
Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change - GuiA
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html?event=event25
======
Animats
The U.S. President appoints about 3,000 high-level people in the U.S.
Government. This includes all the cabinet members, the entire National
Security Staff, the directors of the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc. He can fire most of
them at will. The Buck Stops Here, as Harry Truman's desk sign used to say.

The quality of a president's cabinet appointments determines how well the
government functions during their presidency. The problem is, where do you get
3,000 people able to perform at that level? They're usually drawn from the
usual suspects. When that's not the case, the result looks like amateur hour.
How many people are qualified to be Secretary of State? The pool of people who
have been around enough countries and political leaders to operate at that
level is small.

The role of the White House staff varies from administration to
administration. Eisenhower probably had the most effective staff in many
decades. He knew how to make a military staff work together, and modeled the
White House on that basis. Eisenhower was very good at putting the right
person in the right job. (How Eisenhower deployed Montgomery and Patton is a
famous example.)

None of the recent presidents have had that kind of experience.

~~~
madaxe_again
This isn't about white house staff or the teams that presidents select - this
is about the huge bureaucracies run by unelected civil servants who usually
reached their position through a combination of nepotism, cover-my-ass,
corruption, and coercion. I know that sounds like an overly cynical view, but
from first-hand experience and knowledge, it's just the way things are. There
are a few who fill these posts and actually wish to do their jobs well, but
they're the exception, not the rule, and are being increasingly pushed out -
most are there to line their pockets and bask in their own perceived glory.

The whole democratic process is just smoke and mirrors to prevent the populace
from revolting - and I think we all know it - which means that it can't work
as it does now for much longer - hence the increasing militarisation of
police, creeping liberty reduction, and all the rest - as they know this too,
and power, once attained, is clung to at pretty much any cost, by the kind of
individual to whom power over others appeals.

~~~
gretful
The Iron Law of Bureaucracy at work:

[http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html](http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html)

------
femto
"Yes Minister" was a 1980s UK series on exactly this topic: the Public Service
vs. the Government. It was a satire, but its brilliance was that most of the
satire was quite plausible.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister)

~~~
JetSpiegel
Also its spiritual successor for our post-911 world, The Thick of It.

Veep was an adaptation for the American market, but it kinda lost its
satirical teeth.

~~~
vixen99
its

~~~
JetSpiegel
Thanks!

~~~
lostcolony
...did that just happen?

~~~
JetSpiegel
I could go on a tirade about nitpicking, but since I was actually wrong, and
there were no insults involved, why bother?

~~~
lostcolony
Just shocked to see it, even on HN.

------
chton
I'm sorry, but any theory that has "I think the American people are deluded"
as an important point should have a lot of other evidence to it. This article
is lacking that.

One thing the theory seems to gloss over is that it assumes dishonesty of
current and past presidents. If the president wielded no real power, wouldn't
at least one of them have said something about it? Out of 44 men elected for
their vision and mentality, not one was brave enough to break the cycle of
lies? And why would some, like Teddy Roosevelt, stand up for a second term
after a hiatus if they didn't have any real power to change policy?

There are better explanations for the continuity in policy and the differences
between candidate-Obama and elect-Obama. One is that they base their
viewpoints on different information. As president, Obama has to base policy on
classified information, secret dealings made by predecessors and staff,
corporate interests, and in general "the big picture". As a campaigner, he
wasn't burdened by any of those and could provide an idealistic view. At least
we have evidence that all of these exist.

~~~
msabalau
Perhaps if a president like Eisenhower, who came up through the military,
warned about a "military industrial complex", that would be some evidence that
the power of elected politicians is limited in some real way.

And perhaps "limited in ways that the public doesn't understand" is a better
synthesis of the author's point rather than "wields no real power"

~~~
chton
That is a very good point, but I don't think corporate influences like the MIC
are necessarily limiting the president's power. It's an influence, and a very
strong one at that, but they can go against it. It's just one of the many
datapoints that a president has to manage.

"Limited in ways that the public doesn't understand" is undoubtedly correct,
but I disagree more on the extent. The author seems to think the president has
no real control over the policies he sets, at least in some areas. I believe
he does have real control, but he is limited by reality being far more complex
than in an ideal world.

------
Joeboy
For most of us this is not a problem as we don't get to vote for the US
government anyway.

