This is probably the most articulate I’ve seen someone discuss the unitary exec theory, outside of Scalia. I tend to agree that, in our modern, globalized era, there needs to be more efficiency we can gain in our federal governance. One concern that I (and I’m sure others) have here is that, quite frankly, I don’t see how executive centralization will make regulatory agencies any less biased than they already are, except now it’ll just sometimes be a conservative bias. You did touch upon this, which I respect, but I haven’t seen anything to coax those fears from any proponent of the unitary executive theory or this particular strain of regulatory reform, even Scalia himself. The point of reform shouldn’t be to “own the libs”, after all, but to ensure we have an unbiased civil service that is both efficient and answerable to the people.
I could perhaps see Schedule F paired with stronger Congressional participation in directly deciding upon significant regulation, kinda like the approach Congress took with the War Powers Resolution (although that resolution is constitutionally dubious). The Founders intended for Congress to be first among equals, after all, so a pairing of a strong, Hamiltonian-style executive with a more Jeffersonian-style Congress could be a best of both worlds. This is just one of those issues that I think needs to be sincerely and deeply thought about before taking broad actions, whether by conservatives, liberals, or moderates of any kind.
Apologies for the wall of text. And again, really great article! I learned quite a lot reading it.
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.
All very fair points, and I can’t really disagree with any of them. Thank you for the quick, succinct response! Looking forward to reading more from y’all :)
Great article.
This is probably the most articulate I’ve seen someone discuss the unitary exec theory, outside of Scalia. I tend to agree that, in our modern, globalized era, there needs to be more efficiency we can gain in our federal governance. One concern that I (and I’m sure others) have here is that, quite frankly, I don’t see how executive centralization will make regulatory agencies any less biased than they already are, except now it’ll just sometimes be a conservative bias. You did touch upon this, which I respect, but I haven’t seen anything to coax those fears from any proponent of the unitary executive theory or this particular strain of regulatory reform, even Scalia himself. The point of reform shouldn’t be to “own the libs”, after all, but to ensure we have an unbiased civil service that is both efficient and answerable to the people.
I could perhaps see Schedule F paired with stronger Congressional participation in directly deciding upon significant regulation, kinda like the approach Congress took with the War Powers Resolution (although that resolution is constitutionally dubious). The Founders intended for Congress to be first among equals, after all, so a pairing of a strong, Hamiltonian-style executive with a more Jeffersonian-style Congress could be a best of both worlds. This is just one of those issues that I think needs to be sincerely and deeply thought about before taking broad actions, whether by conservatives, liberals, or moderates of any kind.
Apologies for the wall of text. And again, really great article! I learned quite a lot reading 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
All very fair points, and I can’t really disagree with any of them. Thank you for the quick, succinct response! Looking forward to reading more from y’all :)
I concur, Arthur! Very well written and informative. I thoroughly enjoyed it!