Anyway, it turns out that debunking your crap is way easier than I thought it would be, because it’s so paper thin, so I may as well just do it.
The idea of dismantling these agencies isn’t novel. Republicans have long run on the idea that the federal government is too big and needs to be streamlined. Abolishing the Department of Education, in particular, has been a Republican Party goal since the agency was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.
President Ronald Reagan made it a standard applause line.
But there’s a reason it hasn’t happened.
There are so many roadblocks to any such effort, experts said, that none could identify the last time a high-level department was entirely wiped off the map.
Literally this is just campaign rhetoric that never happens. Exactly the propagandistic lie I said it was. Your own article frames it as such. They are fascists and they are full of shit.
With all due respect: As someone who works directly with this kind of thing, you need to know that this is more than rhetoric.
And it is in the process of happening already. Trump did tons of damage to the administrative state at the federal level, and GOP state governments are doing it in their respective states across the country. You maybe just haven’t been made aware of it because it’s “boring” and not “sexy,” so it gets next to no coverage.
Look at how they’re dismantling the IRS.
Look at how SCOTUS just ruled that over half of America’s wetlands (by scientific definition) aren’t actually wetlands, and therefore no longer need protection from the EPA.
Look at what Trump was doing with the USPS (in cases like these, killing the government’s involvement means private companies do it instead. How convenient. And how do those companies curry favor with a fascist leader?
You can find lists and lists of regulations that have been killed since 2016. This is very real.
There are regulations that have been in place for decades that are being gutted or removed completely.
Did you read the plan they put out at all? It’s already underway.
You seem to be missing the point. Fascism demands complete control. That means when millions of career scientists who’s research goes against your goals, you purge them.
We’re not quite at that level, but it’s in their 2025 plan. Part of it is to, over time, replace career public servants who do their job with no bias, with gop lackeys.
Complete control doesn’t always mean more. It also means purging those who may stand against you.
You’re just so confidently incorrect, and I can tell you haven’t actually looked at their very real plans for the near future. Yes, they’ve talked about it in the past… And? Now they’re in the position to do it, so they are doing what they’ve always talked/dreamed/wished about.
Business plays a big role in allowing fascism to take hold, historically. Please remember that.
In fascism, bureaucracy is not use as intended, it’s just a tool. Fascists (like they do with everything) will pick and choose between agencies, rules, and even individual career scientists with families, and use and manipulate them to fit their needs and reach their desired ends. And usually toss them away after.
So yes, in that way they do need it.
I believe that I did originally differentiate between a more “traditional” definition of the term 'conservative," and said that it probably would fit that definition in that it is meant as a check to slow progress slightly so we don’t do insanely stupid shit that puts millions/billions of people in harms way without them even knowing. Not without doing a little math first anyway.
But when it comes to fascists, it’s simply a tool. It will slow/stop when they need it to, and it’ll speed up (or more likely, disappear completely), when they want that. They use it to their own ends.
But that says nothing inherently about bureaucracy itself. Which is something a modern society needs to function properly and safely.
You seem to think bureaucracy is synonymous with organisation, which it isn’t. Bureaucracy is about exercising power through rule-keeping. An important aspect of bureaucracy is that it is mandatory and monopolistic. It is imposed by force, and tends to be quite disordered and disruptive to peace for that reason.
Societies don’t need bureaucracy to function, but top-down societies - like fascism and representative democracy - do. Horizontalist societies can organise without bureaucratic bullshit telling everyone how to live their lives.
And it always has the feature that it is used selectively, and it favours in-groups, which is another way in which it is conservative. The fact you think this isn’t an inherent feature of your own bureaucracy tells me that you are privileged enough to be favoured by the system as it currently is, and inattentive enough not to see how inconsistent it really is.
You already said it’s your job, as some sort of assertion that you must be right. In my experience people who do that aren’t very good at their jobs, because otherwise they’d be able to explain their reasons and not fall back on an appeal to authority. You sound like exactly the kind of small-minded asshole that thrives in bureaucracy.
Also, if you have to admit that bureaucracy actually is conservative, and you’re talking about some special brand of conservatism that you think is different to that, then I don’t even know where you disagree with me.
