,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
One positive side effect of the administration's bonkers immigration policy proposals is think a lot more people are getting a sense of how executive branch policymaking actually works, the WH role in the process, and the importance of skill to both power and governance.
The executive branch may or may not be unitary in a formal legal sense, but it is emphatically not unitary in a practical policymaking sense. Actors all over the system (legislators, interest groups, POTUS/WH, appointees, civil servants) work to shape policy.
And this belies the most naive view---that POTUS/WH can dictate policy to secretaries/depts/agencies. They can try, but they can also be ignored, rolled, or flat out rejected. In fact, if they decide to centralize policy development too much in the WH, these results are likely.
A functioning policy process seeks to create consensus among the various actors who have formal and informal vetoes over implementation. Brining legislators, stakeholders, appointees, and careerists into the formulation necessarily provides the buy-in to reduce resistance.
Even better, it usually results in better, more workable policy! One problem with centralizing policy development at the WH is that you end up with ideas that have no connection to the reality of street-level governance or appreciation for details.
And, as a political matter, the WH doesn't look like a bunch of incompetents who have no clue what they are doing on policy, and have no power to get their way. Getting your way in the executive branch often means discarding ideas and/or compromising.
Needless to say, I'm unimpressed with the current WH as policy influencers. Not only do they seem naive, they aren't even doing the most basic thing that would help them: filling vacancies with capable political appointees.
And lots of eyes glaze over when you start talking about executive branch policymaking processes, but it goes to the heart of how well a government works. Legislating is obviously important, but *governance* is far more important to succesful public life.
Congress writes broad, vague laws that set the terms of governnace, but it's the executive branch that fills in the details and, well, governs. That discretion---to bring the laws to life and make the hard, on-the-ground choices---requires expertise, leadership, and plannin.
Excellent administrators---from program managers to POTUS-- who are smart, skillful, and visionary in their use of discretion can get you pretty far. But in the end, you need a collective process to maximize effectiveness.
I always love this succint description from a top WH staffer: 
