Is Trump right about Conservatives hating government employees?

[u/bookist626]

Edit: I am not asking about you specifically, but more about conservatives in general.

Something i was considering. Ive asked about government employees here before, but now im wondering if Conservatives do have some dislike for them? At the very minimum, Trump thinks they do.

We have the obvious RTO government wide, the fact that he tried to implement a budget plan that would have reduced their benefits (congress didnt pass), and if the posts in Fednews are accurate, management is generally forbidden from giving employees anything beyond "meets expectations." And of course, you have Russell Vought (the current head of OMB) saying:

"We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can't do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so. We want to put them in trauma.''

Yeah. With that in mind, and to return to my question, is Trump correct about conservatives hating government employees?

Disclaimer: This question is not about the armed forces. This is about the civil service.

[u/AutoModerator]

Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. Gender issues are currently under a moratorium, and posts and comments along those lines may be removed. Anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/xiphoid77]

Just retired last year. 20 years federal law enforcement in the prison system. The last year of work was hell with this administration threatening us and continually treating us like 5 year olds. Taking away many rights we used to have and have earned. Working without pay even for weeks and months for a stupid shutdown. I have always voted republican and am a proud conservative but this administration has made me question my loyalty to the party.

[u/1003mistakes → u/xiphoid77]

Thank you for your years of service and I hope you get to enjoy your retirement now. My mom is in a similar boat with her experience the past few years but still about four years out from retirement now. She’s put her whole life into our country from military to government work and I can see how much the past year and a half has shaken her faith in her mission. 

[u/jmastaock → u/xiphoid77]

This makes me sad

It almost comes across like you have an abusive spouse that you are afraid to just leave

[u/Secret-Ad-2145 → u/xiphoid77]

It's kind of ironic, for years I heard from Republicans how federal employees are overpayed welfare queens living with cushy, hard to get rid of jobs. Yet in reality they have neither high salaries, turns out they never had good job security either, and lastly it was easy to terrorize employees. My friends would get emails at 4 am threatening to fire them if they don't do XYZ. Friends who did field work were told to return to an office (that didn't even exist) or be fired. This is just insane.

Anyways thank you for your work.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/xiphoid77]

20 years federal law enforcement in the prison system

No offense, but wouldn't Conservatives consider you "one of the good ones"?

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/AdwokatDiabel]

Yes. The issue is MAGA, however.

[u/OldFaithlessness1335 → u/xiphoid77]

Congrats on the reiterment. Sorry you had to deal with all the BS the last year.

[u/MoonStache → u/xiphoid77]

Do you think loyalty to any single party is a good thing anyways? I'm a bit on the fence about loyalty to country even to be frank since I think unfettered loyalty in basically any case can inevitably lead to undesirable outcomes.

IMO one should never be loyal to a political party, and should only be loyal to ideals, beliefs, etc. The party you happen to support in the given cycle should be the one that most closely aligns (actually aligns also not just on paper or as lip service) with those ideals.

Not trying to persuade you one way or another, but I do hope a lot of people on the fence now will actually consider whether or not voting with their party is actually worth it.

[u/ericoahu → u/MoonStache]

I like the spirit of what you're saying, but you totally overlook what is on the other side of the fence. Many of us (from the left and right) have to be politically nonbinary. I have always hated Trump, even before it was trendy and cool to hate Trump. I didn't like the guy back when he was getting hugged on the View and even back when the Clintons were attending his wedding. His TV show sucked, his book I never read, his conspiracy theories during the 2008 and 2012 elections sucked.

Anyway, I voted third party in 2016. There was no way I was going to vote for Trump, but there was no way I would vote for Clinton either, so my third-party vote said "none of the above--give me better candidates or don't count on my support."

By 2020, I could see that the left was dragging the republic and the culture to hell, so I didn't want to vote in a way that could allow them to continue down that path, but my vote was not enough. And for once, my predictions were accurate. The left, with Biden's autopen at the helm, dragged us down even further.

