Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
saltydawg

"Double Government"

Rate this topic

16 posts in this topic

The term "double government" has popped in history where there was a public-facing government that lacked real efficacy and a government that was clandestine that operated outside of public (and government #1) scrutiny. This is starting to be applied more often to our government as an explanation for why military and domestic/foreign intelligence are unable to be steered by an administration.

 

I can buy some of it. The elected officials deign to the subject experts, who are not elected, and policy is created from the bottom-up rather than the top-down.

 

Is it real? Can it be fixed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saltydawg, this was posted only two days ago by zybathegeek“The first step to curing an illness is to diagnose it correctly.”  This is the last sentence of the Competitive Enterprise Institute article, to which the OP link directs.   


"Is it real? Can it be fixed?"  Unless you are giving us a Fox News issue, give us first things first.   :bucktooth:


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

Originally Posted by saltydawg View Post

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by inthered View Post

Yup, it's like balls:  the Queen could King be if she had 2.


So our government is more potent with two govs instead of one?


This is what you thought I was saying?  



  • "Double government" has popped in history; but, you may not know where.  Nevertheless, this makes the A question of your branching exercise an unnecessary point in the decision tree—you’ve told us “it’s real.”
  •  “Double government” is starting to be applied more often to our government; but, you may not know by whom.  THIS is you’re A question:  Is it true that “someone or, some group” is starting to apply the term “double government” to our government?

What can your B question be about, regarding can it be fixed?


“The first step to curing an illness is to diagnose it correctly.”  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, historically the term has been applied to the British gov, where there was a monarchy and a parliamentary system. Now, I think when the term is applied to the U.S., it is changed, because our President, unlike the monarch, is not solely a titular role.

 

So the theory being kicked about, as I explained in the OP, is that the NSA and the military actually push policy up the ladder to the administration rather than the other way around. For instance, in Afghanistan, the military gave President Obama two options, from which he had to choose. Similarly, when the White House works with the NSA, which is full of intel specialists, they defer to their expertise because of how specialized it is.

 

So, while we criticize the administration for their policies in these realms, they are not guiding the policy...they are being guided into the policy. The result is that voters do not affect these policies and, as we've seen, changes in administration don't affect them. These branches of the government are on autopilot and are, for all intents and purposes, self-governed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A place like Pakistan is akin to what you are talking about.

The formal government appears to cooperate with the US to capture OBL, and the military was 'hiding' him right outside the gate to a large military base.

 

An arrangement like this is good for plausible deniability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A place like Pakistan is akin to what you are talking about.

The formal government appears to cooperate with the US to capture OBL, and the military was 'hiding' him right outside the gate to a large military base.

 

An arrangement like this is good for plausible deniability.

 

But is it not happening in the US? Is the NSA calling its own shots and pushing them up the line rather than the traditional vertical alignment where policies come from the top down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also comes into play when one government or portion of a government fails to perform its responsibilities. The Obamination is a case of this. He cannot make a tough decision so he makes none at all and some other entity may do it for him.

 

I can see a temporary need for something like NSA. We have had groups or laws like this in the past, but they have been temporary. This one does not look temporary and its continues existence is contrary to the American way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

Originally Posted by saltydawg View Post

But is it not happening in the US? Is the NSA calling its own shots and pushing them up the line rather than the traditional vertical alignment where policies come from the top down?



The elected officials versus the bureaucracy?  I see that.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1.

We see the same discussion about the staff of members of congress, who are often career people [read, bureaucracy], and the elected members they "work for", but do not always "serve."

 

On the one hand, we want to hire experts to do government business [Example, should the Commissar of Ebola be a medical person who can't administer a paper bag of groceries, or an expert in supply chain management which can be applied to anything from shoes to medical equipment?] but we also want policy makers to respond to what the electorate wants and not what the bureaucracy finds easiest. I don't want my mayor to sweep the streets personally, but I want the city clean. If my block is filthy, I want the council-member (who needs my vote) to kick the manager of street-cleaning to identify who is eating donuts instead of running the sweeper. In turn, how can the manager of streets know if my street is dirty without someone reporting a slacker.

