Creating a Bureaucracy to Manage Health Care and Infectious Disease at the State Level- The Deep State Conundrum Revealed
Is it possible to create an organization and its "Manager"that can do this without corruption? A case study, using Lessons Learned from the Covid-19 era
Part IV: The Deep State Conundrum
“Government of the elites, by the elites, for the elites” Newt Gingrich, 2024
The Conundrum: How do you take power from the elites? Specifically, how do you dismantle the public healthcare deepstate at the State level?
The very high overview
One of my favorite authors is a Professor J. Budziszewski, who has taught at the University of Texas since 1981. In my mind, his writings are some of the best of the late 20th and early 21st century with regard to politics, philosophy, and religion. In fact, I think he is the best writer with respect to human nature and religion since C. S. Lewis.
One article of particular note that educated me on the nature and function of politics was published a quarter century ago. It was called Governing Government, published July 31, 1999 by World magazine. This is the pdf of that article.
He begins the article by quoting James Madison, providing the theme of the article as well as pointing the way to the “deep state conundrum:”
“What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Beginning in the mid 20th century, I believe everyone would agree that the non-elected bureaucrats running all levels of government have been given more power to make “law” by legislatures. The executive branch, including the President, has gone way beyond the explicit intent of their roles as defined in the Constitution in making law through Presidential Executive Orders. Even the Judicial branch has increasingly made law, rather than judging an issue’s Constitutionality.
In Governing Government, J. Budziszewski outlines this progression of “lawlessness” in making law. He provides an eloquent description of the wrong direction our government has taken. I urge you to read the attached document right now, and then come back to this post.
As he says, all the efforts of the framers and founders of this country made to contain the powers of government have failed. The legislature, at all levels, is not comprised of the “wisest and most virtuous candidates” the voters could find. In general, quite the opposite. Those legislators, in turn, have inked legislation that delegates almost total power to the bureaucratic class- the deep state- to define law, to implement law, and to enforce law. I don’t think there is any argument that the executive branches of most every governmental entity today is comprised of enough dishonest and unethical people to destroy the integrity of that organization. As I wrote at the beginning of this Signal blog, they have turned many organizations, particularly at the federal and state levels, toward serving power rather than the people. This can be more or less true, but with respect to the Covid-19 era, it is truest for all organizations associated with the federal government HHS, DOD, and NSA, as well as the President’s office. The state health offices have also jumped on the band-wagon.
Let’s look at an example.
With respect to logistics and supplies: The legislature can either have a budget line item to pay for such requests, or, if the legislature is willing and desires it, it should be able to respond with appropriate timely legislative action to provide emergency funding. In either case, the legislature could create a select standing committee that will have the knowledge and wisdom to professionally evaluate the requests. They will likely depend on an accurate medical database to provide the needed information to make an informed decision.
Unfortunately, the condition of ensuring that the legislature has qualified individuals to populate a select standing committee does not seem possible in practice. Likewise, establishing a separate, “independent,” committee of qualified individuals is fraught with risk for all the reasons we all know.
Budziszewski described the problem:
“The separation of powers was a good idea while it lasted, and I wish we could have it back. Why did we lose it? Because Congress wanted to micro-manage the economy, but hadn’t the time to do the job itself. To solve this problem it invented a host of regulatory agencies to do the job instead. These agencies are neither beast nor fish nor fowl. Acting like legislatures, they made the rules; acting like courts, they judge the disputes to which their rules give rise. Madison wouldn’t think twice before condemning such an arrangement. He called the accumulation of all three kinds of power in the same hands “the very definition of tyranny,” and held that if it ever happened, “no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.”
At this time in history and with the current political and financial organization of our society, there seems to be no way of establishing a committee of integrity to wisely manage logistics and supplies during a medical emergency or natural disaster.
It seems incredulous that, beyond giving power to a committee, a political system set up with a separation of powers would then give power of life and death as well as just living life to one unelected bureaucrat. But we see that in so many institutions.
At the conclusion of Prof. Budziszewski’s article he does provide a theoretical solution; a framework.. That framework is a moral one. It is one that requires acceptance of Christian principles as a requirement for office. With respect to health, two other criteria are now clear. (1) Subject matter competence of a particular, uncompromised kind is required; (2) personal integrity, without even the appearance of compromise, is required.
However, with respect to health, the risk is too great, approaching 100%, that a bureaucracy can retain such individuals for very long.