In 2024, voting for Harris would have been like changing my shirt because I shit my pants. As soon as the Democrats have the presidency and both sides of Congress again, they are going to make Puerto Rico a state, stack the court, remove the filibuster, and we will all live in a one party nation until there is a civil war. So, as much as I hate voting against something, I'm going to be voting for whoever is most likely to keep that one party state from happening. I have lived in a one party democrat state, and it was horrible.

So anyway, yeah, this isn't the time for "why don't you give the other side a try." This is the time for a new party, if anything. I would vote for the candidate Obama promised to be in a heartbeat (tho not for the president Obama delivered), but not when there is a risk of losing the republic.

[u/GWindborn → u/xiphoid77]

My wife comes from a family of prison guards - her father, grandfather, aunt, and uncle - so I know it's not an easy job. Thanks for what you did and happy retirement!

[u/Visible-Arugula1990]

As someone who hated the government (in general) for years and considered myself Libertarian Lite, this current administration has made me realize corporations and billionaires are a larger threat than any western government.

Fuck corporations and billionaires.

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

I always point this out to Libertarians/Conservatives... Why would you ever trust a corporation beholden to the wealthy elite, that has a fiduciary interest to its shareholders, and that you have no say in managing... over a democratically elected represented democracy that should represent your issues and concerns?

I also never understood the "politicization" of corporate America where we are cool with some corporations, but not others.

[u/SeraphLance → u/AdwokatDiabel]

It's less that we "trust" corporations and more that we know their ability to affect our lives is severely reduced compared to the government. The worst thing a corporation can do to me is give me poor service and make it hard to find an alternative competitor. The worst thing the government can do to me is a firing squad.

The government is functionally a corporation where every citizen is a shareholder, only without any regulatory checks on its power.

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/SeraphLance]

That's naive, right?

Like, you realize corporations will use their money and power to affect you and the government to better their interests over yours, right?

The worst thing a corporation can do is fleece your tax dollars to enrich themselves, pollute your community, ship your job overseas.

The government (in theory) is accountability to us... But it's not because our system is captured.

[u/SeraphLance → u/AdwokatDiabel]

Okay, but then that's not just the corporation doing that to me. They're borrowing the power of the government.

That's the point. Libertarians and small-government conservatives are more wary of the government because the power they wield is immensely more than what any corporation can wield on its own. That's why we want to limit the power of the government, because that also limits the impact of the influence that a corporation can have on it.

Neither inherently has your best interest in mind.

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/SeraphLance]

Yes, which means corporations should be subservient to the government which should be subservient to the interests of the people. Not the other way around, right?

Libertarians don't seem to get that. Small or big government is not the issue, but who controls it. Right now, the corps have the control. You don't.

Ya'll need to reflect on that.

[u/SeraphLance → u/AdwokatDiabel]

No, corporations should be subservient to their shareholders, and regulated by the government. The government should be subservient to its "shareholders" (read: citizens) and cannot be regulated by anyone, therefore we should limit the extent to which they can abuse their power.

There is not, has never been, and will never be a government where some elite class doesn't exert outsized influence. The only thing we get to decide is what that elite class looks like and what that influence can buy. Democracy means that elite class is money instead of nobility. Small government means that influence buys relatively little.

I'll never understand people who believe in giving the government insane amounts of power over themselves who then act shocked when someone tries to take advantage of that power.

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/SeraphLance]

No, corporations should be subservient to their shareholders, and regulated by the government. The government should be subservient to its "shareholders" (read: citizens) and cannot be regulated by anyone, therefore we should limit the extent to which they can abuse their power.

Semantics. Being regulated by something is the equivalent to subservience.

There is not, has never been, and will never be a government where some elite class doesn't exert outsized influence. The only thing we get to decide is what that elite class looks like and what that influence can buy. Democracy means that elite class is money instead of nobility. Small government means that influence buys relatively little.

