Because populists claim to be speaking for “the people” and because they pursue redistributionist economics, the left eagerly ignores the elitist nature of the regime. One need only look at Castro’s Cuba and its fawning, sweaty-palmed sycophants in the west to see this phenomenon on full display. Castro is on the side of “the people” and therefore his police state is entirely justified.
[…]
In America, I think a big, big, big part of the problem is the permanent civil service bureaucracy which is naturally sympathetic to big government and parties that champion big government. These governmental elites, in collusion with academia and the “helping professions,” take it upon themselves to find new ways to “run” the society (These groups, as John O’Sullivan has ably demonstrated are rapidly migrating to the global stage — he calls them transnational elites — where they are trying to turn the UN and various NGOs into post-democratic institutions). Whenever a political movement arises — like American conservatism — which challenges the elite-bureaucracy’s authority they are accused of working against “the people” and the “downtrodden.” Just look at all of the silly things people say about John Bolton. Journalists are key to this process because they share the bureaucratic elite’s vision of both government and the masses.
(Added to Stingray’s Trackback Tuesday)
That’s why it doesn’t matter as much as we’d like WHO gets elected: the permanent Yes Minister bureaucracy stays in place.
What Conservatives have to do is claim ‘the people’ as well. Then let statistics sort out who ‘the people’ are – which will certainly show the people, or the majority in North America are not Cuban field peasants, government workers and hookers. Much to the chagrin of Jack Layton.
Castro is pissed at Forbes magazine for releasing info on his persoal wealth ($900 million), which he’s accumulated at the expense of his “people”.
I think Jonah’s piece is bang on!
Question is what to do?
What to do?? Gut PSAC. Given a majority mandate Harper’s battle to return the federal government to federal responsibilities will not be with the provinces but rather with the bloated maggott that is PSAC.
Syncro
the real cuba….
http://www.therealcuba.com/index.htm
free healthcare
free education
no freedom.
I have had dealings with civil services both federal and provincial and have found them representative of the population as a whole, not advocates of any particular view. Our governments grow because the people in general want them to grow, not because of advocacy by the civil service.
Jim: Very true. They [the public service] grew when the people’s reps wanted them to grow. The problem is when the people want the public service to shrink. That’s when their natural self-interest kicks in… not to mention their unions.
As for being representative – have you ever tried applying for a job in the federal bureaucracy? No Westerners Need Apply. Jobs are only open to people from certain postal codes – with most Ottawa-based jobs [under the old regime at least] restricted to Ontarians and Quebecois.
I have no doubt that the federal civil service is representative – representative of those postal codes near the capital, those that are latched to the federal government’s bloated sweaty Liberal teat.
I disagree with Jim. I think that most of the bureaucracy fit into the ideology that life is best run by government run services(the bureaucracy) rather than by the people. That’s the ‘daycare’ ideology.
Robert’s post is excellent – when the people want the bureaucracy to shrink – the incumbents and their unions have no intention of shrinking.
And, as Robert also points out – the federal bureaucracy is most certainly not representative. The requirement for bilingualism has led to a ‘closed shop’, with a focus on applicants coming only from the Ottawa-Hull-Montreal area.
I worked in the federal Public Servive in Ottawa in the early ’70s. Things were not run particularly well, plain common sense did not prevail, managers were empire building, etc., etc., and after four years, I realized that if I was going to be able to look myself in the mirror every morning, I’d better pack it in. If I’d stayed, I’d have probably ended up making $80,000 a year and would be retired by now.
As it is, my yearly salary is less than half of $80,000 (the cost of staying home with my kids for 20 years: no regrets), my husband and I half-jokingly talk about “freedom 85,” and I have no trouble living with myself–or sleeping at night.
When I quit my job in the federal government my father wrote me a letter in which he said, “I applaud your decision to leave the civil service. It is not service and neither is it civil.”
Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, whether it’s in the public service or at GM, Imperial Oil, etc. That’s why everyone who works for a large organization relates so well to the Dilbert comic strip. I work for the public service and I admit that it’s not the most efficient at getting things done. However, my experience with private business has not convinced me that they are always more efficient.
The unions have very little say about whether the public service grows or shrinks. If the elected government does not want to live up to the collective agreement, it simply changes it by legislation – BC is the most recent example. In the 90’s, Chretien cut the public service and instituted a hiring and wage freeze that last several years. This was done purely for political reasons. The work requirements did not change but more jobs were contracted out, so there were no real savings.
Until recently, people had to live in the geographic region to apply for a government job. This has changed: http://www.jobs-emplois.gc.ca/menu/home_e.htm Many of the jobs are in the capital region for obvious reasons. Being bi-lingual is not imperative for most jobs, unless it’s a higher management position. And the pay for most white collar/blue collar jobs is around the industry average, which means that public service is not a road to riches for most.
I think you are stuck with bureaucracies. Adam Smith in his famous work, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, recognized the importance, even the necessity of, the division of labour. It is necessary for the successful operation of any modern, efficient organization. Perhaps even more so with regards to government.
The average minister, whether provincial or federal are the chief operating officers of their ministry. They are appointed to important positions because the Prime Minister thinks they are the best men for the jobs. They may or may not be competent ministers. Many are untested in the fields in which they are asked to minister.
The saving grace for many is the cummulative expertise of the career bureaucrats of government. They have intimate knowledge of the nuances, policies and subject matter going back sometimes decades. How could a minister do his job without their help?
The minister knows what his Prime Minister wants from his ministry but as to how to get that done or even possible he cannot know. The bureaucrats are, in the end, serving the country through their elected representatives. That is their job.
The Minister gives the bureaucrats their focus, their marching orders, and then the bureaucrats march or explain why they can’t or shouldn’t go in that direction. The Minister makes adjustments regarding policy and or staff.
So you see, the bureaucracy is the engine, but the Minister is in the drivers seat.
The ultimate question of who drives the politician and political party are different questions but perhaps more important. To find out who has real power you have to find out which institutions and/or group benefit most from the government policies. Not simply what they do but also what they avoid doing.
Bureaucracies, even the name is difficult to deal with. Kings Presidents and Prime Ministers have had to deal with the curse of the Bureacrat. Ever scheming to increase power and influence always on the lookout to increase fifedom security, the more complex and obscure they make their domain the more influenctial they become.
The problem of course is not with the lower echelons but the senior civil servant. The Bilinqual thing of course is a good example.
The Bureaucrats influence is subtle how things get regulated weather it is actually implimented the time it takes to get things done does all the pertenant information get to the policy makers or are salient facts omited.
Also governments don’t shill their debt on street corners they go to the big buyers. And that is civil servant pension funds. A big mutual fund in Canada is 3-4 billion. A average civil servant pension fund is 25 billion. So they have a say in the debt the government issues. Whats it for will they participate etc. With power like that on both the inside and the outside they have become faceless nameless behemoths.