Month: February 2020

Bureaucrats tend to have a poor reputation in America, being branded by many as shadow government officials. However, the connotation of being a shadow government or faceless stems from few people being aware of what a bureaucrat is and what their job is. Essentially, a bureaucrat is someone employed by the government and tasked with serving the public. There are 2 types of bureaucrats, and both of them have a different amount and kind of power. The two types are street level bureaucrats and federal bureaucrats. Street level bureaucrats exercise de facto power through influence, while federal bureaucrats are granted de jure power. Both kinds of bureaucrats are important but very few people know what they are and what they do.

Street level bureaucrats are much more common than federal bureaucrats, and many citizens interact with them on a daily basis. A street bureaucrat is anyone who works a job that is publicly funded and interacts with citizens. Teachers, police officers and social workers are all examples of street level bureaucrats. While it may be difficult to initially grasp how police officers and teachers can have political power through their profession, it becomes more clear the more once you realize that their power is not expressed, rather, it comes from how they implement federal policies. In the Sage Handbook of Public Administration, Steven Smith states,“…the power of street level bureaucrats to influence public policy implementation derives substantially from their discretion and their relative autonomy from organizational authority.” (Steven Rathgeb Smith). As articulated in this quote, street level bureaucrats are responsible for how the public perceives  policies they are tasked with implementing. For example, let’s say a public school teacher is hypothetically instructed by Common Core to give out 30 minutes of math homework a night. If the teacher gives out what he/she thinks is 30 minutes, but in actuality takes students 1.5 to 2 hours, parents are going to think of Common Core in a negative light because it was not implemented correctly. However, if the teacher assigns 15 minutes of homework because he/she deems that the students do not need 30 minutes, and the student’s GPA goes up as a result of the extra time to work on other classes’ assignments, parents will think favorably of Common Core. I believe that street level bureaucrats being able to influence public policy is a good thing, as they are often more in touch with their community and demographic than the people instructing them to implement a certain policy. With the current system in place, a street level bureaucrat is subtly able to receive feedback and pass it along to a superior or even slightly alter policies to better tailor it to the people they work for. Obviously, human error will occur and implementation will be executed poorly in some situations, but I think this is a necessary risk compared to the potential good they can do. Street level bureaucrats should not be mindless drones implementing and enforcing policy even if is detrimental to the people they serve, and it is good that there is room for them to make minor adjustments. 

Federal bureaucrats are people tasked with running and working in a government agency, an example being the current State Department head Mike Pompeo and his staff members. The role of federal bureaucrats is rather simple, they carry out the assigned mission of their agency, make internal policy changes if required, and enforce policy on a federal level. It is often federal bureaucrats who are accused of overstepping their authority and infringing on personal freedoms. A rather notorious example of this was reported in USA Today, the article states,“…so began a years-long back and forth between Johnson and the EPA… The EPA, however, claimed that the rocks, sand and concrete Johnson used to create the dam and spillway were pollutants.” (Rachel Bovard). The context behind this quote is a man wanted to build a pond on his property but the EPA stepped in and deemed it violated the Clean Water Act. At a preliminary glance, it is easy to label the EPA as overzealous federal bureaucrats and that is initially exactly what I did. However, after thinking more in-depth, I realized that the EPA is an agency that protects more citizens than they hinder. It is too simple to label federal bureaucrats as overstepping when this project could potentially have an environmental impact on shared resources. While Johnson (the man wanting to build the pond), may see the blocking of his pond and the subsequent fine as excessive, people living around him could support the EPA and be satisfied with their work to reduce pollutants. The EPA’s job is to protect the environment, and while they may need a more transparent and clear way of doing so, they are still a regulatory agency who is tasked with protecting the environment even at the expense of a lost citizen’s pond.

In conclusion, street level and federal bureaucrats have a bad reputation because few people know who they are or what they are tasked to do. However, some light reading on the subject will yield an appreciation for them and their duties. Sure, all of their practices and actions may not be perfect, and there is certainly room for improvement, but the mindless bashing of a “shadow government” leads to no results. Bureaucrats are only a shadow government and faceless because people do not pay attention to or focus on them. Despite this, street level and federal bureaucrats are still serving the public the way they are tasked to, and will continue to do so even if no one is watching.

