well, with poor to no education, joblessness, scarcity of supermarkets, trash everywhere, cars up on blocks, and general lawlessness.
Well gosh, Flicker, they can’t spend time worrying about all that. They have places to go and people to see. And more card castles to build. . .
I’d like to know about the course. I’m busy! But I’d love to watch it. But I will just say that I had similar concerns about the growth of the administrative state and governance by bureaucrats but I believe empirically and formally (formal/spatial models) that this is not the major concern about why governance goes awry. Bureaucrats, at the federal level, are relatively responsive and sensitive to the politics around committees, Congress as a whole, and the President. They are also sensitive to circuit courts. Congressional oversight over bureaucracies is more extensive than previously assumed and they are more responsive (only a little bit, to be fair) to Republican oversight.
There are a couple of good theories of why bureaucrats develop autonomy but rarely is it that the bureaucrats have gone wild. Of course there are always edge cases. As much as the idea of a crazy bureaucracy bothered me, governance by the whims of bureaucrats isn’t something I can maintain is found in any good study. Bureaucrats do what the President wants them to do, and generally what they feel they can get away with when they can exploit Congressional indifference.
They are sensitive to politics and mainly develop rules with the input of either Congress or interest groups. If a bureaucrat does something it is because someone voted for Congress or the President to have them do it, or an interest group (we can all be interest groups) asked them to do it (this is also politics but I want to be value neutral).
I’m not really a Joni Mitchell fan, but this seems appropriate:
“Bows and flows of angel hair, And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere, I’ve looked at clouds that way.”
Perfect!
I believe I read some time back that the field of administrative law is pretty lucrative.
Absolutely! I didn’t mean to imply that the Bureaucracy was a sinister development. On the contrary…it is the natural outcome of one group of people believing sincerely that they are more suited to running the lives of another group of people. The Bureaucracy likes the organization, the behind-the-scenes power, the ability to get things the way they want without the hassle of running for office and putting themselves out there for criticism. They know better, and they are ready to take care of us…especially if they can do it with “rules” and “procedures” and “policies”….
I think this bureaucracy was primarily responsible for our regulations running amuck. And I’m not convinced that they were working for the betterment of society. I think they figured the more regulations, the better. But I can’t back that with data. Let’s remember that Trump said that for every 2 new regulations enacted, one had to be eliminated. That was the ratio, wasn’t it?
My feelings are mixed. Congress frequently tells the bureaucracy to develop rules that are fit to achieve Congress’ own interests, even though the most all agencies are part of the executive branch. So there is already going to be a real problem built in that isn’t entirely the bureaucrats’ fault. Congress and the Presidency routinely ask bureaucrats to fall on their [Congress’/Presidents’] swords. For better or worse.
Most bureaucrats are generally very much concerned about creating good policy. We probably disagree with what they consider good policy. But sorting on public mindedness is something that will identify who goes to DC and who goes to McKinsey. In one theory, bureaucrats are thought to be “paid” by allowing them autonomy in policy design (via rule interpretation).
Your statement about regulations is a data driven statement. They produce a lot of them. Trump had a big, and I think good, impact on bureaucratic regulations. He led an actual decrease compared to Bush and Obama. More oversight is needed over the bureaucracy. The ATF wants to basically criminalize every pistol brace owner. We have to stop that. But we can, if we participate, because they are generally responsive to comments, especially on high profile issues. We should note that the rules they develop are not developed out of nowhere. If they announce a rule, generally it has been one developed with interest group input. These announcements aren’t random.
Also, I’ll take your point about bureaucratic oversight as its own goal being a problem. Because it is. We had a discussion about anti-methamphetamine policies in FL and the very nice and educated lady from the government had a huge hangup about the fact that these clinics, including most in Delray, were only minimally regulated. It wasn’t in her theory of the world that you could give drugs to people to reduce meth addiction without extensive government regulation.
I would contest the validity of this view. This is a process with a favorable Democrat Party force behind it. Labor unions have influence in this process and Democrat campaign funding bolsters that influence. I doubt the talent in the bureaucracy matches that going to McKinsey, which does not stay very long. Public mindedness would be laudable but I think what you get is people who eventually rise to levels just above their competency and reside there until they achieve a lucrative retirement pension. There are other pieces to this puzzle, I’m sure.
Great post and thread. Two things strike me about the points raised.
First has to do with peaking Maslow’s hierarchy. The foot stomping priorities of our new congress and the executive orders are somewhere between frivolous and dangerous. Most of the middle class view issues like climate change and equity and gender abominations and the determined fight against systemic anything amount to political fetishes. Unfettered immigration represents something of a more direct threat to the jobs of unskilled Americans, law enforcement and, too often, social services. The influence of special interests do not represent anything like the preferences of the average American.
The other has to do with Congress’ need to do something (!) We kid that liberals want everything to be mandatory or illegal. Passing law after law – and delegating rulemaking authority to bureaucrats – sort of pushes that impulse either outlawing or promoting something. At a point, they run past freedom and into an increasingly toward a restrictive country. Congress could also spend its days repealing silly laws in the interest of those they represent.
