IIRC, FDR's dominant cabinet member was Hopkins, Secretary of the Navy. Remember that the Department of the Navy was equal to the War Department before they merged to become DOD. I'm not dcertain what that does to your thesis, but I think it works ok.

I must admit, I'd forgotten the bureaucratic inertia of the government. This does explain, however, why I've always felt that talking about Republican Administrations vs Democratic Administrations has never explained differences and similarites to my satisfaction.

One might have expected some of Bush-41's time as Vice President under Reagan to make some of the Defense-orientation to rub off; maybe that's why we actually had a 1st Gulf War, rather than resorting purely to meaningless UN Resolutions and more effective economic sanctions...

This is exactly why my eyes get hurt... they roll too far every time somebody says we need Term Limits on politicians...

Term limits on Bureaucracies, yes... politicians elected by the public, no. Even if this means (as it does to my shame in my District) people like Jim McDermott get re-elected over and over again. At least the Public made the decision upon biannual reflection.

If anyone has not watched the BBC series (on PBS) YES MINISTER from the 1980's should make an effort to do so. I still see it on different cable/satellite systems. It captured the constant struggle between the entrenched bureaucracy and the elected officials. It was quite amusing has the Brits say.

Can't disagree at all. What I want to do is to stop voting for incumbants but that may give the bureacracy much more power. Maybe we need term limits on government workers?

Bring back the spoils system. Your party wins, you get ALL the government jobs, right down to the mail carriers. Lose, you are ALL out. That'd do wonders for the State Department, for starters, who seem to think they are annointed to create policy.

We'd see a lot fewer leakers in the CIA, too. I bet a lot of the blabber mouths would think twice knowing that there wasn't going to be any cover from above.

Gives real meaning to "throw the bums out, doesn't it?"

Roosevelt Minor (FDR) should be considered a defense oriented administration. Recall the FDR was an Assistant Secretary of the Navy and always regarded himself as a Navy man. Separate from the War Department (which did the Army and Army Air Corps before the merger), but military nonetheless. While military retrenchment was still the order of the day in the early 30s, Roosevelt backed major Navy construction (cruisers, carriers and battleships) from the mid-1930s on.

This is an excellent and thorough breakdown of the history.

Can I just, irrelevantly, defend John le Carré (aka David Cornwell, former mid-level intelligence man) though? He became a bit unmoored after the end of the Cold War. (Witness, The Constant Gardner.) But as for relativism, if you actually read the George Smiley books, it is always absolutely, perfectly clear that at the end of the day the real bad guys were the Soviets. The main difference between le Carré and "Fleming" is that le Carré's hero is fat, homely, cuckolded, and sad that he has to do what he does. (And who isn't sad when they have to kill, you?) Bond is a great character, but he is an unabashedly romanticized fiction. People, you have not read a great spy novel until you have read Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy.

Also, I take issue with calling the judiciary the tyrannical branch. Hundreds of thousands of decisions are handed down around this country each year by a judiciary that ranges from a lowly state superior court judge all the way up to the Supreme Court. Every year, about 0.0001% of these decisions really irritate people. Suck it up. Basically, your critique boils down to a desire to turn the judiciary into a rubber-stamping device for Democratic legislative actions. Anything else is "tyrrany." Well, we've had that tyrrany ever since Justice Marshall, and the founders intended that way. It can be abused, but it's called 'checks and balances.' The day this country loses full respect for the judiciary is the day the rule of law dies, which is the day America truly becomes a tyranny. I would sooner entrust the enforcement of our laws to a cheezeball-eating monkey than entrust it to Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Harry Reid, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or the entire class of carp-like, finger-in-the-wind, Janus-emulating, spending-is-bad/let's-spend more!, golf-outing-going, intern-diddling lot that we so proudly call our political class.

They are not bad people, but I can never fully escape the thought that there is something a bit off in the head of any human who honestly thinks that he or she is qualified to run a country. There's a white-hot core of ego in there somewhere, a little tyrant looking for some way to escape. Hitler was elected. I hate populism. Give me an unelected Supreme Court whose members can be replaced (when the randomly die or retire, at the whim of nobody) any day of the week . . . and twice on the Fourth of July.

Further thoughts: Wilson was rather peculiarly War oriented, as he used the State department to put William Jennings Bryan out to pasture. He thought of himself as a statesman, however, a legend in his own mind.

The 1920's presidents were probably mostly State oriented, mostly because of inward-focus and retrenchment sentiment. Harding's administration called the Washington Naval Conference which was the worlds first modern major disarmament conference and the Coolidge administration was simply interested in business as usual, and Hoover had to deal with the depression.

I quite agree with the analysis. As is mentioned at the end of the post, this understanding of an entrenched bureaucracy, and State vs. Defense, goes a long way in understanding our political history.

I would just simply add that in linking State with the CIA, something is being left out. That something is the UN. Where did 'Madam' Albright come from when she went to State? And why the big (bureaucratic) fight over Bolton (a Defense Dept. presidency imposing itself on State!)? And, oh yes, Nelson Rockefeller.......should we add the Council on Foreign Relations to the mix here? And, if we want a real analysis of the State/Defense duality, it comes down to a One-World Government/U.S. Government duality. Once this is recognized, then even gobs of other things begin to make sense (e.g., the sale of rocket technology to the Chinese.)

Altogether, this makes for a very disturbing reality. For me it invokes the surreal world of George Orwell's invention (writing at the time of the CIA's formation) where reality and the appearance of reality are two disparate entities.

The Duality of Sovereignty lives! Throughout history, all centralized forms of political organization have been comprised of two primary classes, the priests and the warriors, sitting on top of a base of agricultural producers. Sometimes they are unified in the role of a king, who embodies both principles (World Conqueror and World Renouncer), or as two Chiefs who share power (diarchy) or as two competing realms, as in the Holy Roman Empire with its Kings and Popes. Other examples include the Indian caste system, the War and Peace chiefs of the Cherokees . . . The picture gets complicated when a Merchant class, based on money instead of prestige, overthrows the order, as with fifth century Athens, Calvinist Europe, and even the Aztecs. But here we see the return of the old order in this wonderful analysis. Cool!

Brilliant post, of course. Here's a little game: name your fave Presidents. Now, were they state or war?

GW (the original): definite war
AL :war
Reagan: war

Even the all-time favorite od Democrats everywhere, Roosevelt, was a war guy, as you so rightly pointed out.

Always vote for the war guy over the state guy. The country's better off.

Note on the Gettysburg Address

by H.L. Mencken

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

Union soldiers, misguided and valiant, worked for the Thing you now recognize, the . Remember that we (the Confederacy) tried to restore the Republic, and failing that at least remove ourselves from EXACTLY that which The Big Lizard identifies. For our insolence we were killed all the day long, the heart of our land scorched to nothing, and federalism installed with a vengeance. The ten square miles of sovereignty differing from the several States united IS the problem you address, and that ten square miles is perpetually involved in internecine and intramural warfare over Who Will Rule. The Republic died at the High Water Mark on the Angle at Gettysburg, and since that time you are ruled by that thing which burst forth from the French Revolution - the Bureaucrat. Whatever names and labels being used is of little consequence, the template is the same and it is self-replicating, self-healing and self-perpetuating. It is a schizophrenic internal war of Janus.

Very interesting, Dafydd; and it is spot on! The only good thing about FDR was the war. Everything else he did just followed Hoover and expanded upon Hoover's (and the Congress') bad policies.

Governments, like all bureaucracies resist accountability at all costs. That said, it makes no sense to change all hands each time that there is an election. We cannot afford to lose the organizational memory or skills.

State, Defense, the judiciary, and the rest should be held accountable for their strategies and accomplishments. Only by making public performance against a fair standard of accountabiliy can the organizations be rated and can they continually improve. Otherwise, it is a pissing contest and may the loudest hack win.

This task should be done by the political leadership, but they will not do it, preferring to throw flowers or darts so as to gain political favour. So, we are left with the media (fat chance), watch-dog organizations (they have their own bias), and blogs for the oversight. My vote is for the latter.

This is old stuff, but it's interesting to try to classify various administrations.

I'm surprised you didn't include the most obvious fact about the hidden government: It's overwhelmingly liberal. Even the Defense Department bureaucracy is overwhelmingly liberal; hence, the hostility to Rumsfeld and his crew within his own building. Remember it was Defense Department lawyers who advised Clinton against strikes against OBL in Afghanistan in the late 90's, because the strikes would cause property damage. Remember Jamie Gorelick? She got her start as a lawyer within the Defense Department.

As for the "Dictatorial Department," one Supreme Court Justice (I forget whom) said: "We're not final because we're infallible, we're infallible because we're final."

In any case, the Dictatorial Department is supposed to be tethered to the Constitution, and thereby limited. When it loses that tether, and begins to write its own Constitution, yes, that is tyrannical.

"I'm surprised you didn't include the most obvious fact about the hidden government: It's overwhelmingly liberal."

MD, I think the bureaucracy is firstly (and only)devoted to it's own growth and perpetuation, regardless of politics. And, I think the denizens of the government might well be similar to the rest of America, well...maybe slightly more liberal than the rest of America, but it would an interesting polling question.

Sounds like some sort of dysfunctional ‘family’...

Pelted:

Hitler was elected.

No he wasn't. He was appointed.

Dafydd

Johnny Yuma:

[I]t was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

Isn't there a little something, you know, missing from this analysis?

Dafydd

Life was so easy before humble me became political. What good is the Vote, if these permanent (or "bureaucratic") wing of government prevails?!? i’m watching Open Water...nice movie, and fits here whilst i drift in ‘Da *DEEP* political waters...so to speak.

Saddam, Osama, Arafat, Kim DooDoo 2, and the soon-to-be former Iran have made some bad mistakes, huh. Heck, it took two Attacks...‘93 & ’01, before America even thought about war, and Americans are now crying after less than 5 years!?!

Yes, America might look like a dysfunctional ‘family’...fighting amongst themselves like spoiled children being raised by parents other than their own, but look at the choices that Planet Earth offers...so to speak.

Reagan proved that Government Unions could be thrashed...he also proved that foreign Governments need to get along with America, and Bush “43” has enforced that latter choice by placing *BOOTS* right in the middle of the Middle East.

Float around helplessly in Open Water, if you so desire, complain about the Government as much as you wish to, but the People have more power than Dafydd is crediting them with. Bush “43” has tossed Lady Condi right on top of State, and Rumsfeld has ran Defense since...since we know when.

Yes...Dafydd has brought up some very interesting points, and apparently some rather clear facts. i was surprised that Bush “41” lost in his second run, but really didn’t care. Did notice some serious problems during the Clinton years, especially when it came to security, but i live in a remote swamp...remote until 911. Ummmmmm...less than 5 years after 911, and just look at what the polls & so-called news claim and have claimed!!!

Bush “43” is *KICKING* some serious buttocks, here in America, over there in Old Europe, and even in the Middle East...enough said, huh. He is doing such whilst the MSM (without Dan Rather, now) fakes news, whilst their own polls and ratings drop faster than a Prison Punk in any Prison, and whilst his own Party turns against him in a heartbeat or poll or news article...so to speak.

BTW, Dan...whilst your legacy slips, in terms of history, please allow humble me to introduce you to Valerie...Valerie is Joe’s so-called “legacy”, and Joe tried to pimp her out as if he knew something about pimping. Nice hair, Joie, and Valerie reacted to such like some river mullet.

Well, the Federal Government offers a good retirement after 20 years, and perhaps it is time for the “lifers” to retire, before they lose a good retirement. Valerie was close to losing her retirement, was married to Joie, and so she took the safest way out.

Life on Earth is a *LOT* like Life in a Prison and/or ‘Da *SWING* of a Pendulum...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Dafydd,

Excellent. I am a civil servant in the Defense Department, an engineer with one of the project offices. Appointed officials and military leaders come and go almost invisibly while the development of new operational concepts and new defense systems continues seamlessly under the direction of the senior exeutive service. Our brave and dedicated soldiers have the best equipment in the world because of this permanent talent, which is not bureaucratic. The soldiers are our customers and we are dedicated to them. And, from my perspective, the DOD permanent government is pro -bush because it is more pro-military than the other side.

justphishing

An interesting test case for your idea is George Marshall, who was at one point the chief of staff of the Army, and later became Secretary of State for the Truman administration.

Steven Den Beste:

There's an even more recent example than that... <G>

It's a theory not of individuals but of governments. And it works (by and large) in every country of the world, including Iran and North Korea. In the Soviet Union, they were called the nomenklatura. In China, the bureaucracy has been running the joint for four thousand years. In the British Empire, it was the Civil Service and the Home Office.

Dafydd

Well, actually two have followed in Marshall's footsteps: General Haig and General Powell. But neither of them were as influential as General Marshall.

Pelted's comments on Le Carre, as well as your mention of him, bring back so many good memories:
1) Reading and re-reading the Smiley books. George Smiley is easily one of the most compelling existential characters ever in literature - faithful to a faithless wife. A quiet soldier with out an army. A man dedicated to catching Carla in the battle but instead catching him through his child. Le Carre achieved an incredible character yet did it by way of showing us the space around Smiley, and not much of the character's internal life.
Since the Cold War, Le Carre has found himself returning to the leftist pap of so much of Europe, unfortunately. But perhaps we should consider that if any of us could be a writer, and achieve even a fraction of the compelling story and character Le Carre achieved with George Smiley, we would be considered good writers indeed.
The thing I think we have to remember about war, is taht it takes the normal ambiguity of life and focuses the choices to *this* or *that*...yet life does not stop being ambiguous.
Lincoln saved the Republic by stopping the Confederates from forming what they wanted - a seperate state that was very free, except for the slavery it depended on. Lincoln saved the Republic even as he jailed without habeus corpus many opponents.
FDR saved the nation but jailed the Japanese in California. We bombed Germany but avoided the Standard Oil assets whenever possible.
One of the great reasons for avoiding war is that it makes decisions so limited and deadly and imperfect. Yet we must also not forget that oncein awar the only ethical thing to do is to fight like crazy to see that your side, as imperfect as it may be, wins.
This is what the dems forget at our peril.

Hunter:

But perhaps we should consider that if any of us could be a writer, and achieve even a fraction of the compelling story and character Le Carre achieved with George Smiley, we would be considered good writers indeed.

Ahem. <G>

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)