A Shorthand Way of Looking at Government

Seeing government as the interweaving of three principal social forces

I’ve been thinking of another way of thinking about modern governments.  It is a bit of a shorthand, but for some it might be a starting point for a more extensive exploration. 

I see in organized governing activity three principal forces at work.  There is first the “hands” working the machinery of governance.  The are the civil servants and general employees of the many agencies of government.  They represent institutional memory; expert skills and the experience that comes from the day-to-day requirements of “keeping the ship afloat and on course.”  They “make policy” to the extent that their responsibilities involve making choices between competing claims for service.  They follow the law, as they understand it, and the customary and expected ways of operating their offices.  They are often very intelligent people, as they work with hard problems within a well-defined framework of action.  Some call them the “deep state,” others who may see them as obstacles to change, “the swamp.” 

Another powerful force, largely in the legislative branch, but also penetrating the bureaucracy, is a complex of competing advocacies from those who are benefiting from government action or might be harmed by changes in government policy or might be helped by a fine tuning of law and its implementation.  They are the lobbyists and their clients in the legislative branch, men and women who owe they election in part to interest support, who share their general view of the world and expect to be rewarded by them for their service.  They may represent the interests of relatively vague and bundled interests, like agriculture or more specific interests such as the manufacturers of railroad cars.   

They see government as both friend and foe, a monolith that needs to be kept on leach.  They see it as a force that can at any moment tilt delicate balances between competing interests. They are agents of the status quo, i.e. that present balance of forces that benefit from stability.  They will support change without “going off the tracks” as long as it advantages the interests that they serve. 

As well among this group are representatives of the many causes that involve moral purpose: charitable groups, churches, ethical values, and principled causes.  These groups lobby, support diverse candidates and seek appropriate legislation and its implementation and adjudication. 

By the way, in this formulation I would place established political parties as an interest group, as well as many government departments and agencies, like the military.  That is, agencies of government also have institutional interests, although they are largely dependent upon the outside interests they service to apply force to their demands. 

Note that I am asking you to see these forces as both distinct from the traditional divisions of government (legislative, executive and judicial), but as working through all of them to achieve their objectives.

This leaves a third primary force, one harder to identify and describe.  I think of them as the “crusaders,” those that desire change, not simply adjustments.  They view the overall system of governance as failing to reach its potential as a power within the global economic and political system, and/or as providing a better life for people.  In the latter case, they view the founding documents of the society as promising a fairer chance at obtaining a “good” life and ensuring support for those incapable of supporting themselves. They may extend their concern to the global society.

They are often associated with Presidential campaigns.  They work, once their candidate is elected, for a “New Deal,” a “Fair Deal,” a “Good Society.”  They find themselves opposed by the extent to which the other two forces are empowered.  They seek the support of “the people” through elections to provide them with “a mandate for change.” 

It is easy to see this force as having utopian goals and lacking seriousness, being mere gadflies and ineffective.  That would be to see them as the other “players,” (the other two forces) want us to see them.  They can be, and have been, powerful agents of change at critical moments in our history especially when dynamic and independent economic, intellectual and technological forces destabilize our own society and when disruptive changes from without pose real threats to national and global survival.

The value of their goals and the reality of the threats, however, does not guarantee that “crusaders” do not emerge as either crackpots or extremists.  (Although I might caution that these are mere “names” used either carelessly or maliciously to defame good people.) Crusaders are all too often the Don Quixotes of our society or powerful (because the money is available) groups who would take a sledgehammer to many of our institutions and their “guardrails.” 

Hence, three powerful forces that embody the workings of government. These are ideas that need a far more elaborate dissection than I’ve provided.  My present thinking, however, as it develops, works along these lines.  I am able to use this approach to better understand State as well as National government in the United States.  Even municipal governments in smaller towns as well as larger cities can be thought of in this way.