Forgive me my periodic railing against bureaucracies. I’m partly a Jeffersonian with regard to government interference in the lives of peaceful individuals. I have noted elsewhere that the tendency of any bureaucracy is to expand its membership and its reach, or should I say, “overreach.” That penchant to grow, overreach, and intrude on the lives of individuals makes me ask: Is it possible to keep the bureaucratic nature of government and still lessen its dire effects on individuals in its population? Is it not a bit ironic that in an age of Selfies that indicate a self-centeredness that so many want a larger and even more intrusive government?
There’s much to support that we are living in times of “The Extreme Me.” There might be nothing new in that focus except in its enhancement through technology and media. That individuals are important in the United States has always been an embedded principle that we can find in both the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. So, a country that declares openly that every “Me” is significant ought to govern in a manner consistent with those Me-centered founding documents and principles. Both of those founding documents were written precisely with you—with each “Me”—in mind. Everyone is supposedly free to search for his or her Nirvana and enlightenment. That search is an American birthright, and that makes us all a bit Buddhist in our makeup. Even government bureaucrats, as Americans, are essentially also a bit Buddhist; their individuality in a vacuum is more essential to their lives than is their immersion in society as a whole. And I don’t have a problem with that except…
We don’t live in a vacuum. People in a vacuum can ignore others’ search for Nirvana or emerge to throw obstacles in their paths intentionally and unintentionally.
If the underlying premise of the American Constitution is freedom of the individual, then there’s a potential for conflict between large, regulating bureaucracies and the citizenry. Such conflict manifests itself in the many limiting restrictions put into de facto law by government agencies—often by agents partly unaware of the fundamental makeup of the Constitution while being acutely aware of their own agency’s history of regulations.
To mitigate the negative effects of bureaucratic overreach, we need a more stringent civil service test. My motive for this position stems from my reading anecdotes about and seeing numerous surveys of individuals who have little or no knowledge about the country they “serve” as bureaucrats or voters. I propose the more stringent examination in light of an old incident and a new survey. The old incident occurred during the Atlanta Olympics. The Los Angeles Times reported in 1996 that Wade Miller of Santa Fe called for volleyball tickets only to be told that he would have to go through his national committee. Miller couldn’t convince the agent or the agent’s manager that New Mexico was part of the USA and not some foreign country that the agents believed was related, it seems, to “Old Mexico.” So, he had the tickets sent to his old address in Arizona, a state that the agents recognized as part of the country. * Add to this anecdote the results of a recent survey commissioned by the Samuel Hubbard Shoe Company that found one in five Americans in a group of 2,000 was not familiar with the Bill of Rights—at all! ** It is possible that some bureaucrats fall into that 20%? Anecdotes like the one from the Atlanta Olympics and surveys like the shoe company’s reveal a paucity of knowledge about the country, a paucity also evidenced by one former President saying he thought he had visited all “57” states.
But this is not an American problem. Probably every country has its “20 per centers.” And the present times hold no special claim to ignorance about a national government. History tells us that even the Chinese of almost two millennia ago faced the challenge of an ignorant citizenry. That story begins when Buddhism entered China via India in the first century A.D. and became the dominant religion under the Wei emperors during the late 4th century. Eventually, Confucianism entered the public consciousness and became the underlying organizing principle in government bureaucracy. So, let’s set this up: Buddhism was a dominant religion, one that focused on the individual, but Confucianism was a principle that guided the administration of government. According to Kate Santon and Liz McKay, the editors of Atlas of World History, “The civil service that had been developed under Wu-ti was eventually bound to Confucian ideals, with the development of an examination system that required all prospective civil servants to show scholarly knowledge of the teaching of Confucius. This examination system remained in place for the next 2,000 years.” (65) ***
To protect the individual freedom that the Constitution guarantees and to ward off control by the uninformed, we need a demanding civil service exam and maybe even some continuing education classes for all government bureaucrats. And we need to have an examination that is politically neutral, favoring neither the Left nor the Right. To protect themselves from uninformed or misinformed bureaucrats, we also need an informed citizenry. Given a focus on the founding documents and principles of the country, government agents might be a little less inclined to favor their own agency’s collective “Meism” and more inclined to govern in a manner that allows many Mes, including the bureaucrats themselves, to seek Nirvana. In ancient China that merger of individual Buddhism and public Confucianism was probably unintentional and only partly effective. Can we now have a government that enhances the individual’s search for Nirvana?
