Title : "Attacks such as those of former President Donald Trump on the 'deep state' turned out to be attempts to demolish the bureaucratic state itself."
link : "Attacks such as those of former President Donald Trump on the 'deep state' turned out to be attempts to demolish the bureaucratic state itself."
"Attacks such as those of former President Donald Trump on the 'deep state' turned out to be attempts to demolish the bureaucratic state itself."
"The ultimate effect, and often the explicit intention, was to return power to the person of the ruler. In this respect, Trump can be understood as part of a global wave of anti-bureaucratic patrimonialism that includes Vladimir Putin in Russia, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, and Victor Orban in Hungary. In each case, rule by men requiring unfailing loyalty as a prerequisite for political influence has led to the de-modernization of political authority and a return to personalistic rule. This explains why social divisions about public health measures are so bitter and enduring: They are rooted in divisions about the nature of political legitimacy itself. The global rebellion against the modern bureaucratic state, and the scientific and professional expertise on which it is built, has degenerated into a zero-sum struggle against any effort whatsoever to impose binding, impersonal rules to defend the public good.... The robust defense of rational, reasonable public health measures to fight COVID-19 can play a useful role in pushing back against patrimonialism, in the U.S. and globally."From "Why can't we mandate anything?" by Stephen E. Hanson (vice provost for academic and international affairs at the College of William & Mary) and Jeffrey S. Kopstein (professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine) (The Hill).
I added that link on "patrimonialism." And I want to underscore that the authors are saying that mandating things is a way to push back against a system in which power flows directly from the leader. In this view, bureaucracy is a safeguard, and people ought to appreciate it. But how do you get people to appreciate it? One idea that a mask requirement would provide an occasion for speaking persuasively to the people about how "rational, reasonable" experts are working earnestly to preserve good order.
From "Why can't we mandate anything?" by Stephen E. Hanson (vice provost for academic and international affairs at the College of William & Mary) and Jeffrey S. Kopstein (professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine) (The Hill).
I added that link on "patrimonialism." And I want to underscore that the authors are saying that mandating things is a way to push back against a system in which power flows directly from the leader. In this view, bureaucracy is a safeguard, and people ought to appreciate it. But how do you get people to appreciate it? One idea that a mask requirement would provide an occasion for speaking persuasively to the people about how "rational, reasonable" experts are working earnestly to preserve good order.
Thus articles "Attacks such as those of former President Donald Trump on the 'deep state' turned out to be attempts to demolish the bureaucratic state itself."
You now read the article "Attacks such as those of former President Donald Trump on the 'deep state' turned out to be attempts to demolish the bureaucratic state itself." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/09/attacks-such-as-those-of-former.html
0 Response to ""Attacks such as those of former President Donald Trump on the 'deep state' turned out to be attempts to demolish the bureaucratic state itself.""
Post a Comment