A few of these are, if somewhat unprecedented, not really institutional erosion, because they have a legitimate constitutional basis. The executive power is vested in the president and Congress shouldn’t be able to create “independent” executive agencies or prevent him from firing particular staff through legislation. The qualification of appointments is just opinion and not institutional erosion. The IG firing, if actually unprecedented and unreasonably politically motivated, is a better example, as is the unilateral USAID-related impoundment.
A few of these are, if somewhat unprecedented, not really institutional erosion, because they have a legitimate constitutional basis.
These are not mutually exclusive.
The qualification of appointments is just opinion and not institutional erosion.
I disagree. If you appoint a leader of an institution with no experience related to that institution (Rex Tillerson: Secretary of State, Dr. Mehmet Oz: CMS Administrator), or who believes that institution doesn’t exist (Rick Perry: Department of Energy, Mick Mulvaney: CFPB, Betsy DeVos: Department of Education), they are highly likely to erode that institution, whether intentionally or through incompetence.
Not all appointments require extensive experience within that institution, but some positions should have deep domain expertise, unless their purpose is to serve as a wrecking ball appointment.
Ah, maybe you were using a looser definition of “institution.” I think it’s fine for the government to move toward dismantling the Department of Education, for example, because I don’t think of it as a core “institution” in the sense we’re talking about.
Do you think it’s institutional erosion when Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, or if a Democratic president were to abolish ICE in 2029?
I’m unclear what institution is directly implicated in the Afghanistan withdrawal, so I don’t have an opinion on whether it qualifies as erosion or not.
Abolishing ICE would be taking down an institution, I suppose. I take (what I assume is your implicit) point that preserving an institution isn’t per se virtuous. Perhaps ICE is beyond reform and would need to be abolished and replaced instead, and perhaps the same is true of the institutions Trump is attacking?
Right, my point was that I understood “institutional erosion” to mean “damage to norms that are central to our constitutional order.” I didn’t understand it to mean more literally reducing the funding or personnel of any government body. For example, if Congress passed an act tomorrow closing the Smithsonian, I wouldn’t consider that “institutional erosion” in the sense we’re talking about.
Likewise, if an administration legally wound down ICE, the Education Department, or whatever, that isn’t what I mean by “institutional erosion.” If the HHS secretary believes that vaccines cause autism, that’s also not what I mean. People sometimes use the term so loosely that they imply that it’s “institutional erosion” to do things that create tons of outrage from the prestige media, as if a core norm of our constitutional order is not to pass policy that contradicts that class.
I have not looked into these details enough to have an opinion, but, I think a lot of US institutions work via a mix of legal rules and implicit norms, and my sense is Trump was doing a lot of violating the norms that made legal rules workable
No, it’s me expressing disagreement with your reasoning for “A few of these are, if somewhat unprecedented, not really institutional erosion, because they have a legitimate constitutional basis.”
because, a constitutional basis is necessary but not sufficient (because soft cultural norms are also important)
(But, this is an area I have not looked into enough to have a strong belief about the object level claims, just objecting to your reasoning as sufficient to prove the point you wanted to make)
A few of these are, if somewhat unprecedented, not really institutional erosion, because they have a legitimate constitutional basis. The executive power is vested in the president and Congress shouldn’t be able to create “independent” executive agencies or prevent him from firing particular staff through legislation. The qualification of appointments is just opinion and not institutional erosion. The IG firing, if actually unprecedented and unreasonably politically motivated, is a better example, as is the unilateral USAID-related impoundment.
These are not mutually exclusive.
I disagree. If you appoint a leader of an institution with no experience related to that institution (Rex Tillerson: Secretary of State, Dr. Mehmet Oz: CMS Administrator), or who believes that institution doesn’t exist (Rick Perry: Department of Energy, Mick Mulvaney: CFPB, Betsy DeVos: Department of Education), they are highly likely to erode that institution, whether intentionally or through incompetence.
Not all appointments require extensive experience within that institution, but some positions should have deep domain expertise, unless their purpose is to serve as a wrecking ball appointment.
Ah, maybe you were using a looser definition of “institution.” I think it’s fine for the government to move toward dismantling the Department of Education, for example, because I don’t think of it as a core “institution” in the sense we’re talking about.
Do you think it’s institutional erosion when Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, or if a Democratic president were to abolish ICE in 2029?
I’m unclear what institution is directly implicated in the Afghanistan withdrawal, so I don’t have an opinion on whether it qualifies as erosion or not.
Abolishing ICE would be taking down an institution, I suppose. I take (what I assume is your implicit) point that preserving an institution isn’t per se virtuous. Perhaps ICE is beyond reform and would need to be abolished and replaced instead, and perhaps the same is true of the institutions Trump is attacking?
Right, my point was that I understood “institutional erosion” to mean “damage to norms that are central to our constitutional order.” I didn’t understand it to mean more literally reducing the funding or personnel of any government body. For example, if Congress passed an act tomorrow closing the Smithsonian, I wouldn’t consider that “institutional erosion” in the sense we’re talking about.
Likewise, if an administration legally wound down ICE, the Education Department, or whatever, that isn’t what I mean by “institutional erosion.” If the HHS secretary believes that vaccines cause autism, that’s also not what I mean. People sometimes use the term so loosely that they imply that it’s “institutional erosion” to do things that create tons of outrage from the prestige media, as if a core norm of our constitutional order is not to pass policy that contradicts that class.
I have not looked into these details enough to have an opinion, but, I think a lot of US institutions work via a mix of legal rules and implicit norms, and my sense is Trump was doing a lot of violating the norms that made legal rules workable
Is this meant to reply to my other comment? What is this referring to
No, it’s me expressing disagreement with your reasoning for “A few of these are, if somewhat unprecedented, not really institutional erosion, because they have a legitimate constitutional basis.”
because, a constitutional basis is necessary but not sufficient (because soft cultural norms are also important)
(But, this is an area I have not looked into enough to have a strong belief about the object level claims, just objecting to your reasoning as sufficient to prove the point you wanted to make)