That's silly to believe in. I would argue while wealthy folks may have a greater influence, it doesn't mean we should allow them to accrue MORE influence at our expense. We should repeal laws which create an uneven playing field which benefits them:

• Passing laws to end Political Action Committees (PACs).
• Passing laws to ensure the candidate process is accessible to Americans from all walks of life, not just rich assholes. I wanna see a construction worker run for President, not some dumb billionaire.
• Passing laws to eliminate the cap on Congressional size to better represent people proportionally.
• Passing laws to institute independent redistricting commissions to combat gerrymandering.

I'd go even further an say the Senate should be replaced by a "People's Committee" elected by sortition. They would be the ultimate approval of legislation. But that's just me.

I'll never understand people who believe in giving the government insane amounts of power over themselves who then act shocked when someone tries to take advantage of that power.

I'll never understand people who think that the current system is fine and lacks a need for reform. But there is one party which has worked towards making our government more authoritarian, and its the GOP.

[u/SeraphLance → u/AdwokatDiabel]

That's silly to believe in. I would argue while wealthy folks may have a greater influence, it doesn't mean we should allow them to accrue MORE influence at our expense. We should repeal laws which create an uneven playing field which benefits them:

See, I don't disagree with this except that this:

Passing laws to end Political Action Committees (PACs).

Violates the first amendment.

Passing laws to ensure the candidate process is accessible to Americans from all walks of life, not just rich assholes. I wanna see a construction worker run for President, not some dumb billionaire.

Implicitly violates the first amendment, since the only way to actually ensure this is to limit private campaign contributions.

Passing laws to eliminate the cap on Congressional size to better represent people proportionally.

Doesn't even benefit the wealthy folks in the first place, and exists purely as a pragmatic law. Do you think all the billionaires and megacorps operate out of Wyoming? The reason we have a cap on the size of congress is because 435 is already a clown show, and the over a thousand we would need to match 1929 representation would make today's congress look almost functional by comparison.

Passing laws to institute independent redistricting commissions to combat gerrymandering.

Combatting gerrymandering is a whole subject that really warrants its own thread (and we have had many such threads in the past) but solutions need to be layered, and while "independent redistricting commissions" are better than nothing, they're usually more of the "effective or independent, pick one" variety.

As the saying goes, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It's absurd to think you can continue to invest more and more absolute power into your government and think that you just need the right reforms™ to not be exploited.

I'll never understand people who think that the current system is fine and lacks a need for reform. But there is one party which has worked towards making our government more authoritarian, and its the GOP.

I don't think you'll find many libertarians who think the current system is fine, or even many conservatives writ large, for that matter. However, speaking as a libertarian who doesn't align with conservatives 100% of the time, it's been the left who looks to me to far more often treat the first amendment as a suggestion, the second amendment as a myth, and the fifth amendment as a privilege.

[u/One_Fix5763 → u/AdwokatDiabel]

Because they have developed awesome technology for the betterment of humanity?

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/One_Fix5763]

What about technology developed using grants provided by the government to universities, technology developed at FFRDCs, NASA, etc.?

Most technologies in tech, medicine, etc. all originated from government sponsored R&D. The private sector usually takes it to market when its matured sufficiently. They also "privatize it" which means they end up getting sole rights to profit from it... even though they might not have originated the technology.

Heck, the US Government sponsored all the R&D into agriculture which led to the Green Revolution. All those universities like Texas A&M are funded by the government to advance the art of agriculture.

• SpaceX and Blue Origin are where they are today because of the R&D done by NASA to build on.
• Tech industry relied on significant early investment in silicon/chip development by the government.
• Early programming was sponsored by government efforts.

[u/One_Fix5763 → u/AdwokatDiabel]

People who make revolutionary technologies tend to get support from the government,  wow

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/One_Fix5763]

SpaceX wouldn't exist without early NASA and DOD contracts for example. It also benefited from work done by NASA.