I think they could spend the next decade cleaning up the Congressional excesses of my lifetime without passing a single new restriction on the rest of us and still ably serve the American people and the Constitution.
Thanks for the reply. I share your concerns and I’d like to break this into a couple of points. One question is who goes into the bureaucracy? People who are generally more liberal become bureaucrats and they also rank higher on “being concerned about public interest/responsiveness” than similarly educated people that wind up doing similar jobs in the private sector (ex: McKinsey).
It is hard to rate and compare competency because a couple of models of bureaucratic behavior look at bureaucratic independence as a “payment” or “incentive.” But part of that model is based on private sector payment as on off path equilibrium. So it is really hard to compare skill levels. In terms of raw degree rankings (PhD/MPA etc.), you don’t see a real difference (though I haven’t looked at that data for a while). Generally, it as accepted that policy autonomy is an incentive/payment scheme for bureaucrats. It is also accepted that Congress generally keeps a close watch on this and they successfully treat it like a lever.
The other question– the second question– is labor unions. Democrat and republican presidents both strategically extend unionization to politically aligned bureaucracies and this certainly affects their behavior, but the consequences are not uniformly left or right. I’ve seen this in the spending data in my own work in this area. Presidents exercise the great deal of control of agency spending for their own political needs, unionization affects the avenues of spending but it isn’t a reliable measure in and of itself.
A lot of things we don’t want to happen, happen in politics. Of course bureaucrats are part of that. They do some bad things. But the upshot my reading into all of this is that basically, they are responsive to politics. Broadly speaking, they do what we ask them to. The people who get involved will get the changes that they seek.
Susan:
“I think this bureaucracy was primarily responsible for our regulations running amuck.”
The Progressives engineered the power of the Administrative State through a series of Supreme Court rulings in the 30’s where the Bureaucracy was given the power to make law, enforce law and judge it’s own laws, directly contradicting Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution which reads:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Somehow “All Legislative Powers herein vested in a Congress” was interpreted by the Supremes to grant Legislative Powers to the Federal Bureaucracy, which ripped a gaping whole in the Constitutional idea of checks and balances against the abuse of Power by government. Soon there was no check on Administrative State/Federal Bureaucracy power, which was made even worse by the “Chevron” decision which said that all decision making in the Federal Government shall “defer” to that of the Federal Bureaucracy/ Administrative State.
Trump was often handcuffed by this “Chevron Deference” where the ultimate power to decide resided not with the President of these United States but with Federal Bureaucracy.
Today’s Democrats are sort of like a combination of Jacobins, Bolsheviks, and Cadets. They think they are on the right side of history, but are likely to give us something akin to the Terror, or the murderous Soviet State. They have no concern for the country. They answer to a “higher power” which for them is the call of “History”. And they can do no wrong because the iron laws of history bend that iron arc, and irrevocably bend it toward “Justice”. (Being a Progressive means never having to say you’re sorry, or wrong). Dr. Bastiat says the Democrats have no ideology, only a lust for power. That they are not Communists or Marxist, or of any ideology. I think he is completely wrong. The Democrats, Progressives, are indeed Marxists; the ideology is the same. They foresee equal “social justice’, economic “equity”, etc. etc. in the same way the Marxists saw class warfare, leading to absolute equality (economic for the Marxists, socioeconomic for the Progressives) across the board. The class war of the Marxists didn’t turn out as planned, so the Progressives have added race war to class war to give critical race theory, but the end and the aim is the same. I cite Eric Vogelin, who placed Progressivism in the same class of a big lie as Communism, Fascism–all of these attempting to ‘immanentize the eschaton.’
Despite the protestations and denial from the Marxists, Marxism was based on 19th Century Thermodynamics, in particular the Second Law: The Entropy of the Universe is Increasing.
What this meant as far as physics, is that the Universe would eventually experience a “heat death” (Warmer Tod) due the eventual, ultimate maximization of Entropy. The Universe would exist in a diffuse state of randomness at 3 degrees Kelvin, in which there was little motion or change, if any at all. Marxism applied this to economics and predicted that Capitalism would likewise suffer a “heat death”. That’s why Kruschev claimed the Soviet Union would ‘bury’ the West. He wasn’t making a threat; he was simply stating “scientific fact” per Marxist materialism. Of course, hastening that day of a capitalist ‘heat death’ meant attempting to hasten the day when there would be no economic activity and mankind would exist, if at all, in a state of ultimate misery, eg, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. (Marxism, and Progressivism, are both based on misapplied and outdated ‘science’).
Progressives have far more in common with the CCP than with the American Founding.
At the end of In the First Circle, Solzhenitsyn makes a comment that the ideas of the vanquished (in 1953 he foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union) have a way of being assimilated by the victor, and that is exactly what has come to be. He prophesied the self-immolation of the West, and Progressives are now working pell mell to light the pyre.
Come on baby light that pyre! Come on set the world on fire!