Quote:
Originally Posted by Ret10Echo
GC... Respectfully...
I would suggest that the use of "Czars" unilaterally appointed by the White House is indeed problematic.
This should not lump-in appointees that are within the structure of government.
Going against the tide in here. We don't want lowest cost, technically feasible result in this. You can rail against the Swamp all you want but believe it or not there are some roles and positions in government that are actually important and impactful.
Fauci has been running NAIAD since 1984 He started under the most Republicans of Republicans for those of you who buy into the two party bullshit. I figure he's pretty good at his job.
I'm also pretty certain that he had ZERO interest in getting drug into this frantic bullshit and partisan politics of COVID.
Just saying....  |
I agree that these experts don’t really want to get dragged into this stuff.
But they do have an opinion on what they think is the best course of action, usually influenced by what is considered the “best” outcome in their specialty.
Because they are specialists, other conflicting considerations in the bigger picture are outside their expertise.
This is why we (ideally) have generalists, accountable by the people, to consider all aspects before choosing a course of action.
To be fair, calling them corrupt is probably a bit much.
It’s also unfair for those with political responsibility to hide behind them.
I do believe most of these experts are intelligent, competent in their fields, and mean well.
But even if they do know best some of the time, it is a dangerous precedent to invest de facto political power in a non-political office.