Follow

Contrary to the whiny democrats being featured in the sham "hearings" this week, career 'diplomats' feelings about foreign policy are largely irrelevant. Our president sets foreign policy whether the bureaucrats like it or not. Not to mention the fact that the 'diplomatic corps' is heavily staffed by Ivy League grads and democratic policy wonks. And we have absolutely no legitimate need for a State Department with 75K employees, either.

@Lonestar

POTUS has slowly had those numbers drop, by not replacing many positions. Since these career civil servants are protected, laws need to change.

@JM - They wield far too much influence and power in world affairs -- especially considering the fact that they're UNELECTED bureaucrats. This needs to change, too.

@Lonestar

Not sure we want to elect them, that would be a mess. The administrative state has grown way too large, we allowed the left to pull this off!

@JM - Oh Hell No....not only do we NOT need to elect them, their positions need to be eliminated for the most part. In the military, we're expected to carry out our duties under the overarching mandate of "selfless service." IOW's we faithfully execute the orders of those appointed over us. And our opinions about those orders don't matter. The State Department is SUPPOSED to operate the same way. This week has proven to us all that they haven't been - and won't without SERIOUS reform.

@Lonestar

This is when you need a group that looks at overall work product and eliminate redundancy, as well as unnecessary positions. This happens in every other business in America, time to do the same in the government.

@JM - and you're absolutely right that WE have allowed the State Department to get out of control. However, when employees are appointed by bureaucrats, they're also well insulated from voters.

@Lonestar

True, so it doesn't matter who is elected the administrative state decides, when and how to implement any changes.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
QuodVerum Forum

Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.