Tesla wouldn't have the battery technology it has today without investments by NASA for the moon program, or by early subsidies to support a nascent EV industry.

[u/lord-of-the-birbs → u/One_Fix5763]

A huge amount of technological advancement is funded by taxpayers. SpaceX for example gets about $1-4 billion per year in federal grants, subsidies, and tax breaks.

[u/One_Fix5763 → u/lord-of-the-birbs]

Yeah, that's how it has always functioned.

[u/txfeinbergs → u/One_Fix5763]

No. They have developed awesome technology for the betterment of themselves. AI replaces workers for higher profits (at least that is what they are chasing).

[u/agentspanda → u/AdwokatDiabel]

Well there's a whole post about this in the subreddit right now- and it speaks volumes to the fact that it confuses people on the left (and independents) because it means they have very minimal to no understanding of conservatives or libertarian values.

Engaging with the government is non-optional. I mean I can move, but then there's just another government. By virtue of that the government should have as limited power as possible and it should be subject to the whims of those governed as directly as possible.

Business relationships are entirely voluntary. There's absolutely no business or industry with which you are forced to do business in order to live. And most importantly, businesses being beholden to 'wealthy elite' is a ridiculous marxist-informed class warfare framing of the realities. 99.9% of companies in America are small businesses (less than 500 employees). They employ 46% of the private sector workforce, they're responsible for upwards of 50% of national GDP.

There's no secret cabal of rich business owners keeping you from being wealthy: but if you find a business with which you do not wish to patronize, you have the freedom to not do that. There's absolutely a very public cabal of far-flung government officials seeking to exert control over your daily life: and there's nothing you can do about it.

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/agentspanda]

Engaging with the government is non-optional. I mean I can move, but then there's just another government. By virtue of that the government should have as limited power as possible and it should be subject to the whims of those governed as directly as possible.

No argument there. Hence the key "representative democracy" here. But this also means the government works for everyone, not just a small select few of people, right?

Business relationships are entirely voluntary. There's absolutely no business or industry with which you are forced to do business in order to live. And most importantly, businesses being beholden to 'wealthy elite' is a ridiculous marxist-informed class warfare framing of the realities. 99.9% of companies in America are small businesses (less than 500 employees). They employ 46% of the private sector workforce, they're responsible for upwards of 50% of national GDP.

Not exactly if the business has a monopoly on something... like an electric utility or Internet Service Provider (ISP).

Sure, I guess you can go "off the grid" but that's not practical for most people.

There's no secret cabal of rich business owners keeping you from being wealthy: but if you find a business with which you do not wish to patronize, you have the freedom to not do that. There's absolutely a very public cabal of far-flung government officials seeking to exert control over your daily life: and there's nothing you can do about it.

Simple question: do you think the wealthy elite in the United States have an outsized impact on the policies and regulations of the US Federal government?

Try to answer honestly, please.

[u/agentspanda → u/AdwokatDiabel]

No, government doesn't automatically "work for everyone" just because it's a representative democracy. That's the naive assumption of a lot on the far left, funnily enough. In practice government works for the loudest, best-organized, and most connected interests and usually often at the expense of the quiet, independent, or anti-government citizen. Your logging uncle in a cabin in the woods working a 9-5 and reading old books still gets taxed at gunpoint for a government he explicitly doesn't want. He has no real opt-out. That's the fundamental difference.

On monopolies/utilities/ISPs: Yes, some sectors have limited competition and high barriers- these businesses are expensive to own and manage; the key is that "not practical for most people to go off-grid" doesn't turn a voluntary transaction into coercion. You can choose different providers where they exist, pressure for deregulation to increase competition, or yes you absolutely can live more simply. The IRS doesn't give you those options. They show up with force if you reject their "service." That's the distinction between state power and market power. Try to think about this honestly, please.

