Human autonomy is often characterized by the ability to choose. All the various choices and decisions of human behavior can sometimes be generalized, but you will inevitably come across outliers in your dataset — the people who don’t fit the mold. With the rise of bureaucracy, outliers become more and more problematic. Each system designed for the generalization becomes a cudgel to be used against the outlier. Sometimes, these bureaucratic structures are seamlessly integrated to support the ordinary. At other times, they are used to shape it. Each structure has a purpose; it is possible to know these purposes if you examine the output.
The purpose of a system is what it does.1To better understand how conservatives apply this principle, you may find this article from C.E.O. OF BASED to be a helpful read – https://ceoofbased.substack.com/p/the-purpose-of-a-system-is-what-it This straightforward yet surprisingly perceptive statement encourages us to observe a system’s actions so that we can understand its directive. It is often claimed that the public school system, for example, was created for the purpose of educating all citizens and increasing the public’s knowledge. Given the abysmal test scores and general education of today’s students, it is at this point in the debate that the conversation often shifts to reforms. How can a public education system be restored to fulfill its purpose: public education? But it is useless to talk about “reforms” when the purpose of the system has only been assumed, not established. Remember, the purpose of a system is what it does. So, when we set fluctuating test scores aside, what the public school system does is standardize public intelligence, institutionalize our common knowledge, and universalize societal instruction. Therefore, the purpose of the public education system is to standardize, institutionalize, and universalize. There are many ways for individuals to find and achieve their purposes in life. People constantly change, and their various objectives and dreams change with them. However, when it comes to the various processes that comprise our bureaucracy, the purpose of a system is what it does.
The Unofficial Executive Branch
Bureaucracy didn’t appear out of thin air. With the rise of industrialization — a “revolution of mass and scale” — society saw the managerial class go from being cogs in the machine to the elite ruling class. With the help of the managers, corporations could finally transcend into larger-than-life proportions, blazing a trail for every aspiring organization to come. Corporations, governmental agencies, collegiate structures — anything that wanted to scale needed to adopt, no, embrace the bureaucracy.
This societal development proved to be a far more useful tool for the Left than the Right. The principles of liberalism, an ideology that relies heavily on social consensus, were programmed into every available system, seeping into every corner of society. Bureaucratic systems became a formidable tool for the Leftists, reaching every known establishment. Leftists marched through the institutions, leaving each piece of the bureaucracy to become a breeding ground for Leftism.
“The rise of the bureaucratic in the last century has been the result of massive industrial and technological shifts rather than of any particular political system. Yet, the largest shift in the past decade has been in the Left’s realization that it is again possible to transform global corporations, fractured academic disciplines, and institutional accreditation into platforms for large-scale social change.”
Wesley Reynolds, “Resurrecting Bureaucracy” – December 13, 20222https://americanreformer.org/2022/12/resurrecting-bureaucracy/
But in many ways, the industrialization phenomenon was about more than just the partisan manipulation of management. As the executive branch grew to monstrous proportions, the institutional lines between the governmental agencies and non-governmental parties became blurred. Today, this amalgamation of bureaucratic power is known as the “deep state,” encompassing official and non-official agencies alike. Some associations and connections are stronger than others, but it goes far beyond lobbying tendencies. Each system is a piece in the puzzle, interlocking so that it is impossible to observe any one system in isolation. Given our previously established principle, finding out the broader purpose of such a system would require us to find out what each piece does, a task of monumental proportions. In part, however, we are able to break down some aspects of the deep state, giving us a glimpse into its larger purpose. Auron Macintyre, a political commentator, explains how this symbiotic bureaucracy works to push a common agenda.
Many on the right now refer to the unelected federal bureaucracy as the “deep state,” but the network of progressive power extends well outside the three branches of government.
One of the advantages of these extra-governmental power centers is that the nonprofits can wield their power to circumvent constitutional restrictions that only apply to formal government branches.
As an example, when their friends in government needed to push for censorship of conservatives on social media but were restricted by the First Amendment, progressive allies could instead funnel massive amounts of money into nonprofit groups, which would apply the pressure on their behalf, all while maintaining the moral shield of charity.
Auron Macintyre, “Why Regime Charity Poses a Big Problem” – March 27, 20243https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/why-regime-charity-poses-a-big-problem
However, as the government expanded in scope and function, things that were previously taken for granted became legitimate questions. Even the very act of voting was viewed with suspicion, as nonprofit groups lobbied for more immigration while they bent over backward to sponsor potential voters. The administrative process had forever blurred the lines of the state, along with its very purpose.
