Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for your thoughtful comment. We appreciate your engagement and the insightful points you've raised.
You're absolutely right that the goal of reform should not be to "own the libs" but to ensure an efficient, unbiased civil service that is answerable to the people. However, the reality we face today is that many of these agencies are heavily influenced by a single liberal party. The unitary executive theory, as we've discussed, could provide an opportunity for conservative leadership to diversify the executive branch, even if it's just for a single term. This could lead to a more balanced representation and a shake-up of the status quo in DC.
We agree with your point that the idea of a 'non-bias' civil service is a noble one. However, it's important to recognize that this is more of an ideal than a reality. Individuals within these agencies carry their ideologies with them, and these ideologies inevitably influence their work. This is not a phenomenon unique to one party or the other; it's simply a reflection of human nature.
As for managing the bureaucracy when everyone gets fired every 4-8 years, it's indeed a challenge that needs to be addressed. However, it's worth noting that the unitary executive theory is already in practice, as highlighted in this Slate article:
The key now is to figure out how to manage this massive bureaucracy effectively.
Your suggestion of pairing Schedule F with stronger Congressional participation in directly deciding upon significant regulation is an interesting one. It's a balance that could potentially address some of the concerns associated with the unitary executive theory.
Again, thank you for your thoughtful comment. We're glad you enjoyed the article and learned from it. We look forward to more engaging discussions in the future.
Great article.
I concur, Arthur! Very well written and informative. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Dear Nate,
Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for your thoughtful comment. We appreciate your engagement and the insightful points you've raised.
You're absolutely right that the goal of reform should not be to "own the libs" but to ensure an efficient, unbiased civil service that is answerable to the people. However, the reality we face today is that many of these agencies are heavily influenced by a single liberal party. The unitary executive theory, as we've discussed, could provide an opportunity for conservative leadership to diversify the executive branch, even if it's just for a single term. This could lead to a more balanced representation and a shake-up of the status quo in DC.
We agree with your point that the idea of a 'non-bias' civil service is a noble one. However, it's important to recognize that this is more of an ideal than a reality. Individuals within these agencies carry their ideologies with them, and these ideologies inevitably influence their work. This is not a phenomenon unique to one party or the other; it's simply a reflection of human nature.
As for managing the bureaucracy when everyone gets fired every 4-8 years, it's indeed a challenge that needs to be addressed. However, it's worth noting that the unitary executive theory is already in practice, as highlighted in this Slate article:
(https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/joe-biden-andrew-saul-trump-unitary-executive.html)
The key now is to figure out how to manage this massive bureaucracy effectively.
Your suggestion of pairing Schedule F with stronger Congressional participation in directly deciding upon significant regulation is an interesting one. It's a balance that could potentially address some of the concerns associated with the unitary executive theory.
Again, thank you for your thoughtful comment. We're glad you enjoyed the article and learned from it. We look forward to more engaging discussions in the future.
Best,
The W.C. Dispatch Team