Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 27 November 2016

Thank you for taking time to reply to my comments. I’ve always respected and appreciated your perspectives on various issues, and especially your thoroughness in researching the facts and presenting them in ways that make understanding easier for others. I pinged you because I know of your career experience, and that your inside knowledge of the State Department exceeds mine, and most other Freepers.

I do understand that the great majority of civil servants, such as yourself, are loyal, patriotic Americans who serve their country honorably. This applies not only to the State Department, but to other agencies as well. Also, I understand and agree that the State Department does not operate completely alone, but in conjunction with other agencies.

All of these points you’ve raised I agree with. They are, however, simply truisms describing how bureaucracies function. I stand by my belief, though, that at the highest levels of authority in the Department, there are many officials who do have the attitudes I described, and to a degree far beyond mere bureaucratic politics, to the point that they really don’t consider themselves bound to execute the will of the Executive. Of course I can’t prove any of this - it’s merely a subjective personal impression gleaned from many years of observation and information I’ve come across.

I remember the notorious incident when Colin Powell took office and addressed the State personnel, outlining his and Bush’s agenda for them. There was a lady official who immediately called a meeting of her team and told them in no uncertain terms that she and her people didn’t care Powell had said, they would do what she wanted. Now, nothing much ever came of it, and I imagine she experienced some negative consequences for her brazenness, but the incident is illustrative of the problem.

I will concede that my language may have been a bit dramatic, but I still believe that these kinds of institutional attitudes and mindsets are a corrosive influence, not just in the State Department, but other agencies as well. It’s just that State is an especially critical one.

That’s why I am so opposed to Romney as SOS - it’s not simply a matter of his relationship with Trump, but because I believe he’ll actually be more interested in representing the interests of the globalist establishment than those of President Trump. He can do a lot of damage. I sincerely hope that the coming days, months and years prove me wrong about my misgivings.

Finally, kabar, I apologize for offending you. I did not mean to, but I guess due to the nature of my argument it was unavoidable. I have nothing but respect and admiration for you, and appreciation for your many years of service to our country. Thank you again for all that you’ve done, and all that you do here on Free Republic.

I stand by my belief, though, that at the highest levels of authority in the Department, there are many officials who do have the attitudes I described, and to a degree far beyond mere bureaucratic politics, to the point that they really don’t consider themselves bound to execute the will of the Executive. Of course I can’t prove any of this - it’s merely a subjective personal impression gleaned from many years of observation and information I’ve come across.

First, thank you for your kind remarks. I have always respected your reasoned and thoughtful comments.

I have not found in my 28 years of working for the Department, including at a relatively high level, that career State Department personnel have thwarted the will of the Executive. They may not agree with the directions given, but they follow orders just like the military.

Career bureaucrats can and do use their knowledge of the rules and regulations to slow down changes they don't support. This is true in every government agency.

IMO people overestimate the State Department's role in formulating our foreign policy. Only 20% of the Americans stationed at our diplomatic posts abroad work for the State Department. Our embassies and consulates are platforms for the other foreign affairs agencies to conduct their business. They have their own reporting channels back to their own agencies. This serves to create policy differences that are resolved at the NSC and in the WH. We used to joke that the State Department was just the storefront operation and the real power lay with the intelligence agencies and DOD. In many cases, these other agencies hold more power and influence than the State Department. The "striped pants cookie pushers" are just window dressing.

My problem with the career bureaucrats in the State Department and other agencies is not that they are thwarting the objectives of the political appointees, but rather, that the career bureaucrats have become too partisan and too willing to carry out the agenda of the Dems, the party of Big Government.

I am ashamed and disappointed that the career bureaucrats in the State Department, especially U/S for Management, Pat Kennedy, someone I worked directly for for over four years, failed to stop Hillary Clinton from using a personal server to conduct official business. It is clear to me that this was known from the very beginning by Kennedy, the head of our Information Systems operations, and others in the Department. And they have compounded the problem by covering it up including lying to the FBI and Congress. They have slow-walked the release of the emails. They appointed an ARB that was part of the cover-up and even failed to interview Hillary when they presented their findings.

The State Department's reputation is in tatters because the career bureaucrats chose sides and helped their political superiors violate the law and carry out some very questionable operations like the Iran deal and paying ransoms for hostages.