The middle level overview: the power of the elites
Newt Gingrich made a presentation in early 2024 at an event sponsored in part by Hillsdale College. The title of his talk was “What to do about the DOJ? He exposes and explains in more detail what J. Budziszewski concluded would have to be part of the solution to the overall Conundrum. J. Budziszewski said:
“We are fallen creatures, so that no even the best rulers can be trusted with unchecked power.”
The first 15 minutes or so of Newt’s presentation are on YouTube, here. The talk was longer than that, and the the video of the entire talk can be found here.
The points he made are:
When elites asked if they are willing to steal an election, 67% said “Yes”.
He referenced Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart, published in 2013, which you can read on archive.org. The leaderships and even rank and file civil servants in any Federal executive department are an inbred group. The come from elite colleges and elite families. Each generation of these servants selects their successors from their same group.
These people are totally and sincerely committed to the belief that:
They are our superiors; we are stupid
It is their duty and moral right to dictate to the rest of us
They have an obligation to govern us and change us in ways that are appropriate
As a rule (60-40 to 90-10) the members of this group have the same ethical standards and philosophy, inculcated by the colleges and through group association.
They choose to live in the same area; they marry into the same group. They have no contact with the common people other than as servants (in the broad sense).
He recommended a British TV series written by Antony Jay, Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister that demonstrated the excesses of power of the bureaucratic class. This is a short clip from one show:
You can find clips of other shows of the series on YouTube. The series can be seen with a subscription to Britbox. Perhaps it is available elsewhere.
Jay also wrote a scholarly book, Householders' Guide to Community Defence Against Bureaucratic Aggression (1972). Try to find it. I would expect it to be in archive.org by now. Maybe, like a lot of books, an Indian education institution would have uploaded it. Nope! You have to pay a pretty penny to get your hands on a real copy. I couldn’t find an electronic copy. I wonder why it hasn’t made it to an electronic archive. Hmm… Gingrich says
“it is the best study of the depth of the civil service undermining, blocking, diverting the will of elected officials ever written. And it is true.”
“The attitude in the Pentagon is that the Presidential appointees are the ‘summer help.' And all they have to do is wait.”
A single individual in the bureacracy can deliberately block the President’s orders. He gave an example. He said “In think that is, at its core, the attitude of the entire Federal bureaucracy.”
And so it is with the state bureaucracies.
Continuing with a key quote to the politicians and elected officials in the states:
“The civil service is permanent. Unless we go into office and fundamentally change that fact, and return the government the people… if you want to change that, you have to be prepared for very dramatic and very deep changes, and that means if the election of 2024 works out, you are going to have conflict in 25, 26, 27, 28 and maybe another 10 years.”
Gingrich said that Scott Rasmussen said: a Harvard professor told told him “Why won’t they just let us make the decisions? It is what we are trained to do.” Gingrich said:
“You have to understand the depth, the sincerity… these are not hypocritical people: they are totally sincere totalitarians who believe that if only you would relax, your life would become better because they are so much smarter and better trained than you are… There is a core group of beliefs assimilated by more and more people, largely in the academy, and then transmitted through the news media, through politicians, through the bureaucracy that are just… insane.”
To close this section, I call your attention to the very beginning of this substack I drew some diagrams to illustrate the state we are at in society.
The WorldView of the Oligarchy
Artificial Intelligence offers a methodology of interpreting such world events as the Covid-19 epidemic using a powerful structured approach. Effectively, one can create programs/applications that can simulate the behavior of those in power, as individuals and organizations up to and including nation states. In this article I introduce the Worldview t…
The middle level view: Turnings
I have to say again, as I have said in previous posts, this isn’t the full view. I’ve summarized more detail of this view above, but I have to say again that it is near concensus amongst conservative ethisists and philosophers that we are in the Fourth Turning of ours’, and uniquely due to technology, the world’s Social and Civil evolution. This is a 3 minute YouTube on the book’s depiction:
However, this theory is found in the mythology and culture of most every society. An interesting oft fact-checked quote would be another way to illustrate this.1
“My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I ride a Mercedes, my son rides a Land Rover, and my grandson is going to ride a Land Rover, but my great-grandson is going to have to ride a camel again.”
And a quote that went along with this, shown to be from science fiction but with a ring of truth:
“‘Why is that’, he was asked? And his reply was — ‘Hard times create strong men, strong men create easy times. Easy times create weak men, weak men create difficult times. Many will not understand it but you have to raise warriors, not parasites.'”