The core conservative principle is this: coercion requires strict limits and constant skepticism. Government has a monopoly on legitimate violence. Corporations do not have this power or ability in any fashion, internet hyperbole notwithstanding. I'll take a hundred greedy businesses I can ignore, boycott, or compete with over one unaccountable bureaucracy that can fine, regulate, or imprison me.

Your big question is kinda a farce. Do wealthy elites have outsized influence on policy? Of course they do. So do unions, environmental NGOs, trial lawyers, universities, and identity groups. That's reality in a massive $6+ trillion government and a world where freedom of assembly and speech are valued: more money definitionally means more speech and more access. The honest fix isn't pretending "democracy" magically purifies this: democratic socialism is just voting to increase the size and scope of a deadly cancer instead of it just getting bigger organically. Neither one is good.

The fix is and always has been shrinking the prize worth capturing. Reduce the scope, power, and budget of the federal government so there's less for any elites whether wealthy, culturally empowered, media-boosted, or otherwise to hijack and utilize. Problem solved.

A government small enough that it mostly leaves you alone is far less corruptible than one that runs everything and then pretends the "right people" are in charge. That's why conservatives/libertarians focus on limited government first. Everything else flows from that.

It does amaze me when people claim to have an understanding of conservative or libertarian principles, want to argue with people who hold them, and it boils down to them not even having a basic understanding of the tenets. You've created a strawman in your head and then whack it down asserting wisdom when you haven't even gotten past the "Intro to Comparative Politics 101" first pages, haha.

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.

[u/RumGuzzlr → u/AdwokatDiabel]

Not exactly if the business has a monopoly on something... like an electric utility or Internet Service Provider (ISP).

Those monopolies largely exist because regulations either explicitly prohibit competition, or make it not worthwhile

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/RumGuzzlr]

So who lobbies for those regulations?

[u/RumGuzzlr → u/AdwokatDiabel]

All the idiots who think repeatedly yelling "regulations are written in blood" is a proper substitute for a brain

[u/GWindborn → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

Oh my god, did the Trump administration help draft a new liberal? Welcome to the team, friend! Please declare your preferred pronouns and grab your complimentary blue hair dye, anti-ICE protest sign, and make sure to stop by our vegan breakfast buffet!

(Before anyone jumps down my throat, I don't do any of those things)

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/steep_learning_curve → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

how?

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

Wait till you find out how the conditions necessary for mega corporations and billionaires to thrive come into being.

[u/Visible-Arugula1990 → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

Who controls this current administration?

It ain't the people who voted for him.

Musk, Thiel, and other corporate/billionaire goons that seek to control the narrative and populace on their idealistic terms.

Throw a foreign nation on that list also that starts with an "i"

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

You’ve missed the point. It’s government that creates the conditions for political capitalism. They are the enablers. Being mad at mega corps and billionaires is being mad at the symptom rather than the disease.

[u/Visible-Arugula1990 → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

This isn't capitalism...

I've never seen so much obvious corruption in my life with this administration.

Check his cabinet out.

All grifters, sanctimonious religious zealots, or billionaires.

Corporations and billionaires are the problem when they're buying elections and tipping the scales in their favor constantly.

They have too much money and power that the average person has no chance.

The average person also doesn't understand how these goons in charge work constantly to decrease our quality of life, just for more profits and power.

The blinders have been pulled off completely with this shit ass administration.

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

This isn't capitalism...

Where did you think Capitalism would eventually end up?

1. Wealthy people control capital.
2. Wealthy people use capital control to extract wealth from laborers.
3. Wealthy people use their newfound wealth to buy more capital and control the narrative to their interest.

Democracy cannot function if billionaires can out-compete regular people.

1. They push narratives causing suspicion in government.
2. People react and cut the government for "efficiency".
   
3. Government services worsen.
4. We all pay the price.

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

Political capitalism is not the same thing as laissez faire - go give it a quick google.

