1/ There are two critical flaws in the rhetoric against the "administrative state": the misleading nature of its central premise and the potentially disastrous outcomes of its dismantling. #thread
2/ Opponents of the "administrative state" frame their key premise like this: although many members of our government are elected, there are thousands of unelected administrators with responsibilities that collectively overwhelm the authority of elected officials.
3/ While there are many such unelected officials in government, an enormous proportion of them are appointed directly by elected officials. So voters need to keep in mind that when we vote for a candidate, we are, by extension, voting for these appointed administrators.
4/ Additionally, with the notable exception of appointed judges, most of these members of the "administrative state" serve under the jurisdictions of elected officials and may be dismissed by those elected officials - often in deference to the will of the electorate.
5/ It's also blatantly hypocritical, because the people who attack the "administrative state" rely on the unelected officials they so heavily criticize. Which leads to the second flaw - if we fully deconstructed the "administrative state", our government would be in shambles.
6/ If we remove every one - or even many - of the experts who are appointed to fill unelected roles in administration, those who remain would either be under-qualified / unwilling to take over all the roles themselves, have excessive direct authority, or both.
7/ So the endpoint of "deconstructing the administrative state" is
- give a smaller number of people even more authority,
- have everybody get directly elected in a ludicrously messy system, or
- leave essential government positions unfilled, like the Trump admin is doing now.
- give a smaller number of people even more authority,
- have everybody get directly elected in a ludicrously messy system, or
- leave essential government positions unfilled, like the Trump admin is doing now.
