In any event, that's actually the benefit (as well as the detriment) of a bureaucracy. Having a combination of institutional memory and conservatism (not Conservatism, but change-avoidance) is good in the implementation of policy, because the populace needs some buffer from the political winds there.
For example, imagine that we changed presidents every 4 years, and each President was the other party (never an incumbent winner). Let's say the Republicans wanted the embassy in Tel Aviv, and the Democrats in Jerusalem. It's a terrible idea to switch it from place to place every 4 years; so the bureaucracy's conservatism is a good thing there. If both parties really want to move it, they eventually will (unless there are other concerns - I know nothing about the specific example here; perhaps the State department has valid reasons for opposing it, perhaps not).
It's certainly a two way street, sometimes the conservatism is annoying; but it's not all bad.
For example, imagine that we changed presidents every 4 years, and each President was the other party (never an incumbent winner). Let's say the Republicans wanted the embassy in Tel Aviv, and the Democrats in Jerusalem. It's a terrible idea to switch it from place to place every 4 years; so the bureaucracy's conservatism is a good thing there. If both parties really want to move it, they eventually will (unless there are other concerns - I know nothing about the specific example here; perhaps the State department has valid reasons for opposing it, perhaps not).
It's certainly a two way street, sometimes the conservatism is annoying; but it's not all bad.
Comment