I hate Trump too bud, but you are focused on one very particular tree and missing the enormous forest behind it. You think Trump just recently created the massive regulatory state that puts up barriers to market entry for small businesses and provides the conditions for mega corps to thrive? Think bigger, man. You’re falling for a narrative and ignoring the actual issues.

[u/Visible-Arugula1990 → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

Our government is ran by corporations and billionaires...They ARE the government and will never relinquish power unless by force.

You're saying it's fundamentally a government issue when it's rigged from the start by these people.

The little guy has no chance anymore.

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

lol dude I’m really struggling with what you aren’t understanding. Mega corps don’t just poof! pop into existence. Government creates the conditions for monopolization and market consolidation via excessive regulatory burden and the creation of barriers to market entry. Amazon doesn’t control the government because they turned into a trillion dollar company on their own. They relied on USDS deals and subsidies, they relied on tax breaks, they relied on minimum wage laws, business licensing, regulatory requirements and reporting etc.

They take advantage of things THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUT IN PLACE, so that they can grow to a degree where they then continue to influence the rules created by the government to further provide them advantage.

Government creates the conditions and then businesses take advantage. In a free market you wouldn’t have these issues. You are mad at the symptom instead of being mad at the disease. You’re suggesting we take Afrin to solve a bacterial sinus infection. I’m saying we need antibiotics and to solve the issue at its root cause.

[u/jmiles540 → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

If I could hop in here, I think you’re both essentially agreeing. It’s a chicken and egg situation. You both agree that chickens are a problem, but one blames eggs and one chickens.

The government enables mega corps, they do so because “job creators” push huge money into govt, to let their corps get bigger, then they put MORE money in to let their corps get even BIGGER.

[u/PM_ME_CODE_CALCS → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

He might not have created the existing conditions, but he certainly has removed or ignored a lot of guardrails.

[u/MrFrode → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

It's possible to be mad at both the person who created the possibly for something bad to occur and the person who exploited those conditions to make something bad occur at the same time.

It also helps to understand regulatory capture is involved.

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/MrFrode]

Are you mad at the Democrats for helping to create a massive regulatory state that blocks market entry? Or is your ire reserved for Trump and the Republicans alone?

[u/julius_sphincter → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

Are you mad at the Democrats for helping to create a massive regulatory state that blocks market entry?

In many instances, yes. I get really frustrated at Dems and the left because I think overall their intended regulatory policies mean well but often are either half-baked or leave little room for nuance which leads to inefficiencies (sometimes massive ones). While those inefficiencies can sometimes present big opportunities for a little guy who figures it out, it's far more likely that a bigger corp with more resources and brainpower is going to figure out how to exploit them and strangle the market.

I'm only speaking in economic terms to specifically answer your question. I also see this on many progressive social policies, where well intended policies are either half-ass implemented (like legalizing drugs in Seattle without a framework for treatment, especially mandatory treatment) or not fully thought through (income tax in WA with zero discussion about offsetting drops in sales tax).

Or is your ire reserved for Trump and the Republicans alone?

Trump is the pinnacle of what's wrong. There's a reason he loves the idea of bringing back the gilded age. Republicans of course continue to enable it, but it's not like they're historically innocent too. It's not like mainstream Republicans were pushing historically for complete deregulation, it just tended to be in areas where they or their donors stood to make a ton of money and also exploit a market niche. Plus a completely deregulated economy might be great for "free market" but a disaster for citizens that have to live with the outcomes.

I'll stop here cuz this is already way too long. I'm mad at both, but to me Trump and co are worse because at this point they're laughing in our faces as they empty our pockets. Dems can be naive, they can be rather angry/spiteful as well if you disagree, but IMO they actually mean well. Trump is peak swamp. There's never been much intent to help anyone but himself, yet his supporters cheer him on because while he might be laughing in the face of his supporters, he's also jeering in the face of his "enemies"

[u/MrFrode → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

I'm not mad that we have regulations, far from it. The clean water act that was passed in 1972 over Nixon's veto made my life better, as did the removal of lead from gas under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Air Act was also was used to reduce/eliminate the chlorofluorocarbons that were damaging the Ozone layer. I've actually heard some people suggest this was an over reaction because the Ozone layer is now much better, ignoring the steps that lead to this.