As a non-US citizen I am spared the illusion that voting can prevent the US
government spying on me, murdering me by drone or imprisoning me without
trial. And those are primarily things the US does to non-US citizens.

~~~
lukifer
Most of us in the U.S. don't really get to vote either. There is no anti-drone
party, no anti-NSA party, and no anti-Drug-War party: the two dominant parties
agree more than they differ, especially when looking at actions rather than
rhetoric. Moreover, huge numbers of people are completely disenfranchised if
they support the minority party in the wrong district or state.

Our democracy isn't completely ineffectual; some good people sneak through now
and then, and there is _some_ counter-balance to blatant abuses of power. But
it's a far cry from government by/of/for the people.

(Incidentally: it's worth nothing that the Constitution repeatedly refers to
"person" and not "citizen". I think it is deeply shameful that we do not
afford basic human rights protections to persons of all nationalities, as a
matter of first principles.)

~~~
privong
> There is no anti-drone party, no anti-NSA party, and no anti-Drug-War party:
> the two dominant parties agree more than they differ, especially when
> looking at actions rather than rhetoric.

There is! It isn't one of the big two, but there is a party that is anti-
drone, anti-NSA, anti-drug war, etc.: The Libertarian Party[0].

[0] [http://www.lp.org](http://www.lp.org)

~~~
Istof
Something in-between Obama/Bush and Libertarian Party would be nice

~~~
privong
I am not sure what you mean – in-between relative to what? The LP is to the
left of Obama (e.g., individual rights for social matters such as marriage)
and also to the right of Bush/Obama (e.g., taxation).

~~~
Istof
I was referring to the points that you brought up in your previous reply
(anti-drone, anti-NSA and anti-drug war) ... I don't think that they need to
disappear but a strong refocus is definitely needed in all 3.

------
modeless
[http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-
Fin...](http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf)
[pdf] This appears to be some or all of the content of the book mentioned in
the article. It was published as an article in the Harvard National Security
Journal. Very interesting, and I think I agree with the premise that the
elected parts of our government exercise less power than we imagine.

~~~
puzzlingcaptcha
The source alleges that if Obama pushed for troop withdrawal, the top staff
generals would resign. For someone unfamiliar with US politics, what would
happen if he went for that regardless?

~~~
logfromblammo
It is my understanding that, being military people, they cannot simply walk
off the job without orders from their commander to do so. As the PotUS is
commander of the entire military, he could prosecute them with formal charges
of insubordination, or perhaps demote a stubborn general to major and reassign
him to collect grizzly bear poop on Kodiak Island.

The withdrawal would happen, but the military would not support that
particular president on anything for the rest of his tenure, because they're a
good ol' boy's club.

Obama would have to clear out all colonels, generals, and admirals, and
promote replacements from the lower ranks based purely on merit to get any
sort of cooperation back, and that would be a colossal undertaking. Secret
Service protection detail would be pissed, because there would be insider
threats multiplying everywhere.

------
lotsofmangos
I like Douglas Adams take on this:

 _" The President in particular is very much a figurehead - he wields no real
power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities
he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely
judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial
choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to
wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod
Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had -
he has already spent two of his ten Presidential years in prison for fraud.
Very very few people realize that the President and the Government have
virtually no power at all, and of these very few people only six know whence
ultimate political power is wielded. Most of the others secretly believe that
the ultimate decision-making process is handled by a computer. They couldn't
be more wrong."_

Here in the UK, I think that if you want to change home policy, you can do
that by voting. However, if you wish to affect the wider economic policy you
would do better by getting a job with the Bank of England, and if you want to
change UK foreign policy, you get a job with the US government.

------
aryehof
Most western countries are run by a civil service, typically within a
framework of legislation enacted by governments passed.

Perhaps here, we are just being reminded that we should (unfortunately)
consider the civil service as being a fourth component to a modern western
democracy alongside the legislature, executive and judiciary. A separate
animal so to speak from the executive branch to which it would normally
belong.

That so much authority is devolved to these often opaque and unaccountable
institutions by the executive is something all should be wary of. Particularly
in the USA in regards to national security, there is a climate of fear and
intimidation about questioning any official policy.

------
theonemind
Well, much of this shadow government consists of the executive branch. Obama
is still obviously wholly accountable, as he can likely issue executive orders
unconditionally changing the policy and operation of agencies at will. Of
course, he has to make good appointments and get reliable people to carry out
any semblance of that, and most of his work has to be indirect. But, like the
CEO of a large corporation, the job is whatever it takes to get it done, and
is judged by the results without regard to the difficulties.

------
jbb555
I don't necessarily agree with all of this analysis. I think the more likely
reasons are that it's very easy to be against the war when you are not in
power. But once you are in power it's not sufficient to be against it, you
need to work out what you need to do instead. And then you run into the
reality that even though you don't agree with the war, the previous government
did it for reasons. And even if the response is not what you would ideally
have chosen many of those reasons are still valid.

------
yarou
It's interesting how many parallels the US government shares with other
governments around the world, like Turkey. There is an existence of a "deep
state", or "state within a state". I often wonder if a sufficiently
sophisticated AI would do a better job of running our government than the
system that we have in place.

If you think about it, having AI run our government is the next logical step,
and a natural evolution. All governmental systems are inhuman systems that
self-correct.