A bureaucracy is when a government is set up to allow people who are career experts in their respective fields to make policy decisions that make sense, rather than clueless politicians. They are apolitical by definition. It can only really be considered “conservative” in that it, by design, slows things down to make sure that the rules and laws we are making are safe, make sense, won’t kill people (quickly or slowly), etc. I don’t mean conservative in a political way.
When you remove replace those experts with unqualified stooges (see current GOP House budget that reduces EPA funding by 40%. See Trump rule that removed protections from over 60% of America’s wetlands. See GOP’s literal stated goals), it stops functioning. Everything stops functioning. Which is the intention of the fascistic “conservatives” that are running the GOP.
They are breaking down any such system that may improve people’s lives. They’re openly doing it, and gloating about it:
They’re doing it to the EPA.
They’re doing it to the Dept. of Education.
They are doing it to the ATF.
They’re doing it to the USPS.
They’re doing it to the friggin Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
They’re even doing it to the FBI.
And of course, they’re doing it to the IRS, because obviously that one makes the rest much easier to gut.
I said already that fascists will pick and choose when convenient, but the idea that “conservatives” (as they are currently defined in the US) are not currently dismantling all sorts of bureaucracy that literally keeps people from dying, is absurd.
Can you not see it? They want to “dismantle the administrative state,” as they say themselves. When that plays out, and we’ve reverted back to a form of feudalism, they see themselves as being the new feudal lords. THAT is when they “rebuild” the state into something built entirely to serve their own interests. Fascism designed from the ground up, with hundreds of years of lessons on what pitfalls to avoid in order to stay in power indefinitely.
When you start taking climate change into account, it starts to make even more sense. Big time preppers like Steve Huffman (spez) see themselves as the leaders of a feudalistic, post climate wars world.
I wish I was kidding. I have a source for that last part specifically if you want to read it. It’s insanity. Huffman is a psycho.
You literally just ignored everything I said or directly nay-sayed it and kept banging the same drum which is isn’t even relevant to this discussion.
It’s pretty clear you’re not interested in what I have to say.
Also?
A bureaucracy is when a government is set up to allow people who are career experts in their respective fields to make policy decisions that make sense, rather than clueless politicians.
Lol ok. Clearly you’re the one with no interest in an actual conversation. I made a pretty well thought out comment and I’m not even sure you read it.
I guess I’m going to be the one to tell you, but that’s exactly what bureaucracy means. Just because you have some warped definition in your mind, doesn’t make it true.
I can’t say I’m not curious to hear what you believe to be incorrect about what I said…
I’m actually starting to think that maybe you don’t know what the word actually means? It’s almost like maybe the only context you’ve seen/heard it used is from some commentator on YouTube that HATES bureaucracy so they only ever frame it in a certain way. And because of that, your concept of what it actually means, is completely skewed.
That’s just the vibe I’m getting.
But ok hoss, let’s hear it: What is “bureaucracy”?
I already told you the answer. It is literally two of my comments above this one.
I can’t say I’m not curious to hear what you believe to be incorrect about what I said…
You need to do better than that. I want to understand what you’re saying here, but it is difficult. I would love to have a real conversation about this, but if you can’t read what I’ve already written and respond to it, and you can’t even pretend to be genuinely curious about what I have to say - not what I think of what you have to say, there is a difference - then I think we’re done here.
If you can’t admit curiosity and demonstrate it by responding to what I’ve said, I won’t reply. If you can actually do those things after all this defensiveness then you will thoroughly surprise me, which is a genuine gift in this day and age.
I’m not sure what you think I’ve attributed to you, I read what you wrote and shared my impression of it. If my impression is incorrect in some painfully obvious (to you) way, maybe you could take the time to explain that instead of simply calling me a liar?
there’s no such thing as a bad guy and all bad ideas are easily dismissed as “campaign rhetoric”
I don’t know… like I didn’t say this. This is so obviously a strawman that I don’t think it warrants any more explanation, unless you can explain how what I said amounts to this.
Such a bad faith first impression doesn’t encourage me to share more, thanks anyway.
I’m sorry, the argument you laid out is spurious and nonsensical. I did the best I could to understand it but it really does seem like something that would apply to literally any subject based on some unstated preference. Did you mean to say something other than “campaign rhetoric therefore obvious lie because it’s impossible for campaigns to be honest”?
How is it spurious and nonsensical? If you can explain that, then you have something more than a strawman, but so far you don’t.