 

Defense, diplomacy, and intelligence gathering are examples of places where the long-term, in-place experts know things that cannot be part of public debate. Elected officials should not ignore the information provided. However, there are times when politicians should promote things they think are "good for the country", even if it annoys entrenched interests. The problem is knowing the difference between the right time to change direction and the wrong time. When RR promotes a 600 ship navy, Pershing missiles in Europe, and Ballistic Missile Defense, did he get anyone's approval other than voters? Conversely, when he got caught up in Iran Contra, arms for hostages, etc. he was also doing things he saw his base as approving, but the quality of execution was not always sound because there was less buy-in at the bureaucratic level that had to execute. Similarly, a a general level what exactly is the difference between a Carter saying that "we are going to promote human rights" with a hang-the-consequences strategy, and a Bush saying "we are going to promoter democracy and US security" with a hang-the-consequences strategy? Easy to see now, not so easy to see in advance. But neither was done with the "permission" of a behind-the-curtain bureaucracy, and one might argue that the success or failure of those policies was a function of the willingness or over-enthusiasm of some to "get with the plan" but not go so far that it backfired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this condition exists right here.

 

I believe vested interests felt threatened when Nixon had Pat Grey break into Hoover's safe, and retrieve the Capitol Hill dossiers.

I believe (and agree) that the Trilateral Commission plotted Nixon's exposure in the Press, because he could destroy any individual.

Too much power for any man to possess, much less one with no scruples! Nixon was tried and convicted in the Court of Public Opinion.

(IMO the "Waterburglars" suggested the mission themselves, and sent in a large team, that waited around until the police FINALLY arrived.)

To me, this smells like an "accommodation bust" where the perps are paid to take a fall. Who paid? How much? Why? What was the result?

Do you think it is a coincidence that the people arrested at the Watergate building all worked together on Hunt's "Bay of Pigs" team?

Stand up guys, every one. Absolute loyalty to the team. A pair might have pulled it off, a dozen was a bust, waiting to happen.

 

If you lived through those times, you have to admire the tactic of going after Agnew FIRST!

With Agnew out of the picture, Gerald Ford was next in succession.

 

Gerald Ford was a Trilateralist. Henry Kissinger was a Trilateralist. Nelson Rockefeller was a Trilateralist.

Foreign policy has grown too complex, to risk changing it every four years. The President clearly does not determine everything.

Once having taken control of the reins, does anyone think the Trilateral Commission would give them up voluntarily?

Obama was quite serious about closing Guantanamo. He just wasn't allowed.

The US is Israel's friend. Does anyone think Obama is?

 

The foreign policies of Germany, Japan, and the United States are run by committee. National leaders are figureheads with limited power.

They may have greater latitude in purely domestic matters, but International relations have longer terms than Presidencies.

 

As far as the question about "can we do anything about it?"

I would say: "probably not."

 

Ask me if I care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

Originally Posted by AMMO View Post

I believe this condition exists right here.

I believe vested interests felt threatened when Nixon had Pat Grey break into Hoover's safe, and retrieve the Capitol Hill dossiers.

I believe (and agree) that the Trilateral Commission plotted Nixon's exposure in the Press, because he could destroy any individual.

Too much power for any man to possess, much less one with no scruples! Nixon was tried and convicted in the Court of Public Opinion.

(IMO the "Waterburglars" suggested the mission themselves, and sent in a large team, that waited around until the police FINALLY arrived.)

To me, this smells like an "accommodation bust" where the perps are paid to take a fall. Who paid? How much? Why? What was the result?

Do you think it is a coincidence that the people arrested at the Watergate building all worked together on Hunt's "Bay of Pigs" team?

Stand up guys, every one. Absolute loyalty to the team. A pair might have pulled it off, a dozen was a bust, waiting to happen.

If you lived through those times, you have to admire the tactic of going after Agnew FIRST!

With Agnew out of the picture, Gerald Ford was next in succession.

Gerald Ford was a Trilateralist. Henry Kissinger was a Trilateralist. Nelson Rockefeller was a Trilateralist.

Foreign policy has grown too complex, to risk changing it every four years. The President clearly does not determine everything.

Once having taken control of the reins, does anyone think the Trilateral Commission would give them up voluntarily?

Obama was quite serious about closing Guantanamo. He just wasn't allowed.

The US is Israel's friend. Does anyone think Obama is?

The foreign policies of Germany, Japan, and the United States are run by committee. National leaders are figureheads with limited power.

They may have greater latitude in purely domestic matters, but International relations have longer terms than Presidencies.

As far as the question about "can we do anything about it?"

I would say: "probably not."

Ask me if I care?



How can you say you can't do anything about it?  Ive never understood that.  (IF) men created the "trilateral Commission"  then men can destroy it.  You can choose to be one of those men.



There are peope on this website (mostly leftists) that will tell you that things like Medicare cannot be eliminated, like it is some sort of entity of its own.  Silly


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.