A government with more than 2,000,000 employees is a big bureaucracy. **** The Founders could not have anticipated the growth of the country and the changes that have occurred in politics, mores, and attitudes over the last two centuries, but it seems they did have some sense that the two—government and individual—had to have a framework for both to function effectively. They did, after all, form a government. In that context, there are good reasons for some governmental restrictions, not the least of which is the presence of bad actors in every generation, including corrupt officials. In an unprecedented move, however, the Founders ensured the rights of individuals to seek personal Nirvanas within the context of mutually beneficial laws that take precedence in the absence of public jeopardy.
An uninformed citizenry guided by uninformed bureaucrats favors only those in power. If the Chinese could run an examination system for two millennia, couldn’t Americans do so for a few hundred years? Under our current dominance of ignorance and Meism, we probably don’t know what we don’t know. That 20% that didn’t know anything about the Bill of Rights is probably representative of the country. If, as a group, we are largely ignorant of the fundamental bases of this country’s founding, then we’re hardly in a position to demand a more challenging examination for civil servants. It seems that while we profess a desire for personal enlightenment when we wear our Buddhist robes (in contrast to Buddhism’s goal of eliminating desire), we don’t know what enlightenment to seek or even that we should seek enlightenment when we wear our civil robes.
*Florence, Mal. Atlanta Olympic Workers Need a Crash Course in Geography. The Lost Angeles Times. March 1, 1996. Online at https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-03-01-sp-41795-story.html Accessed April 7, 2019.
**Study Finds. Stunning Survey Shows Half of Americans Don’t Know All First Amendment Freedoms. Studyfinds at https://www.studyfinds.org/survey-half-americans-dont-know-what-first-amendment-protections/ Accessed April 7, 2019.
***Santon, Kate and Liz McKay, EDs. Atlas of World History. Bath, UK, Paragon Publishing, 2005.
****Congressional Research Service. Federal Workforce Statistics Sources: OPM and OMB, updated march 25, 2019. https://crsreports.congress.gov Rf43590. Accessed April 7, 2019.
There’s much to support that we are living in times of “The Extreme Me.” There might be nothing new in that focus except in its enhancement through technology and media. That individuals are important in the United States has always been an embedded principle that we can find in both the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. So, a country that declares openly that every “Me” is significant ought to govern in a manner consistent with those Me-centered founding documents and principles. Both of those founding documents were written precisely with you—with each “Me”—in mind. Everyone is supposedly free to search for his or her Nirvana and enlightenment. That search is an American birthright, and that makes us all a bit Buddhist in our makeup. Even government bureaucrats, as Americans, are essentially also a bit Buddhist; their individuality in a vacuum is more essential to their lives than is their immersion in society as a whole. And I don’t have a problem with that except…
We don’t live in a vacuum. People in a vacuum can ignore others’ search for Nirvana or emerge to throw obstacles in their paths intentionally and unintentionally.
If the underlying premise of the American Constitution is freedom of the individual, then there’s a potential for conflict between large, regulating bureaucracies and the citizenry. Such conflict manifests itself in the many limiting restrictions put into de facto law by government agencies—often by agents partly unaware of the fundamental makeup of the Constitution while being acutely aware of their own agency’s history of regulations.
To mitigate the negative effects of bureaucratic overreach, we need a more stringent civil service test. My motive for this position stems from my reading anecdotes about and seeing numerous surveys of individuals who have little or no knowledge about the country they “serve” as bureaucrats or voters. I propose the more stringent examination in light of an old incident and a new survey. The old incident occurred during the Atlanta Olympics. The Los Angeles Times reported in 1996 that Wade Miller of Santa Fe called for volleyball tickets only to be told that he would have to go through his national committee. Miller couldn’t convince the agent or the agent’s manager that New Mexico was part of the USA and not some foreign country that the agents believed was related, it seems, to “Old Mexico.” So, he had the tickets sent to his old address in Arizona, a state that the agents recognized as part of the country. * Add to this anecdote the results of a recent survey commissioned by the Samuel Hubbard Shoe Company that found one in five Americans in a group of 2,000 was not familiar with the Bill of Rights—at all! ** It is possible that some bureaucrats fall into that 20%? Anecdotes like the one from the Atlanta Olympics and surveys like the shoe company’s reveal a paucity of knowledge about the country, a paucity also evidenced by one former President saying he thought he had visited all “57” states.
