Interpreting Bureaucratic Theatre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKVJ8NpBYIY

This video is somewhat amusing. It's a case of grandstanding versus ignorance, a display of hubris in conflict. One party, Warren is a rising star seeking accolade and higher office. The other, Carson is contemptuous, arrogant but foolish, either too vain to admit he's out of his league or to ignorant to realise it.

Sherrod Brown of Ohio also beats up on Carson near the end of the clip. He too is a rising star in the party. Both he and Warren are considered potential presidential candidates. That plays a big part in what you're seeing here. These are the figures that will bring the Far Left and dissident Sanders supporters back into the mainstream DNC. They are trying to score points and count coup on Carson who is reviled by the American Left and viewed as a traitor and an Uncle Tom.

Of course these committee hearings are always an occasion for politicians to strut and parade, it's an opportunity to beat up on the opposition usually with impunity. Carson who has also been accused of corruption is virtually in the dock and while some might perceive his contempt as directed toward the opposition party, others might reckon his contempt as directed toward the institutions of state and even the law itself. Maybe that's what continues to fascinate about politics, despite all the protocol, the rules and restraints and the packing inherent in the media age... it's still about raw power, a sword dance or a bull fight. And yet it is a show and one subject to budgets, production, schedules, acting and dare I say it, ticket sales.

Apart from the show there are some salient issues to consider. The one the 'stuck out' to me was the issue of law and its limitations within the bureaucracy.

We've all dealt with the frustrations and outrages generated by the bureaucracy. It is a raging inefficiency, maddening, wanton and wasteful. And yet it represents a way of dispersing power and preventing consolidation. Without the bureaucracy power would become too centralised, too much would be in the hands of too few. Has the bureaucracy worked? Has it functioned and despites its failures, has it succeeded in preventing dictatorship?

Maybe, maybe not.

Has it fostered accountability? Has it prevented waste and abuse?

Most would answer in the negative and it could be easily argued that it has in fact created almost a new social class, a branch of the middle class, low-level wielders of power, a thousand governments functioning within ever wider circles. It has turned power into something arcane and labyrinth, esoteric and impenetrable. Who dreams of becoming a bureaucrat? And yet not a few find it to be a comfortable and even rewarding life. They are for the most part unimaginative people, compromised and compromising, seekers of security over standing for principle.

But on a practical level it comes down to this. Laws are passed and yet due to the complexity of law, jurisdiction, the layers and levels of bureaucracy... those laws don't always work. Sometimes they are too vague or nebulous in their wording. Laws must be interpreted and applied and while this seems straightforward to some, it is not always the case. Lower levels of the bureaucracy have their own concerns and while federal law supersedes state and local concerns, nevertheless those concerns have competing claims and often one law, or aspects of it will contradict the claims and interpretations of other laws.

It is complicated and Elizabeth Warren knows this full well. In this regard she's being either highly obtuse or outrightly deceptive. Her cut-and-dry, black and white rendering of the law and its application is naive if not misleading. Of course does she intend to be honest here or is this about something else?

Dare I call her a bully? Ben Carson is a pretty easy target though his display was less than impressive. As usual apart from seeming to battle narcolepsy he comes as across as something of a dullard.

In other cases, laws are destructive, challenging the status quo and regional and local agencies have their own mandates and procedures. Sometimes a federal law will come down and create chaos sending everyone scrambling. All too often the legislators in the federal or even state capital are out of touch with the concerns and realities of the bureaucratic spheres they're shaking up. Sometimes this is inadvertent and on occasion it is deliberate, heat meant to refine and stimulate reaction.

Are Carson's replies legitimate? On the one hand you could argue that yes, the federal laws are so disruptive that the lower levels of the bureaucracy are appealing for time, time to adjust, time to plan and in some cases time to appeal. This is usually considered legitimate and depending on the nature and perceived urgency of a law's implementation (yet another subjective and contentious concept) appeals and process will allow for certain delays. This is understood.

Now Carson could have elaborated on this and seriously contended with Warren. Her rhetoric and bombast were far from unassailable. Why was Carson so retiring? Was it contempt? Was it incompetence and inability? I'm not sure. Maybe he's just intimidated by confrontation? Is he cowed by his abuse of finances scandal? It's hard to say but he's not very impressive.