~~~
sqrt17
at some point, government analysts will construct a platform that gets lots of
data (including both public and private data) shoveled in and produces
actionable insights. For those who aren't current, "actionable" means, in the
form of, "do this", or "think about doing that".

Of course, this system will still be constructed according to the biases and
fears of real humans. Most people wouldn't call it an "AI government" because
there's already an elected government calling the shots ... to a certain
extent.

~~~
JetSpiegel
Otherwise you get Skynet.

~~~
sqrt17
My point was, it would be SkyNet, but on one hand fed with the desires of the
Intelligence tools industry (need more data on everything) and on the other
hand with a front of humans that will act on its behalf with the best of
intentions.

------
cryptolect
There's a disconnect between the people who develop policy, and those who
enact it. One group is elected, the other is not.

------
whoisthemachine
I think that this is somewhat correct. Obviously, I don't have the evidence
and haven't done the research he has done (over 800 footnotes - how many
sources?!).

I do however think it could be more nuanced than what he says - it may just be
that the bureaucracy changes course much more slowly than the presidency or
congress or state governments change - so it takes much more time for those
institutions to truly catch up with the public sentiment.

Of course, once the bureaucracy begins to actively fight changing with public
sentiment is when the problems begin. Those institutions that do should
probably be "reset", i.e. disbanded and reformed with a better founding base.

------
tripzilch
Anyone remember that quote from _The Cube_?

    
    
        There is no conspiracy
        Nobody is in charge
        It's a headless blunder 
        operating under the illusion of a master plan.
    

It's only half wrong ;-)

(It's been a while since I've seen that film so I forgot, but they apparently
talk a lot more about this topic, about half the quotes on this page:
[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cube_%28film%29](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cube_%28film%29)
)

------
ArtDev
Perhaps, when one is elected president, they take you to a dark theater and
show you unreleased footage of the Kennedy assassination from different
angles!

~~~
cmdrfred
-Doug Stanhope

------
brazzy
In Japan, the concept of beaurocrats who hold the true power to determine
policy, with elected officials being unable to make effective lasting changes,
has been around and part of public discussion for decades.

I don't think they've come up with a solution, but then the political
landscape is even more fossilized than the one in the USA.

------
spacemanmatt
Don't forget, when members of the military-industrial complex come out against
"big government," what they really mean is they don't want any resistance from
the elected government. Not that they get much resistance to start with.

------
tomelders
It's been a saying in the UK for decades; "The Civil Service runs the
country".

------
frozenport
Pragmatically, this means the only way to change the government is to join it?

~~~
OscarCunningham
Hmmm... The people who actually call the shots, the head of the NSA for
example, what were their career paths?

~~~
frozenport
Looks like they all were career military.

------
Zigurd
This got off the front page fast. Anything that points to the conclusion that
the US is unrepresentative of the governed is contrary to the dogma.

------
lazyjones
Neat theory, but a more plausible explanation for Obama's current policy is
that he was simply dishonest in his campaigning. He exploited voters' anxiety
about war and surveillance by pretending to be against these things and
therefore won the election. This happens all the time, all around the world,
voters are gullible and want to believe a good story ("Change").

My other gripe with this article is that it concludes it's the people's
responsibility to change the way government is functioning, but if it can't be
done through voting, what does the author expect them to do, short of a
rebellion? It effectively discourages the reader from voting and suggests we
should just give up trying to do anything about the situation.