But this is not an American problem. Probably every country has its “20 per centers.” And the present times hold no special claim to ignorance about a national government. History tells us that even the Chinese of almost two millennia ago faced the challenge of an ignorant citizenry. That story begins when Buddhism entered China via India in the first century A.D. and became the dominant religion under the Wei emperors during the late 4th century. Eventually, Confucianism entered the public consciousness and became the underlying organizing principle in government bureaucracy. So, let’s set this up: Buddhism was a dominant religion, one that focused on the individual, but Confucianism was a principle that guided the administration of government. According to Kate Santon and Liz McKay, the editors of Atlas of World History, “The civil service that had been developed under Wu-ti was eventually bound to Confucian ideals, with the development of an examination system that required all prospective civil servants to show scholarly knowledge of the teaching of Confucius. This examination system remained in place for the next 2,000 years.” (65) ***
To protect the individual freedom that the Constitution guarantees and to ward off control by the uninformed, we need a demanding civil service exam and maybe even some continuing education classes for all government bureaucrats. And we need to have an examination that is politically neutral, favoring neither the Left nor the Right. To protect themselves from uninformed or misinformed bureaucrats, we also need an informed citizenry. Given a focus on the founding documents and principles of the country, government agents might be a little less inclined to favor their own agency’s collective “Meism” and more inclined to govern in a manner that allows many Mes, including the bureaucrats themselves, to seek Nirvana. In ancient China that merger of individual Buddhism and public Confucianism was probably unintentional and only partly effective. Can we now have a government that enhances the individual’s search for Nirvana?
A government with more than 2,000,000 employees is a big bureaucracy. **** The Founders could not have anticipated the growth of the country and the changes that have occurred in politics, mores, and attitudes over the last two centuries, but it seems they did have some sense that the two—government and individual—had to have a framework for both to function effectively. They did, after all, form a government. In that context, there are good reasons for some governmental restrictions, not the least of which is the presence of bad actors in every generation, including corrupt officials. In an unprecedented move, however, the Founders ensured the rights of individuals to seek personal Nirvanas within the context of mutually beneficial laws that take precedence in the absence of public jeopardy.
An uninformed citizenry guided by uninformed bureaucrats favors only those in power. If the Chinese could run an examination system for two millennia, couldn’t Americans do so for a few hundred years? Under our current dominance of ignorance and Meism, we probably don’t know what we don’t know. That 20% that didn’t know anything about the Bill of Rights is probably representative of the country. If, as a group, we are largely ignorant of the fundamental bases of this country’s founding, then we’re hardly in a position to demand a more challenging examination for civil servants. It seems that while we profess a desire for personal enlightenment when we wear our Buddhist robes (in contrast to Buddhism’s goal of eliminating desire), we don’t know what enlightenment to seek or even that we should seek enlightenment when we wear our civil robes.
*Florence, Mal. Atlanta Olympic Workers Need a Crash Course in Geography. The Lost Angeles Times. March 1, 1996. Online at https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-03-01-sp-41795-story.html Accessed April 7, 2019.
**Study Finds. Stunning Survey Shows Half of Americans Don’t Know All First Amendment Freedoms. Studyfinds at https://www.studyfinds.org/survey-half-americans-dont-know-what-first-amendment-protections/ Accessed April 7, 2019.
***Santon, Kate and Liz McKay, EDs. Atlas of World History. Bath, UK, Paragon Publishing, 2005.
****Congressional Research Service. Federal Workforce Statistics Sources: OPM and OMB, updated march 25, 2019. https://crsreports.congress.gov Rf43590. Accessed April 7, 2019.
RSS Feed