Political Patronage

[HarryHill]

..

"In some countries the term is used to describe political patronage, which is the use of state resources to reward individuals for their electoral support. Some patronage systems are legal, as in the Canadian tradition of the Prime Minister to appoint senators and the heads of a number of commissions and agencies; in many cases, these appointments go to people who have supported the political party of the Prime Minister. As well, the term may refer to a type of corruption or favoritism in which a party in power rewards groups, families, or ethnicities for their electoral support using illegal gifts or fraudulently awarded appointments or government contracts.

.....

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I tend to favor patronage, at least over the system we have now of a Permanent Bureaucracy.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I tend to favor patronage, at least over the system we have now of a Permanent Bureaucracy.

So you want to fire all the employee's and just leave the politicians???????

 

[Bud_Spencer]

So you want to fire all the employee's and just leave the politicians???????

That's just the thing, Fuzzy, the people get fired when the politicians do.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

That's just the thing, Fuzzy, the people get fired when the politicians do.

I'll admit there is a difference between our political systems, but here, when the politician quits, or loses his/her seat, with the exception of the person's immediate office staff, the rest of the people stay in their position.

I have dealt with 7 different Ministers of Energy for the province, yet the Deputy Minister ( staff, non elected) served for all 7 ( on his eighth now) and will continue for the foreseeable future.

This is beneficiary for the function of the Government. I can't see it being much different in the US. Otherwise at every election, you would need to hire new staff and train them.

Note you stated Bureaucracy, as defined as a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.

So I can't understand what your real point is, which is about par for the course with you.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I'll admit there is a difference between our political systems, but here, when the politician quits, or loses his/her seat, with the exception of the person's immediate office staff, the rest of the people stay in their position.

I have dealt with 7 different Ministers of Energy for the province, yet the Deputy Minister ( staff, non elected) served for all 7 ( on his eighth now) and will continue for the foreseeable future.

This is beneficiary for the function of the Government. I can't see it being much different in the US. Otherwise at every election, you would need to hire new staff and train them.

There are advantages to both systems, but the big downside to the Permanent Bureaucracy is that it tends to accumulate power in itself, unelected, unaccountable and insulated from the Executive. We have that in DC, and it's a horror show.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There are advantages to both systems, but the big downside to the Permanent Bureaucracy is that it tends to accumulate power in itself, unelected, unaccountable and insulated from the Executive. We have that in DC, and it's a horror show.

I view it as stability. That stability, whether you agree or not, is what prevented Jan 6th from being just an embarrassing smear on America's face ( as seen by the rest of the world)instead of an actual coup.

Note I still have no clue what your original post was about, though I guess it is just you voicing your grievance about a system that you seem to be very uneducated about how it functions.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I view it as stability. That stability, whether you agree or not, is what prevented Jan 6th from being just an embarrassing smear on America's face ( as seen by the rest of the world)instead of an actual coup.

Note I still have no clue what your original post was about, though I guess it is just you voicing your grievance about a system that you seem to be very uneducated about how it functions.

Institutional memory can be good or bad. The problem comes when the bureaucracy becomes an advocate for its own existence, as ours clearly does now. It becomes a self-perpetuating, self-referential machine that is accountable to no one: The people cannot unelect it and the Executive cannot fire it. It just plods along, calcified, petrified and unresponsive to any but its own interests.

We here in America clearly have this now in DC.

 

[pecksniff]

The old spoils system was shamelessly corrupt and put incompetents in office. There were good reasons to replace it with the present civil-service system.

At least it was better than the patronage system of 18th-Century Britain, where the ruling party rewarded its supporters with functionless sinecures.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The old spoils system was shamelessly corrupt and put incompetents in office. There were good reasons to replace it with the present civil-service system.

At least it was better than the patronage system of 18th-Century Britain, where the ruling party rewarded its supporters with functionless sinecures.

Now we have a bureaucracy that is just as corrupt, except there's no way to get rid of it short of revolution. To a very large extent, elections don't matter much anymore when the Permanent State is making 95% of all the decisions.

 

[KeithD]

That's just the thing, Fuzzy, the people get fired when the politicians do.

Explain? In the U.S. federal government, civil service employees get tenure protections that political-appointees don't get. I don't understand what you think you mean in this post.

 

[pecksniff]

Now we have a bureaucracy that is just as corrupt, except there's no way to get rid of it short of revolution. To a very large extent, elections don't matter much anymore when the Permanent State is making 95% of all the decisions.

What makes you think it's corrupt? When's the last time a bureaucrat was brought up on bribery charges?

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Explain? In the U.S. federal government, civil service employees get tenure protections that political-appointees don't get. I don't understand what you think you mean in this post.

In a patronage system, most jobs are filled by people picked by the elected office-holder, so when he's run out of office, his pals are, too. Now just a handful of political appointees get run out, with most of the bureaucracy remaining in place, along with their interests. It reduces accountability of the government to the people, in the end.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

What makes you think it's corrupt? When's the last time a bureaucrat was brought up on bribery charges?

There are other forms of corruption besides taking money under the table. And that is what we have in DC now, with the Permanent State metastasized in place and elected leaders barely able to make it do what they want it to.

 

[pecksniff]

There are other forms of corruption besides taking money under the table. And that is what we have in DC now, with the Permanent State metastasized in place and elected leaders barely able to make it do what they want it to.

Whatever that is, it is not corruption. And Congress can abolish or downsize an agency whenever it wants to. They don't because the agencies do necessary things.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Institutional memory can be good or bad. The problem comes when the bureaucracy becomes an advocate for its own existence, as ours clearly does now. It becomes a self-perpetuating, self-referential machine that is accountable to no one: The people cannot unelect it and the Executive cannot fire it. It just plods along, calcified, petrified and unresponsive to any but its own interests.

We here in America clearly have this now in DC.

*chuckles*

And you think they should all be fired, and government will improve......great plan.

One thing I used to say ( in a past employment), don't come to me with the problem, bring me the solution ( yes I may have stolen that, I don't claim to own it), because I too know the problem...

 

[pecksniff]

Also, a federal agency is not supposed to do whatever the president wants it to do. Every one has a mission statement which is part of the legislation creating it.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Whatever that is, it is not corruption. And Congress can abolish or downsize an agency whenever it wants to. They don't because the agencies do necessary things.

Yeah, just try that with an intelligence agency, one of the dozens we've erected.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

*chuckles*

And you think they should all be fired, and government will improve......great plan.

One thing I used to say ( in a past employment), don't come to me with the problem, bring me the solution ( yes I may have stolen that, I don't claim to own it), because I too know the problem...

Not all, must definitely most, need to be fired. If not, there's nothing to keep the Permanent Bureaucracy from becoming its own branch of government, as we have now.