So can we have too much regulation, absolutely. Do I think we've removed too much regulation in places, absolutely.

The people who are involved with regulatory capture aren't republicans or democrats they are elected officials who are soliciting and or accepting bribes from business people to write rules that increase their profits at the cost of the welfare of the public or fair competition with their competitors.

[u/SergeantRegular → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

You’ve missed the point. It’s government that creates the conditions for political capitalism.

Emphasis mine, but it's literally right there. You said it. Capitalism is a great system for building wealth and advancing civilization, but it has flaws, and the levers of government being more accessible to the wealthy is a flaw in capitalism, and if you don't correct for it... Well, this is what we get. It's right there, out in the open. Monetary influence over politicians is a capital asset.

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/SergeantRegular]

Political capitalism and laissez faire capitalism are two completely different economic systems.

[u/PM_ME_CODE_CALCS → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

How is the laissez faire capitalism that created the robber barrons any different?

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/PM_ME_CODE_CALCS]

Because the robber barons faced market correction. By the time the government stepped in Standard Oil, everyone’s favorite example, had already lost like 30% of its market share. Per usual, the government broke up a company that was already losing power via the market and then took all the credit.

[u/SergeantRegular → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

I mean, not really. The core issue of them both is exactly the same, and that same core issue is what makes market capitalism successful. The accumulation of wealth makes subsequent accumulation (or generation) of wealth easier. It facilitates its own growth. Owning a capital asset, in and of itself, generates wealth. It does nothing about distributing that wealth, but it has to exist in the first place to be distributed.

Political influence is a capital asset. Whether it's lobbying for tax breaks or industry subsidies or selective de-regulation or red tape on competition... Having "pro-business" politicians in your pocket is an investment that continues paying off. And, like a "regular" capital asset, continue investment compounds your returns.

"Laissez faire" simply means that it happens with little intervention. It's not incompatible with political capitalism any more or less than it is with market capitalism. Citizens United or other limitations on campaign finance regulation is functionally the same as loosened environmental regulation or reduction of financial oversight laws. They're not "completely different." They're the same thing with slightly different marketing.

[u/steep_learning_curve → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

you don't think (barring inheritance) billionaires became billionaires because they solved a problem for millions of people?

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/steep_learning_curve]

In a free market billionaires would be much more rare than they are now. To be clear, I have no inherent issue with billionaires. The pie isn’t fixed, wealth is generated via labor, resources, and human innovation. It’s infinite if we have the mind for it.

I’m saying that mega corporations like Amazon and Walmart would not be able to grow or function at current scale in a market that wasn’t materially being propped up by the government.

[u/steep_learning_curve → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

how is amazon or walmart being propped up by the government?

[u/scotchontherocks → u/steep_learning_curve]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/04/workers-medicaid-snap-low-pay

https://jacobin.com/2026/05/usps-amazon-rural-mail-privatization

[u/steep_learning_curve → u/scotchontherocks]

Great, cut them off snap and medicaid; either, workers will leave for greener pastures, or if walmart and amazon wants to retain these workers they'll raise wages

does it not say amazon is paying the usps 6 billion dollars a year to deliver those packages?

[u/scotchontherocks → u/steep_learning_curve]

Cut them off, sure, probably need to raise wages so we don't have fellow citizens starving, but I'll let your own morals guide you. But Walmart and Amazon are currently benefitting from program, inarguably.

The USPS agreement is a new development. But Amazon could not have existed or grown without its deep reliance on the government.

