Commentary
Today, there is a growing concern about the treatment of career public servants and their future. They are often portrayed as disliked by the public, targeted by political adversaries, and pursued by the courts. Academia and media allies are quick to defend them, labeling the attacks as unfair, undemocratic, and even perilous. This debate is not confined to the United States but extends to Europe and Latin America, with supporters and critics of administrative rule at odds.
This debate has historical roots, dating back centuries as administrative rule and trust in expertise gained prominence in public affairs. The concept of administrative rule can be traced back to Louis XIV in the 17th century, who established a bureaucracy for political stability and continuity. Despite the lack of provision in the U.S. Constitution for a permanent federal government beyond elected or appointed officials, the shift towards a permanent civil service began in the late 19th century.
The turn of the 20th century saw a surge in technological advancements and peace, sparking a cultural fascination with progress through engineering and expertise. This era prompted the adoption of a permanent civil service to infuse science and skill into governance. The Pendleton Act of 1883 marked the establishment of the civil service, although it remained susceptible to political influence for generations.
Reflecting on events in Russia, the movement against Czar Nicholas II was initially heralded as a step towards modernization, with figures like Lenin viewed as champions of science and technology. However, the brutal realities of Lenin’s regime were obscured by a focus on progress and infrastructure development. This trend towards technocracy mirrored the progressive ideals prevalent in the West at the time.
Woodrow Wilson’s presidency epitomized this era of progressivism, advocating for expert management of social and economic affairs. In his book “New Freedom,” Wilson dismissed the notion of minimal government intervention in favor of a more active role in shaping societal conditions. The new freedom, according to Wilson, involved expert-guided adjustments to harmonize human interests and activities.
Rapidly, we witnessed the replacement of the tariff with the income tax and the establishment of the Federal Reserve, aimed at regulating business cycles, controlling inflation, and preventing bank failures. Additionally, the 17th Amendment was implemented, transforming the U.S. Senate from an appointed body representing states to a popularly elected body similar to the House of Representatives.
These changes disrupted the Constitutional limitations on government set by the framers.
The next move was to enter the Great War in Europe, with the intention of bringing “new freedom” and expertise to international affairs and armament use. Post-war, Wilson played a significant role in shaping the new map of Europe, which proved unsustainable due to a lack of understanding of European history behind the new borders and countries.
The failure became apparent as conditions for another world war emerged following the Great Depression. Each subsequent disaster post the introduction of “new freedom” only served to expand and solidify the authority of experts backed by power and resources. Liberalism evolved into Progressivism, ultimately resulting in rule by administrative agencies.
Many foundational documents of liberty do not mention the governance of societies by credentialed, powerful experts with resources. This approach does not signify “new freedom,” but rather a return to despotism and feudalism under the guise of science. The information age has exposed the truth behind administrative empires, highlighting the core issue of our time and driving current political discourse.
Liberalism underwent a transformation, leading to consequences we are now facing. Woodrow Wilson’s vision of ushering in a “new freedom” ultimately steered civilization towards failure and a diminished sense of liberty compared to before this experiment commenced.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