Finding Caesar
As far as Christians are concerned, this deep-state amalgamation of bureaucracies poses a significant problem. Even the most basic reading of Paul’s guidance to rulers in Romans 13:3-7 is challenging to apply, as living in our enlarged administrative state requires tribute to official and unofficial rulers alike. Christ’s exhortation in Matthew 22:19-21 is similarly difficult, for our Caesar does not put his face on our coins. Hiding behind a bureaucratic nightmare, our “deep state” does not tell us what to render to him, yet he constantly requests more.
Further complicating this dynamic is the fact that much of this structurally complex administrative system directly conflicts with historic Christian views on the subject. Western Civilization was founded on the system of law, shaped into written form by men like William Blackstone. Samuel Rutherford, who formulated the lesser magistrate doctrine and contributed significantly to the two-kingdom distinction, titled his book “Lex, Rex” or “Law is King.” Western Civilization has profited from this articulation of protestant political theology for hundreds of years. Every branch of government was designed to uphold the rule of law, for the law defined who was king. “Rex est rex secundum legem, sed non est dominus et rex legis,” writes Rutherford, “Because he is king by, or according to, law, but he is not king of law.”
Today, these historic concepts have been turned on their head. The modern Administrative law system functions as a large and complex managerial tool, where all three branches of government work to enact and enforce establishment-coded technicalities and stipulations rather than lawful ordinances for a commonwealth. These bureaucracies are inflated with each new law as they are expanded to handle even more variances and fringe circumstances. Eventually, the very purpose of this administrative government shifts, threatening the very ideals of what government ought to be.
Administrative law thus is more deeply unlawful than has hitherto been understood: Not only does it violate the law, but it also departs from the ideal of government through and under the law.
Philip Hamburger, “Is Administrative Law Unlawful”
So before Christians even attempt to understand their place in the purpose-driven bureaucracy, they need to realize that its very existence is in defiance of centuries of Christian political thought. Today, the bureaucracy should not be compared to the law it claims to represent; rather, it should be compared to what it does. We must insist on examining the administration with this method because the law itself no longer functions in the way it has historically operated. Law is no longer a guide; it is merely a means of production. Therefore, the best form of analysis will necessarily examine the product.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
As the bureaucracy grows, Christians will find themselves opposing it for various reasons. Some believers who happen to be more libertarian-minded may find themselves decrying three-letter agencies for being too oppressive or for violating principles of jurisdiction. This would be a fair critique if personal freedom and a traditional understanding of law were still governmental ideals. But as the administrative state continues to multiply, this particular line of reasoning loses its strength, for the underpinning system it appeals to has been altered. Instead, believers may find more compelling arguments by analyzing the actions of three-letter agencies, identifying their purpose as either morally good or evil. For example, the FBI’s existence should not be determined by whether or not it fulfills its stated mission well enough to justify the invasion of individual freedoms (it can’t). Rather, our opinion of the FBI should be almost entirely formed by what it does, and what it does is inexcusably evil. With this principle in mind, we are able to better apply Peter’s words in his first epistle.
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
1 Peter 2:13-14
Peter instructs Christians to submit themselves to “every ordinance of man,” whether it comes from a king or from a governor. Some people tend to hyper-fixate on the king/governor/ordinance distinction, overemphasizing the differences between them. In a bureaucracy, however, you don’t get the luxury of such distinctions. Instructions claiming to be an “ordinance of man” come from all over the place: from a DEI-infested HR department, from a manipulative city council member, from your elderly neighbor badgering the HOA about your house, or even from your lazy subordinate looking up wrongful termination laws. Life in the bureaucracy is a confusing one, full of contradictions and impossible paradoxes. So rather than focusing on the difference between a “king” and a “governor” and an “ordinance,” Peter’s words can be read far more simply: Caesar is the one who punishes evildoers and praises those who do well.
Tyranny comes in all shapes and sizes, but so does anarchy. We can clearly see that, in a paradoxical way, the growing administrative state undermines itself, erasing the distinction between kings, governors, and the common man. Christians who identify Caesar by submitting to the one who punishes evildoers–whatever his official title is–will be far less anarchical than even the state itself.
Today’s “sword of the state” has many wielders, from mega-corporations to foreign lobbying groups. While some continue to call this nightmare the “blessings of liberty,” most people recognize it for what it is: a bureaucratic anarchy.
Sources:
- 1To better understand how conservatives apply this principle, you may find this article from C.E.O. OF BASED to be a helpful read – https://ceoofbased.substack.com/p/the-purpose-of-a-system-is-what-it
- 2
- 3
Leave a Reply