And I could reiterate what I’ve obviously already said, but I would just be repeating myself. I don’t know where your misunderstanding roots from because you’re not explaining yourself, so I don’t know how to help you.
Anyway, it turns out that debunking your crap is way easier than I thought it would be, because it’s so paper thin, so I may as well just do it.
Literally this is just campaign rhetoric that never happens. Exactly the propagandistic lie I said it was. Your own article frames it as such. They are fascists and they are full of shit.
With all due respect: As someone who works directly with this kind of thing, you need to know that this is more than rhetoric.
And it is in the process of happening already. Trump did tons of damage to the administrative state at the federal level, and GOP state governments are doing it in their respective states across the country. You maybe just haven’t been made aware of it because it’s “boring” and not “sexy,” so it gets next to no coverage.
Look at how they’re dismantling the IRS.
Look at how SCOTUS just ruled that over half of America’s wetlands (by scientific definition) aren’t actually wetlands, and therefore no longer need protection from the EPA.
Look at what Trump was doing with the USPS (in cases like these, killing the government’s involvement means private companies do it instead. How convenient. And how do those companies curry favor with a fascist leader?
You can find lists and lists of regulations that have been killed since 2016. This is very real.
There are regulations that have been in place for decades that are being gutted or removed completely.
Did you read the plan they put out at all? It’s already underway.
You seem to be missing the point. Fascism demands complete control. That means when millions of career scientists who’s research goes against your goals, you purge them.
We’re not quite at that level, but it’s in their 2025 plan. Part of it is to, over time, replace career public servants who do their job with no bias, with gop lackeys.
Complete control doesn’t always mean more. It also means purging those who may stand against you.
You’re just so confidently incorrect, and I can tell you haven’t actually looked at their very real plans for the near future. Yes, they’ve talked about it in the past… And? Now they’re in the position to do it, so they are doing what they’ve always talked/dreamed/wished about.
Business plays a big role in allowing fascism to take hold, historically. Please remember that.
Edit: added more examples as they’re coming to me
None of this actually addresses the point that I was originally making, which is that bureaucracy is inherently conservative.
Conservatives dismantling certain kinds of regulation has no bearing on that.
Fascism needs bureaucracy in order to function.
Yes, everything needs bureaucracy to function.
In fascism, bureaucracy is not use as intended, it’s just a tool. Fascists (like they do with everything) will pick and choose between agencies, rules, and even individual career scientists with families, and use and manipulate them to fit their needs and reach their desired ends. And usually toss them away after.
So yes, in that way they do need it.
I believe that I did originally differentiate between a more “traditional” definition of the term 'conservative," and said that it probably would fit that definition in that it is meant as a check to slow progress slightly so we don’t do insanely stupid shit that puts millions/billions of people in harms way without them even knowing. Not without doing a little math first anyway.
But when it comes to fascists, it’s simply a tool. It will slow/stop when they need it to, and it’ll speed up (or more likely, disappear completely), when they want that. They use it to their own ends.
But that says nothing inherently about bureaucracy itself. Which is something a modern society needs to function properly and safely.
You seem to think bureaucracy is synonymous with organisation, which it isn’t. Bureaucracy is about exercising power through rule-keeping. An important aspect of bureaucracy is that it is mandatory and monopolistic. It is imposed by force, and tends to be quite disordered and disruptive to peace for that reason.
Societies don’t need bureaucracy to function, but top-down societies - like fascism and representative democracy - do. Horizontalist societies can organise without bureaucratic bullshit telling everyone how to live their lives.
And it always has the feature that it is used selectively, and it favours in-groups, which is another way in which it is conservative. The fact you think this isn’t an inherent feature of your own bureaucracy tells me that you are privileged enough to be favoured by the system as it currently is, and inattentive enough not to see how inconsistent it really is.
You already said it’s your job, as some sort of assertion that you must be right. In my experience people who do that aren’t very good at their jobs, because otherwise they’d be able to explain their reasons and not fall back on an appeal to authority. You sound like exactly the kind of small-minded asshole that thrives in bureaucracy.
Also, if you have to admit that bureaucracy actually is conservative, and you’re talking about some special brand of conservatism that you think is different to that, then I don’t even know where you disagree with me.