The State Department is not alone in terms of partisan career bureaucrats. The IRS, EPA, ATF, and yes even DOD have chosen sides. We have the case of generals and senior DOD civilians altering intelligence reports from lower levels to put a better face on the war against ISIS and AQ. The Bergdahl affair is another example of the career bureaucrats using their power to thwart Congress. DOD, the CIA, and State teamed up to prevent the facts coming out on Benghazi. I have no doubt that the Labor Department is manipulating employment data or that HHS and ICE are doing the same thing with immigration statistics,

The The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, enacted in 1883, established that positions within the federal government should be awarded on the basis of merit instead of political affiliation. It was supposed to stop the spoils system and give us a permanent civil service workforce that was apolitical and served the nation as a whole. It provides continuity and the retention of needed expertise to run the government. I see that as being undermined today by public service unions that continue to push for bigger and better benefits and an expanded government workforce.

It is no wonder that career civil servants identify more with the Dems, the party of Big Government, than they do with the party of limited government, the GOP. It is no wonder why the federal government unions endorse the Dems and contribute overwhelmingly to the Democrat party. And it is no wonder why most career bureaucrats agree with the Dem agenda. Lois Lerner and her cohorts did not have to be convinced or ordered to go after the Tea Party and other conservative groups. They just needed the green light.

Trump and his incoming administration is going to have problems implementing their agenda. This is when the career bureaucrats try to block changes and the GOP agenda. And you will see plenty of leaks to the press to aid their efforts. One way is to stop manipulating data the way they did to protect the Obama administration.

We are in a very dire situation when it comes to the partisan career bureaucracy. One of the first things that should be done is to dissolve the federal public unions. Even FDR thought this was a bad thing.

In sum, I am more concerned that we have a career bureaucracy that has taken sides politically and will do whatever is necessary to further the Dem agenda and block the GOP's. This is the real legacy of the Clintons and Obama.

One of the first things that should be done is to dissolve the federal public unions. Even FDR thought this was a bad thing...

I agree, they need to be decertified. In a nutshell...they collectively bargain against the taxpayers, who have no seat at the table, which explains the ever-inceasing budgets. Tell me how that's fair..

Trump and his incoming administration is going to have problems implementing their agenda. This is when the career bureaucrats try to block changes and the GOP agenda...I am more concerned that we have a career bureaucracy that has taken sides politically and will do whatever is necessary to further the Dem agenda and block the GOP's.

That's exactly why he needs to "drain the swamp".

I firmly believe that within any bureaucracy, 20% of the people in any office do all the work....the rest are drones and political hacks.

We need the people like you, who are silent conservative professionals, to "rat out" the RATs. I'm sure you all know each other, and you need to gain the ear of one or more of the new cabinet nominees to truly facilitate operation "drain the swamp".

With that 80% out of the way, the Trump agenda can progress unimpeded, those remaining can freely associate and plan. Imagine the massive budget savings that could be attained without those all gratuitous salaries, benefits and pensions.

Then, the issue of closing redundant and obsolete departments and agencies. It sounds like an actual good reason for a "Tzar"...who can then fire himself after he's finished his job.

kabar, thanks again for such a knowledgeable, informative and illuminating follow-up to our conversation. You illustrate once more why I value your ideas and perspectives on so many of these critical issues. My apologies also for the delay in getting back to you. I had some medical issues arise and have spent the last few days dealing with doctors, tests, etc. (I should have bought the Extended Warranty). ;-)

The in-depth information you’ve provided is compelling, especially as it’s derived from long personal experience. Perhaps my impression that the obstructionist mis-steps and malfeasances of State Department officials is due to ideology rather than the all too human tendency to partisanship and corruption you’ve described is because I lack precisely the inside knowledge and experience you possess. A little application of Occam’s rule may be in order. Or as mirror universe Spock said to Kirk, “I shall consider it!”

Your observation about the threat of the public service unions is spot-on, and we do agree completely that the current situation is dire and dangerous, and is why Trump’s choice for SOS is critical. I believe that Romney is far more likely to “go native” and join the anti-Trump factions at State than devote his full effort to reforming it.

Like Hillary, Romney’s lifelong ambition has been to be President. I can easily see him at some future critical point of controversy making a splashy resignation and then opposing Trump as a means to position himself for another shot at the Presidency.

Again, thanks for the conversation (and the education), and all that you do for the cause of freedom. Let’s hope our fellow countrymen continue waking up, and that it’s not to late.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.