~~~
mercer
While dishonesty is a plausible explanation too, I think the article's
argument makes just as much sense. In fact, I recall the same basic argument
brought forward by a Political Science professor here in Holland: because the
apparatus of civil servants and experts doesn't really change so much between
elections, these people wield much more power than we think they do _and_
policy often stays continuous as a result.

~~~
pas
Somehow it must be beneficial for the elected officials to keep these non-
changing people in charge.

Obama was probably simply persuaded by the many-many human faces of the
administration currently carrying out the atrocities (War on Drugs, NSA,
foreign policy), and focused more on the soft-programs (stimulus, healthcare;
and random acts of obama, that largely failed), plus got completely broken and
stonewalled by an uncooperative House.

~~~
mercer
I suppose a big benefit is just not having to worry about it. I think in
practice that's one of the most common reason to leave things be. Any change
will create enemies within, might lead to worse outcomes, and will cost
significant work.

I've been in a number of situations where a 'bad' manager remained while new
upper management was busy with 'an entirely new approach' and changing things
left and right. In one case, I had the luck of being a good friend of someone
in upper management, so I could discuss this issue. This manager indicated
that he was well aware of the problem, but he explained that it simply wasn't
worth the trouble to deal with this 'bad' manager right now, for pretty much
the reasons I mentioned above.

Of course, 'right now' remained the argument, since there were always more
important things to do. For all I know the guy's still there, or maybe even
promoted.

Hell, come to think of it, it's very much like the code I work with.
Significant chunks are a mess, but there never seems to be time to refactor.
New features and 'big changes' always take priority, and somehow the big
changes rarely impact that shitty code, so it stays. I'm not sure if that's
coincidental.

tl;dr: apparently refactoring is avoided in most (bureaucratic) human
endeavors.

------
byEngineer
The President relying on experts instead of telling them what to do and
trusting their expertise as if they will execute what they are told
effectively. If you read biographies of great leaders, ie pope John Paul 2nd
or President Reagan you will notice common pattern: the burocracy told what to
do screaming in utter shock that they are "under attack". The burocrats just
needed some time to get adjusted to a new situation where they don't call the
shots anymore, but are there to execute the Leaders policy. For example JP2
was famous for totally ignoring his personal security team demands. At the
beginning the pope was banned from travel by his own security team as this is
"how it has always been". And they were the experts after all. It took them
some getting used to new situation where the pope was deciding where he goes,
when and how. Obama seems to be a bit weak. He seems to be someone who would
rather have someone else make though decisions, so the result can't be blamed
on him. With Syria he actually took advise from... putin😁

The problem is the crisis of leadership above anything else.

------
naturalethic
emma goldman

------
shit_parade
>The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the
public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the
bureaucracy to click its heels and salute.

What a bizarre world when an academic will say such a thing, almost comical
really.

~~~
ajcarpy2005
Upon reflection I can see your perspective but I also agree quite completely
with the article. It is of course true that the 'President' holds much power
but if you break down the semantics, you might as well be saying that people
are Patriotic and readily willing to serve their country. (ie. clicking their
heels...)

What this article is analyzing (the government...and _people_ ) is a very
complex system and there are many layers. Don't let this article confuse you
into thinking that the ideas therein signal a perception that the oval office
is not, in a sense, a center of power. Because all available evidence and
common sense, as you imply in your comment, points to the obvious fact that
the Whitehouse is a center of power in the government and the world.

What the article is saying is that there are other centers of power within the
government which, evidence strongly suggests, actually challenge the
President's authority on certain geopolitical and bureaucratic concerns, and
in some cases, actually wield far more impressive levels of capabilities in
terms of influence and direct control. And you better believe that these
capabilities are being utilized.

I would even pin a target on the notion that there are significant operational
units (assets) which have limited to non-existent communication and reporting
to high-ranking government members. And what sane person even entertains the
belief that they know every single activity and segment of the US government?

In an organization as staggeringly large as the federal government, there's
bound to be plethora of secrets. Some of them are probably pretty benign. Some
of them are probably capable of destabilizing the 'united' aspect of
government we take for granted. And...really, it's clear to see the fact that
the government is not in fact nearly as united as people speak of. This kind
of obvious mismatch in mental conception is well-known: cognitive dissonance.

Comical; your allegiance to over-simplified models of megalithic civil
structural posturing for political gain of power for variously held personal
values.