It is interesting. I asked Chatgpt if Chinese Culture had any sayings about a cycle of four generations of wealth. Here was the answer:
ChatGPT
Yes, Chinese culture does have sayings and beliefs related to the accumulation and passing on of wealth through generations. One such concept is "富不过三代" (fù bù guò sān dài), which translates to "Wealth does not pass beyond three generations." This saying suggests that wealth tends to be accumulated by the first generation, maintained by the second, and depleted by the third. It emphasizes the idea that it is difficult for a family's prosperity to extend beyond three generations due to various factors such as mismanagement, complacency, or simply the dilution of wealth among a larger number of descendants.
However, it's not specifically a cycle of four generations, but rather the idea that wealth tends not to be sustained over an extended period. This saying reflects the traditional Chinese emphasis on the importance of diligence, responsibility, and wise stewardship of resources.
I’m not a fan of AI answers, though I’ve been a professional in the field for 62 years. But this time it was helpful. Way to go, whoever programmed this!
An implementation issue that is a potential show-stopper
As explained to me, legislators are inclined to not support, or even discuss, most of the reforms I will present below. The argument is that if they are “too radical” in the content of bills, or force a vote on an issue that is contraverial, thus exposing for all to see the actual position of a colleague that can be “used against them” in the next election, then they will be “punished” later on by the opposition when they want something passed. Go figure how this works to get anything done of the level that Newt Gingrich has so accurately described. It is a show-stopper.
The Red Line
No longer, in the history of sound government, can the risk associated with managing healthcare be borne by the citizens with no corresponding control, and with the bureaucrats not held accountable and the oligarchs becoming wealthier at the citizens’ expense.
On the other hand, no longer can citizens not accept the responsibility to understand the health conditions they and their family have and the risks and benefits of different treatments.
On the third hand, no longer can healthcare providers not provide accurate information on those issues to their patients.
Yes, this will take time on the part of both patient and healthcare provider, time all the way from elementary schools to old age. But, with the medical and communication technology available today and in the future, there is no choice. Expectations must change or the bureaucracy will make life and death decisions for them.
History has hit us over the head with the truth that giving bureaucrats power in healthcare won’t be to the citizens’ advantage.
Actions that must be taken by the public health bureaucracy and legislature to avoid the Deep State Conundrum
These are the five objectives that need to be implemented to counter the Deep State Conundrum
1. All regulations, executive orders, and executive branch specifications of any kind must be considered laws and, as required by the Constitution, laws can only be established by the legislature. Therefore, the legislature must have an above-boards, open to all citizens, way to review and pass all these specifications as laws. (This could be the standard bill process or a separate workflow that is more efficient.)
2. All committees must be chaired by a PMI certified project manager who may be a domain expert, but may not have monetary interest in the domain of the committee. There must be members on the committee from suppliers, stakeholders, and consumers associated with the domain. The stakeholders must include public citizens who have no relation to the suppliers and stakeholders and can not have been lobbyists from the domain, as well as legislators from the relevant legislative committees.
3. The entire public healthcare industry and government entities must be consumers of a statewide, independent of both the healthcare industry and healthcare government entities, integrated medical database system as defined in S.975 with amendments. This database system must be open source so any citizen in the world can perform analyses on it. There should be no other database the government public health entities use for analysis and reporting.
4. Conditions can not be written into Federal funding related to rewarding or punishing receiving healthcare entities for following protocols or prescribing pharmaceuticals. All healthcare facility funding from the federal government or pharmaceutical or health equipment companies to state healthcare facilities must be provided to the legislature and must be part of the legislature's public record.
5. Patients must be protected from indemnified pharmaceutical and healthcare products. This should be accomplished through informed consent, which, in addition to informing patients if there is no liability, accurately informs the patient of the degree of quality testing of product and manufacturing, the efficacy, and the adverse effects. Informed consent must be extended to parents to cover any medical-related activity provided to or discussed with students, as well as the other information above.
Yes, these are objectives. I would place them as “strategic.” They are intended to start a serious discussion of a “workflow” through time to ultimately achieve all.
In terms of priorities, it seems the number one priority, the one that must be accomplished in order that the rest mean anything at all, is illustrated by the following logic:
1. Regulations, executive orders, etc. How can these be evaluated? Sound data, uncontrolled by the Deep State.
2. Committee activities. How can they function with sound decisions? Sound data, uncontrolled by the Deep State.
3. This is the source of the sound data, uncontrolled by the Deep State
4. How to evaluate the conditions written into Federal funding? Sound data, uncontrolled by the Deep State.
5. How consumers protected from uninsured products and provided with the data necessary to make an informed decision on whether or not to take a pharmaceutical? Sound data, uncontrolled by the Deep State.
QED.
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/dubai-sheikhs-words-lost-in-translation-with-viral-quote/