Am I defending him? No. Actually from a Christian perspective I find him fairly contemptible and in many ways a pathetic figure. It could be that his resistance to federal housing laws is legitimate and the bureaucracy itself is to blame. Its complexity alone will generate delay and a process that must be worked through.

One's view of the federal housing laws is not really the issue here or at best it's peripheral.

This is one reason to critique bureaucracy but there's another (and in this case it's probably the more likely) explanation. The complexity of the bureaucracy can be utilised to resist, to obfuscate, to diminish and fragment the potency of a law or dictate. The bureaucracy can be used to obstruct and sabotage congressional legislation, executive orders and the rulings and judgments of the courts.

In some ways the bureaucracy wields the real day-to-day power. The heads of the various bureaucracies, in this case cabinet departments, come and go and yet there are second and third tier figures within these organisations that are not political appointees but careerists. In some ways these people, these upper tier bureaucrats or Mandarins (in a Western sense) wield real power. Their longevity and mastery of the arcane intricacies of the system afford them a great deal of influence and worth. Sometimes they move up and on occasion are tapped to head the organisation but often they remain relatively unknown to the public and yet rather important within their own spheres.

I am reminded of the military bureaucracy and its culture, something I've written about before. It's an entire universe, a parallel world within American society. It has its own law and protocols, its own ethos and caste-hierarchy. It has its own language and traditions. It is a society of its own and can be quite alien and even cryptic to outsiders.

The larger civilian government bureaucracy functions much in the same way and to add to the complexity overlaps with that of the military. It's a bizarre, frustrating and yet in some ways fascinating world. I danced around its edges and I hope forever more to limit my contact with it. Sometimes I feel like I've spent most of my life trying to escape the dull and stupefying air of government bureaucracy and yet... it is inescapable. Many retail and warehouse jobs have taken on the same air. Some spend their whole lives in that restricted world of staring at the clock, dotting "i's" and crossing "t's", filling out endless redundant forms and in some cases experiencing grief and regimentation to do simple things like going to the toilet.

Is Carson using the bureaucracy to obstruct the implementation of federal law? It's very likely that's the case and his contempt for Warren may indeed be an expression of that. In fact it may be his unspoken mandate and many suspect his commission is not an isolated case. The Republican Party has often employed this tactic, appointing department heads that will undermine the implementation of law by steering the bureaucracy or in other cases clogging its works.

But at the same time there are legitimate reasons for the bureaucracy to belay federal orders and mandates. Ideally that's yet another expression of checks and balances, the very reason the bureaucracies are created. They represent a compromise in which power is ordered and implemented through careful procedure.

Bureaucracy itself isn't always the problem as some think. There's a problem with regard to culture and this is amplified by the bureaucracy's size and complexity.

Though it is beyond the scope of anything that comes up in this video exchange, there's something worth mentioning and reflecting on. The aforementioned upper tier bureaucrats, the careerists or Mandarins that work within the bureaucracy often wield a real and lasting power. This power does not wield the pen of a department head and yet often their hand can influence the pen and they can make or break a political appointee. A savvy cabinet director or minister will sometimes grasp this and strike, removing opposition figures though this can generate great controversy, opposition and resentment. Re-assignment is sometimes easier than firing and it probably won't make the news. Once again, it's a dance. In some ways it's not that different from the business world and in other respects it's very different. Corporate figures do not always function well within the government bureaucracy. We've seen that on many occasions.

But if the Mandarins can be marshaled, controlled, bought, wooed or coordinated, such an effort could yield tremendous influence. Are there figures or organisations within the larger umbrella of government that are able to do this? It depends on who you listen to, what you read and whom you believe. If you could identify the figures who (to put it in yesterday's terms) have these names in their rolodex and can call on them for favours, who can meet with these Mandarins and coordinate them, who can shape their thinking and in some cases coerce them... through threat or sometimes through incentive.... then you'll find another bureaucracy, a hidden layer, another labyrinth we sometimes call the Deep State, headed by what I often refer to as the Praetorians. This is but one aspect of it, a rather dull and seemingly mundane facet or component of the larger apparatus, but one that is quite critical and of equal importance to the military and intelligence actors that have inspired the pop culture.