Russell E. Travers writes:

If the intelligence community needs to correct understatements of threat (no, the Islamic State is not defeated) or correct overstatements of threat (no, data doesn’t suggest a significant threat from refugees), that’s not a “deep state” undermining the president; that’s a professional civil service doing its job. Just like the civil servants at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Justice Department and everywhere else in the government.

A century ago, Walter Lippmann and John Dewey debated the manner in which democracy functions. They agreed that an idyllic, Jeffersonian notion of an informed electorate choosing its leaders simply didn’t exist. Factors they saw militating against Jefferson’s narrative included a complicated world; difficulty establishing “facts”; large portions of an electorate that, busy living their lives, were often uninformed; and elected officials who may not be up to the task. Lippmann and Dewey didn’t agree on a solution, but they recognized the critical role of expertise.

The Lippmann-Dewey critique is truer today, in our extraordinarily complicated world, than it was during the 1920s. Misinformation and intense polarization dominate, with education lacking in both civics and critical-thinking skills. In this environment, federal bureaucratic expertise — devoid of passion or prejudice — is an ever more critical prerequisite for administering federal responsibilities, providing transparency, and informing both the body politic and policymakers. I depart government service more convinced than ever that a professional, highly competent, nonpartisan civil service is essential for the success of this great American experiment, as are the scientific community, an objective Fourth Estate, academia and others.

Now, elections have consequences. While aspects of government operations run as though on autopilot, civil service technocrats will always operate under political direction, fulfilling statutory responsibilities within a wide range of legal policy choices. But I would respectfully offer a gentle observation to my political colleagues. Policymakers tend to hold their own opinions in high regard. This is sometimes warranted; sometimes not. They would often benefit from listening a little more. The civil service is here to assist duly elected representatives and appointees administer the government. Those who use the available expertise to inform their decision-making are invariably more successful than those who don’t. [Continue reading…]