A bureaucracy is when a government is set up to allow people who are career experts in their respective fields to make policy decisions that make sense, rather than clueless politicians. They are apolitical by definition. It can only really be considered “conservative” in that it, by design, slows things down to make sure that the rules and laws we are making are safe, make sense, won’t kill people (quickly or slowly), etc. I don’t mean conservative in a political way.
When you remove replace those experts with unqualified stooges (see current GOP House budget that reduces EPA funding by 40%. See Trump rule that removed protections from over 60% of America’s wetlands. See GOP’s literal stated goals), it stops functioning. Everything stops functioning. Which is the intention of the fascistic “conservatives” that are running the GOP.
They are breaking down any such system that may improve people’s lives. They’re openly doing it, and gloating about it:
And of course, they’re doing it to the IRS, because obviously that one makes the rest much easier to gut.
I said already that fascists will pick and choose when convenient, but the idea that “conservatives” (as they are currently defined in the US) are not currently dismantling all sorts of bureaucracy that literally keeps people from dying, is absurd.
Can you not see it? They want to “dismantle the administrative state,” as they say themselves. When that plays out, and we’ve reverted back to a form of feudalism, they see themselves as being the new feudal lords. THAT is when they “rebuild” the state into something built entirely to serve their own interests. Fascism designed from the ground up, with hundreds of years of lessons on what pitfalls to avoid in order to stay in power indefinitely.
When you start taking climate change into account, it starts to make even more sense. Big time preppers like Steve Huffman (spez) see themselves as the leaders of a feudalistic, post climate wars world.
I wish I was kidding. I have a source for that last part specifically if you want to read it. It’s insanity. Huffman is a psycho.
You literally just ignored everything I said or directly nay-sayed it and kept banging the same drum which is isn’t even relevant to this discussion.
It’s pretty clear you’re not interested in what I have to say.
Also?
Bless. You sweet soul.
Lol ok. Clearly you’re the one with no interest in an actual conversation. I made a pretty well thought out comment and I’m not even sure you read it.
I guess I’m going to be the one to tell you, but that’s exactly what bureaucracy means. Just because you have some warped definition in your mind, doesn’t make it true.
I can’t say I’m not curious to hear what you believe to be incorrect about what I said…
I’m actually starting to think that maybe you don’t know what the word actually means? It’s almost like maybe the only context you’ve seen/heard it used is from some commentator on YouTube that HATES bureaucracy so they only ever frame it in a certain way. And because of that, your concept of what it actually means, is completely skewed.
That’s just the vibe I’m getting.
But ok hoss, let’s hear it: What is “bureaucracy”?
I already told you the answer. It is literally two of my comments above this one.
You need to do better than that. I want to understand what you’re saying here, but it is difficult. I would love to have a real conversation about this, but if you can’t read what I’ve already written and respond to it, and you can’t even pretend to be genuinely curious about what I have to say - not what I think of what you have to say, there is a difference - then I think we’re done here.
If you can’t admit curiosity and demonstrate it by responding to what I’ve said, I won’t reply. If you can actually do those things after all this defensiveness then you will thoroughly surprise me, which is a genuine gift in this day and age.
Strikes me as awfully convenient that there’s no such thing as a bad guy and all bad ideas are easily dismissed as “campaign rhetoric”…
I didn’t say any of what you’re attributing to me.
I’m not sure what you think I’ve attributed to you, I read what you wrote and shared my impression of it. If my impression is incorrect in some painfully obvious (to you) way, maybe you could take the time to explain that instead of simply calling me a liar?
I don’t know… like I didn’t say this. This is so obviously a strawman that I don’t think it warrants any more explanation, unless you can explain how what I said amounts to this.
Such a bad faith first impression doesn’t encourage me to share more, thanks anyway.
I’m sorry, the argument you laid out is spurious and nonsensical. I did the best I could to understand it but it really does seem like something that would apply to literally any subject based on some unstated preference. Did you mean to say something other than “campaign rhetoric therefore obvious lie because it’s impossible for campaigns to be honest”?
How is it spurious and nonsensical? If you can explain that, then you have something more than a strawman, but so far you don’t.
And I could reiterate what I’ve obviously already said, but I would just be repeating myself. I don’t know where your misunderstanding roots from because you’re not explaining yourself, so I don’t know how to help you.