Works Cited and Consulted :

Susan Milligan. 2019 “The Bureaucracy Strikes Back” U.S. News

Smith, Steven Rathgeb. 2012. “Street-Level Bureaucracy and Public Policy.” Sage Handbook of Public Administration, eds. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre. London: Sage Publications Ltd. (431-447)

Bovard, Rachel. “The Trump Administration’s Successful War against Bureaucratic Bullies.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 16 Oct. 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/16/bureaucratic-bullies-trump-administration-successful-war-against-column/3974449002/.

 

]

With a 54% approval rate, the Judicial branch is looked upon most favorably by the American people compared to the Executive, with 49%, and the Legislative with 23% (Gallup.com). Despite having the highest approval rating of the 3 branches of government, the Judiciary is often an afterthought when it comes to being covered in the media or being on the minds of American people. This could be for a variety of reasons, ranging from hearings not being televised, the court only being in session for 9 months or Justices rarely making public appearances or giving speeches. However, I believe that the primary reason that the people and media seldomly pay attention to the Supreme Court is because the court is not elected, and the court rarely changes. The only time in which the Supreme Court receives national news coverage is when a Justice is about to be appointed, and the way in which they are appointed has become an issue due to the current climate of bipartisanship.

The independence of the Judicial branch from party politics was intentionally written into the Constitution to uphold the integrity of the highest court in the land. Hamilton addressed this when he writes in The Federalist  78, “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like.”(Hamilton). Unfortunately, the nomination of Supreme Court Justices have become purely political, as Presidents select nominees based on their views, purely for the sake of having a Justice on the court who supports their agenda. While it is not   surprising that Executive branch would want support from the Judicial branch, it is a problem because it contradicts the Founding Fathers’ wishes and leads to gridlock. The Founders wanted the most qualified people to be nominated for the Supreme Court, not for it to become politicized.

The most clear example of party lines deciding Supreme Court Justices can be seen in 2016, when a Republican controlled Senate refused to confirm Democratic nominee Merrick Garland. Majority leader Mitch McConnell rationalized the decision by stating, “The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice.” (USA Today). While it’s easy to see the root of McConnell argument, the Supreme Court is not a form of representation. This is made clear by the fact that Judges are nominated, not elected. Judges are suppose to be nominated on merit alone, but Republicans and Democrats alike see the importance of having the Supreme Court in their favor, and are aware that a Democratic President would mean a liberal leaning justice and vise versa. Democratic Presidential candidate  Pete Buttigieg said as much in a CNN town hall when he stated,“What we need to do is stop the Supreme Court from sliding toward being viewed as a nakedly political institution.”(The New Republic). Another way we can see the increased polarization of the court is the number of 5-4 decision, split down party lines. So, instead of an independent court where the most qualified and objective people possible are interpreting the Constitution like the Fathers intended, we are left in a system where Presidents are incentivized to nominate the youngest, and most partisan judge possible.

This system is clearly broken, but there are solutions being suggested to fix this. One comes from current Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who states on his website, “Current Justices can expect to serve for 40 or more years. For historical context, the average Justice has served for 15 years…This isn’t the way it was envisioned at the founding of our country, when life expectancy was shorter and Justices would often retire or resign well ahead of their deaths…The answer to this is to impose term limits on Justices, and set their terms at regular intervals.” (Yang2020.com). Yang suggests imposing term limits on Supreme Justices, as this would make nominating younger and more partisan Judges less attractive to Presidents than the current life appointments Justices enjoy now. While Democrats may be biased in their crusade to reform the Supreme Court due to a Republican currently heading the Executive Branch, the Supreme Court becoming more and more like a political institution is a serious problem, and against the intentions of the Founders who established the Judicial Branch.

 

“18 Year Term Limit for Supreme Court Justices – Yang2020 – Andrew Yang for President.” Yang2020, www.yang2020.com/policies/scotustermlimits/.

Ford, Matt. “A Better Way to Fix the Supreme Court.” The New Republic, 4 June 2019, newrepublic.com/article/154047/better-way-fix-supreme-court.

Gallup. “Supreme Court.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 28 Nov. 2019, news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx.

King, Ledyard. “’We’d Fill It:’ Mitch McConnell Blocked Obama Supreme Court Pick but Says He’d Help Trump Fill a Vacancy.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 29 May 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/29/mcconnell-blocked-obama-supreme-court-choice-wouldnt-stop-trump/1268883001/.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp.