When Donald Trump won the 2016 election, even before he took office, CTH warned about the permanent bureaucratic class in Washington DC and what it meant for an outside to enter this system. With a consistent question being raised, it is well worth the reminder – because the answer has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
First the question:
The short answer is, it’s not that complicated. There is one permanent bureaucratic class in/around DC (two wings, same bird). The pool of appointees comes from this UniParty system. Donald Trump as an outsider faced animosity from the system itself. There are no MAGA bureaucrats.
That said, the more fulsome answer is the real issue. Because it doesn’t matter who the ‘outsider’ is, they are going to suffer the same fate until a structural change takes place.
If you take a small potential pool of America-First administrators, and then overlay the DC filtration system in the Senate, ‘advise and consent’, what you realize is that any appointment has to be approved by the same system that is opposed to the agenda the nominee would represent.
In essence, the DC system is designed to protect itself.
It doesn’t matter who the next presidential candidate is. If that President wants to advance a policy agenda in favor of the American people, they will face the same problem. So let me give one perspective on how to tackle the issue.
To give one example as a baseline, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not block President Trump’s ability to have recess appointments because the republican controlled Senate supported Donald Trump.
Senator McConnell blocked President Trump because the DC system was opposed to President Trump.
Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.” A prescient and oft repeated quote that is pertinent to the situation.
When our founders created the system of government for our constitutional republic, they built in layers of protection from federal control over the lives of people in the states. Over time those protections have been eroded as the federal bureaucracy has seized power. One of the biggest changes that led to the creation of the permanent political class was the 17th amendment.
Our founders created a system where Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. In this original system the senate was bound by obligation to look out for the best interests of their specific states. Under the ‘advise and consent‘ rules of Senate confirmation for executive branch appointments, the intent was to ensure the presidential appointee -who would now carry out regulatory activity- would not undermine the independent position of the states.
When the 17th amendment (direct voting for Senators) took the place of state appointments, the perspective of ‘advise and consent’ changed. The senate was now in the position of ensuring the presidential appointee did not undermine the power of the permanent bureaucracy, which is the root of power for the upper-chamber.
Senate committees, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, etc. now consists of members who carry an imbalanced level of power within government. The senate now controls who will be in charge of executive branch agencies like the DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA, ODNI, DoD, State Dept and NSA, from the position of their own power and control in Washington DC.
In essence, the 17th amendment flipped the intent of the constitution from protecting the individual states to protecting the federal government.
Almost every source of federal issue: ex. spending, intervention and foreign assistance, conflict with the states, burdensome regulation, surveillance and spying on American citizens, the two-tiered justice system and the erosion of liberty & individual rights (see COVID examples), can be sourced back to the problem created by the 17th amendment.
As long as the United States senate is more concerned with retaining their own power, no executive branch office holder can break through that system.
In the balance of power dynamic, the Senate has an inordinate amount of unilateral power within the congressional branch. This power dynamic is a direct outcome of the 17th amendment. Indeed, many have argued – myself included, that no single modification to the constitution was as structurally damaging to the framework of government, specifically the balance of power within it, as the 17th amendment.
The House of Representatives was created to be the voice of the people, ie, “The Peoples’ House.” However, the U.S. Senate was structurally created to be the place where state government had representation in the federal government decision-making. The 17th amendment completely removed state representation, and we have been in an escalating battle over state’s rights ever since.
It doesn’t matter who the President is, they do not choose their cabinet. Ultimately the senate does. That’s the core problem.
Overlay that DC structural issue with the fact that almost all of the bureaucracy created by this skewed DC system is now in place to defend itself from any outside effort to change it, and you get this problem that Donald Trump exposed.
Repeal the 17th amendment and you will see the most significant restoration of freedom, liberty and social balance in our lifetime.
Making America Great Again, requires repealing the 17th amendment…..
He tossed out the MAGA guys, remember?
Repealing the 17th Amendment is popular with many conservatives, but repealing it would mean that U.S. senators would be chosen by the political establishment within their state and would therefore likely represent the will of the establishment and not necessarily the will of the grassroots.
In my home state of Illinois, there would be no chance of any Republican, either RINO or grassroots, to ever become a senator as long as the corrupt Democrat machine that runs the state remains in place.
There are currently two senate candidates running in the Republican primary in Illinois who are running as grassroots, conservative, MAGA candidates: Peggy Hubbard and Bobby Piton.
If the 17th Amendment were to be repealed, neither one of them would have a chance to even be considered as candidates for the Senate.
Even a grassroots, non-establishment Democrat wouldn’t have a chance to be considered for the Senate if the 17th Amendment were repealed.
This wouldn’t just be a problem for blue states as red states are also controlled by the political establishment which would make it nearly impossible for a grassroots, conservative, MAGA candidate to ever become a senator.
Take Kentucky for example. Kentucky currently has an establishment senator, Mitch McConnell, and a grassroots senator, Rand Paul. If the Kentucky political establishment were in charge of appointing the senators for Kentucky, they would both be establishment senators in the mold of McConnell.
Likewise, the senators appointed from Arizona would both likely be in the mold of John McCain and the senators appointed from Georgia would both likely be in the mold of Governor Brian Kemp.
I realize that the establishment dominates the Senate now even with the public directly voting in senators, but having senators appointed by their respective state governments wouldn’t give the grassroots a greater voice in the Senate.
In fact, one would likely need to be a part of the establishment to even be considered for a senate appointment in the first place.
At least there is a slight chance of a grassroots person, like Rand Paul, being elected to the Senate with a popular election, but there is an even slighter chance of them being appointed by their state government.
I realize the Founding Fathers originally wrote the Constitution to stipulate that senators be appointed by their states, but it’s unlikely that the founders ever thought that the state governments would become as overly controlled by the establishment as they are now.
I also realize that it was the progressives of the early 20 Century who created the 17th Amendment.
Even though I typically despise anything done by the progressives of the early 20th Century, the ability for the public to elect senators does provide a slim chance of having at least some grassroots senators break through the establishment stranglehold.
That’s fine and dandy as my grandmother used to say – BUT, until we deal with a corrupt media, the criminal
cabal and self serving politicians will never be vetted properly and we will end up with the same mess. Politicians
who pretend to be MAGA in order to get elected (Crenshaw is one example) and/or citizens vote for idiots because
they bring home the bacon to the states. It might be slightly better, however, we would then have corrupt state
politicians appointing corrupt senators.
Appointed by whom in the states? How much control would we citizens have? I fear we would be just moving
the gate.
I live in Illinois so naturally come by a jaded attitude LOL.