Now that a Democrat administration will be taking the reins, will conservatives in government become “the resistance”? Betsy DeVos hopes so.
DeVos urges Education Dept. staff to ‘resist’ when Biden takes office
I will start with the trite and obvious observation that this is probably a media hit job, and that DeVos probably didn’t say what they are accusing her of saying. Your first instinct with any political story from the U.S. should be “that’s probably a lie.”
But for argument’s sake, let’s assume it’s true.
If it’s true, it’s foolish, for many reasons.
First, in general, what can we say about the idea of deep state resistance? Do the bureaucrats owe allegiance to the new administration, or can they press their own agendas?
This should be obvious. The president has the right and the authority to set the agenda for his administration. The bureaucrat’s job is not to agree with it, or to love it, but to implement it. If he can’t do that in good conscience, he should resign. Everyone who takes a government job knows that administrations change, and that ideas come and go. If you can’t deal with that, work somewhere else. Undermining the president is not a valid option. It’s a dishonorable way to behave.
Except in an extraordinary case — e.g., if the president were a traitor. In that case, duty to the country would take precedence. The hyperventilating left / media industrial complex wanted us to believe that was the case with Trump, but that was idiotic from the start.
That’s why deep state resistance is wrong on principle. It’s also wrong practically, from a conservative point of view.
Washington, D.C., is a liberal town. Government is a liberal occupation. The “deep state” will always tilt liberal, substantially, so the idea of a deep state tit for tat as administrations change will be more like tit for WHAM, SLAM, KABOOM!
By asking the conservative deep state to fight against Biden, DeVos would be legitimizing this dishonorable conduct. Aside from being wrong on principle, it’s radically stupid. It’s a battle conservatives can’t win, and it takes away their ability to call out the liberals when they do it.
Update — Pigweed and Crowhill did a “Nooze and Booze” episode on this one.
I have to admit that these days, I tend to react badly to “don’t descend to their level”-style advice. It’s the sort of thing that professional “conservatives”, who seem to think their role in life isn’t actually to achieve anything but to preside in a very dignified manner over an inevitable loss, typically say. (“What exactly have conservatives managed to conserve?” is an excellent question, which doesn’t have a happy answer.)
One of Trump’s most unforgivable sins is that he fought, and that’s just not the sort of thing one does, you know. This withdrawal from every battlefield allows the Left to divide and conquer, from its shock riot troops to its media and entertainment wings to its hair-sniffing front men, with plausible deniability throughout the whole thing. As a war strategy, it’s got a lot going for it..
But that said: yeah, almost by definition, institutional power is going to be aligned with the Left, and so they’ll be better at this game.
I’m not so sure about your “it takes away their ability to call out the liberals when they do it” point, though: who exactly is going to be moved by this argument? Foreigner that I am, America will always be a bit of a mystery, but I don’t think American progressives are going to be moved by the call-out, conservatives already know what’s going on, and I doubt anyone else cares. So for whom is this ability being kept in reserve?
It goes without saying that accusations from the left will be hyped, while accusations from the right will be dismissed, whether they have merit or not. So — from the perspective of “what will play in the world of rhetoric / public opinion,” you’re right to question my comment about taking away their ability to object.
But in the world of the conservative, where rules and fairness matter, we can’t use a tactic and then say it’s illicit.
Punching a man is generally illicit; punching in a fight, or throwing back when the other guy punches first, is not. This isn’t inconsistent, even for conservatives.
Now I recognize that if you’re in the habit of throwing punches, but insist on claiming that punching is bad, it’s much less persuasive as rhetoric even if you can genuinely distinguish the situation. “It’s different when we do it” is seldom convincing even when it’s actually true.
These days, I just have a considerably higher threshold for circumstances under which I’m going to support unilateral disarmament, and “but it’ll make it harder to persuade the invincibly ignorant” doesn’t cut it.
The people who continually step forth with bluster and belligerence ultimately disgrace themselves and their party. Trump was actually God’s gift to liberals. The Republicans who continue in that vein will never come up to that level of discrediting their cause, but they will never manage to move the GOP back to its classical position.
Trump has certainly invigorated and energized a collection of crackpots who are generally from “the left,” broadly speaking, but I’m not sure it’s fair to say he has helped “liberals.”
He drove the conservatives and semi-conservatives over to the liberal side. He had the crackpots on his side and that will get worse in the wake of his loss of legitimacy. “Trump” is the name for the end of conservatism as we knew it from the days of Buckley and Reagan. That is a pity, because I do think that it is very important to have at least two parties that can counterbalance each other.