Bolton’s Book and the Deep State
For all of Brad Pitt’s Academy Award crocodile tears, everybody seems to have forgotten that John Bolton still exists. The book that caused so much pre-publication consternation has been published without making much of a splash. It’s not surprising considering that everyone who isn’t an idiot (i.e. not Brad Pitt) knew from the get-go that Bolton had nothing new to offer. Trump’s childish impatience at demanding a quick end to the impeachment fiasco (rather than calling Bolton and exposing impeachment for the sham it was) simply gave the Democrats a convenient talking point to muddy the waters. Republicans, on the other hand, don’t want to read anything by a “Trump Traitor”.
This is unfortunate. Though Bolton’s book provides no new information on the Ukraine scandal, it does provide a detailed roadmap of how the “Deep State” (or the bureaucratic oligarchy, if you prefer less conspiratorial terms) operates. By showing the inner workings of the Trump Administration, Bolton proves the Deep State exists, how it operates, and how it has handcuffed this Administration.
Obama’s Unelected Oligarchy
Nowhere is the modus operandi of the Deep State demonstrated more clearly than in the description of Secretary Mattis. For a former Marine, Mattis seems surprisingly comfortable ignoring orders from his commander-in-chief. Repeatedly, Mattis not only stacks the deck for his preferred option; he fails to provide the President with feasible alternatives. At times, he goes so far as to fail to provide options the President had specifically asked for. If Mattis still didn’t get his way, he simply dragged his feet, failing to carry out the President’s commands until it was too late.
Whether or not POTUS or Mattis was right on each specific policy issue is irrelevant. President Trump, like it or not, is the man who was ELECTED to make the call. Mattis wasn’t. His job is to inform the President of his full range of options and give his opinion on which to choose. If the President chooses another, so be it. Failing to provide options you don’t like or failing to carry out orders you disapprove of* is clearly not the job of the Defense Secretary – yet it reflects a disturbing trend of behavior among unelected bureaucrats throughout the Trump era.
*Unless the order is illegal
Difficulties in “Draining the Swamp”
Mattis’s pattern of behavior appears repeatedly at lower levels of the government bureaucracy, and this is where the willingness of bureaucrats to substitute their own policy preferences becomes truly frightening (for anyone who likes democracy). As a political appointee, Mattis could have been removed relatively easily*. The frightening thing about DC at the moment is the number of career bureaucrats who are willing to use their positions to pursue political purposes.
Theoretically, these people are nothing more than bureaucrats, trained people capable of providing the political appointees (who make the policy decisions) with information and advice. Unfortunately, once in these positions, their (supposedly) apolitical nature and general government inertia make them nearly impossible to remove. When they are removed, it provides political ammunition for the opposition (see, e.g., State Department IG firing).
*Political reasons precluded this, and Trump showed uncharacteristic restraint in wisely keeping Mattis around due to his reputation even as Mattis failed to live up to said reputation.
Embedded Activists
Of course, people like Lisa Page didn’t get into government to do their jobs. They did it to make a difference – which, to them, means promoting liberal policies. They are activists first; their actual jobs come in a distant second if they’re considered at all. The ends justify the means, so if you can use your position to send a political adversary to jail (as Comey and Judge Sullivan did to Flynn) or use your access to classified information to lie and mislead the media and the public (ala Brennan), so be it.
This, of course, is not the proper role of the American bureaucracy. However, it’s not just improper. It undermines democracy. Democracy means sometimes the person you don’t like wins, and you have to accept it. Obamaites don’t like this, so they decided to replace the will of the American people represented in the election of Donald Trump with an unelected, unaccountable oligarchy of elitist bureaucrats.
We Need Bureaucracy…Right?
Not necessarily. It would be reactionary and unadvisable to simply say abolish the various agencies and organizations responsible for the “Deep State”. Keep in mind that the purge of East Asian experts during the McCarthy Era left a gap of expertise that helped this country bungle its way into Vietnam. American bureaucracy provides an important source of information for political appointees with a lot on their plate (and, at times, a lack of expertise).
At least, it did. During the Industrial Age of human development, our behemoth of bureaucracy provided an invaluable source of expertise and information at a time when both were difficult to come by. Things moved slowly and deliberatively, and that was a feature at a time when information moved across the globe slowly. It’s become a bug in the reality of our present Digital Age. As businesses have quickly learned, the Digital Age requires slimmer, more agile solutions. Our government should adopt the same approach, updating our bureaucracy to respond more quickly by streamlining and modernizing its approach.
At the same time, we can kill two birds with one stone by using this streamlining to purge our government of political activists masquerading as career bureaucrats. Simply put, if the bureaucrats won’t follow orders from Presidents they don’t like, then we won’t have bureaucrats. Simple.
Keeping Tabs on Trump
The really unfortunate thing about all this – pretty much regardless of political ideology – is that, by muddying the waters, these bureaucratic oligarchs have made it near impossible to check Trump’s corruption. Take the firing of the State Department IG mentioned above. Normally, Pompeo firing an IG who was investigating him would be a major red flag. Because of the history of using baseless investigations and prosecutions as political weapons and the prevalence of people like Comey, Page, and Strzok in the executive branch, it’s more than reasonable to believe the IG was fired for abusing his office for political purposes.
I’m not taking a position on who was right – Pompeo or the IG. What I can say is that what should be cause for alarm has turned into a footnote – nothing more than a messy ‘he-said, he-said’ situation that no person can make sense of. It’s Pompeo’s word against the IG’s, and the IG’s credibility is shot because of the actions of other relative unknowns in the executive branch. All I can say about this case with confidence is that, if you can say with confidence which party you believe, then I can say with confidence that you’re an idiot.