"every Rush Limbaugh in the world advocating for elimination of government"
As far as I know a strawman, unless you can come up with some telling quotes. You really think he's an anarchist???
Now, a return to the Founder's vision of a limited government, the pre-Hoover, not counting e.g. Woodrow Wilson during the war era and other Progressive excesses, that's another thing altogether.
Which your vent strongly supports. Basically, seriously reduce the size, scope, and most especially control of the Federal government, and return to the spoils system. No matter how bad it was and would be, it's still accountable in a way we can see the Civil Service isn't. And if the Federal government isn't trying to control just about everything, the need for a huge, "professional", "apolitical" (like the National Park Service, anyone???) "Civil" (again, the NPS is our current poster boy) Service is much less compelling.
If you can't admit to yourself that the Rush Limbaughs of the country have some good points, you are part of the problem, and will remain so.
>"every Rush Limbaugh in the world advocating for elimination of government"
As far as I know a strawman, unless you can come up with some telling quotes.
"Conservatives want to eliminate as much government from people's daily lives as possible."[1]. I suspect you'll claim the "as much.. as possible" means the OP is wrong, and I'll claim that the OP said "every Rush Limbaugh" - clearly making a rhetorical point rather than claiming Limbaugh wants to eliminate all government.
But then we'd both be missing the OP's point.
He has proposed (albeit in a rant) a solution that both progressives and conservatives should agree on: Incompetence should not be excused in government.
I'd suggest a fruitful discussion would be to concentrate on that rather than come to the predictable conclusion that people have different views on the role (and hence size) of government.
Erm, no, he's not proposed a solution, nor do I think he thinks he has.
He's proposed a necessary tactic, mass(ive) firings, which I agree 100% with, but he hasn't proposed how to change the system so that all those ... deserving people could get fired.
I've put something on the table, the spoils system, however problematic, that will enable his desired tactic. I'm all ears for others.
There are certainly problems with the federal civil service, but how could a return to the spoils system be better? And to a large degree, the civil service still operates very much like a spoils system under the hood, despite all the documentation and attempts to the contrary.
Well, if it really operates very much like one, why not make it explicit?
As for how it could be better, as I said about, accountability.
Let's take a recent partial example: when George H. W. Bush became president, he immediately got rid of every "Reaganite" in the politically appointed/staff/whatever parts that a president has control over.
And the nation didn't like the results and fired his ass in the next election.
Comments
"every Rush Limbaugh in the world advocating for elimination of government"
As far as I know a strawman, unless you can come up with some telling quotes. You really think he's an anarchist???
Now, a return to the Founder's vision of a limited government, the pre-Hoover, not counting e.g. Woodrow Wilson during the war era and other Progressive excesses, that's another thing altogether.
Which your vent strongly supports. Basically, seriously reduce the size, scope, and most especially control of the Federal government, and return to the spoils system. No matter how bad it was and would be, it's still accountable in a way we can see the Civil Service isn't. And if the Federal government isn't trying to control just about everything, the need for a huge, "professional", "apolitical" (like the National Park Service, anyone???) "Civil" (again, the NPS is our current poster boy) Service is much less compelling.
If you can't admit to yourself that the Rush Limbaughs of the country have some good points, you are part of the problem, and will remain so.
>"every Rush Limbaugh in the world advocating for elimination of government"
As far as I know a strawman, unless you can come up with some telling quotes.
"Conservatives want to eliminate as much government from people's daily lives as possible."[1]. I suspect you'll claim the "as much.. as possible" means the OP is wrong, and I'll claim that the OP said "every Rush Limbaugh" - clearly making a rhetorical point rather than claiming Limbaugh wants to eliminate all government.
But then we'd both be missing the OP's point.
He has proposed (albeit in a rant) a solution that both progressives and conservatives should agree on: Incompetence should not be excused in government.
I'd suggest a fruitful discussion would be to concentrate on that rather than come to the predictable conclusion that people have different views on the role (and hence size) of government.
[1] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/14/obama_and_moder...
Erm, no, he's not proposed a solution, nor do I think he thinks he has.
He's proposed a necessary tactic, mass(ive) firings, which I agree 100% with, but he hasn't proposed how to change the system so that all those ... deserving people could get fired.
I've put something on the table, the spoils system, however problematic, that will enable his desired tactic. I'm all ears for others.
How is the spoils system better?
There are certainly problems with the federal civil service, but how could a return to the spoils system be better? And to a large degree, the civil service still operates very much like a spoils system under the hood, despite all the documentation and attempts to the contrary.
Well, if it really operates very much like one, why not make it explicit?
As for how it could be better, as I said about, accountability.
Let's take a recent partial example: when George H. W. Bush became president, he immediately got rid of every "Reaganite" in the politically appointed/staff/whatever parts that a president has control over.
And the nation didn't like the results and fired his ass in the next election.