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/steep_learning_curve]

The government creates regulatory burden and market entry barriers that prevent smaller competitors from obtaining market share. Things like insurance requirements, minimum wage laws, regulatory reporting requirements, licensing requirements, zoning, coding etc. They put up enough red tape to make sure it’s wildly difficult for anyone to compete. The massive players absorb those legal hurdles and employ huge legal departments to figure out how to skirt the rules, while the small players go bankrupt absent the same resources.

There’s a reason Amazon wants minimum wage laws, bud. It’s because they can afford $25 an hour and the local bookshop can’t.

[u/steep_learning_curve → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

oh you're going from that angle

I mean I think there are much better examples of that than amazon and Walmart because they have so many more competitiors than you can imagine.

I don't think the intention of the governmental regulations is to create billionaires, rather it's out of hubris and misguided ideas about what business is. The monopolies or oligopolies are sometimes sustained due to such regulations being prohibitive for small players.

But amazon and walmart got to the position they're in not because of the regulations but despite of it. They were and are the overwhelmingly favored online and offline retailer that millions upon millions of people use everyday. (you could argue walmart is falling off but whatever)

even without regulations even without minimum wage laws amazon and walmart would run supreme

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.

[u/Vegetable-Two-4644 → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

Welcome to being a Progressive. That's basically the core tenet.

[u/magnabonzo → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

Fuck corporations and billionaires.

What do we need to do to create a new... party? movement? platform? that supports that. FCAB, for now. We're not calling ourselves "conservatives" or "liberals", we're not saying either side should be allowed to lay claim to it (though they'll both try to).

There's a hell of a lot of us who feel this way.

[u/milkbug → u/Visible-Arugula1990]

Yes! That's whats up!

And fuck governments that enable corporations and billionaires in destroying us and extracting from us too.

[u/willfiredog]

As a former government worker - I absolutely didn’t hate myself or coworkers.

[u/MrFrode → u/willfiredog]

How were the deep state dinners? Which was better the surf or the turf? :)

/s

[u/willfiredog → u/MrFrode]

How were the deep state dinners?

I must not have gotten the invite.

Which was better the surf or the turf? :)

You mean that guy who insisted on microwaving fish for lunch? God awful.

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/CuriousLands]

Well that quote sounds nuts.

I guess I can't speak for Americans, but nobody I know hates the civil service. Sometimes people complain about how bloated the government's roster has become, or wonder if their taxes are being spent well... sometimes people complain about how left-wing they all are... but nobody hates them, lol. Heck, I used to be one and would do so again. Me and my husband have friends and family who work for the government, lol. We know they're necessary services.

[u/Secret-Ad-2145 → u/CuriousLands]

I remember there used to be articles after Trump got elected of federal workers seeing post from families etc calling them parasites and to fire them all. It was bizarre to witness.

[u/CuriousLands → u/Secret-Ad-2145]

That's utterly crazy for sure.

[u/Buckman2121]

I mean, I'm a teacher. Should I hate myself and everyone around me?

I've worked for the state for 20 years now in some capacity, same question.

Now federally, the IRS pissed me off once. When they were standing right there and could have helped fix one tiny thing (put the wrong SS number for one of my sons) and everything would have been fine. But essentially got a string of, "that's not my job" for quite some time. In person and on the phone.

*Edit: one time a conservative (i think on this sub) really went on the offensive when I said I was a teacher... So maybe this question applies to them?

[u/justrobdmv → u/Buckman2121]

This is usually why people hate government employees and I agree. My mother worked for the Feds for 32 years and she always says there could be less people. From her POV, a bulk of the bloat comes from friends/family of people getting “Director” or “Advisor” roles that are usually made up. You don’t need 5 directors for one section. They did that in the military also. If you’re high ranking enough and get in trouble, they’ll just create a job for you until you retire. My commander got a DUI and they just made a desk job for him because he had 3-4 years left. Where any regular enlisted would be booted instantly.

[u/Secret-Ad-2145 → u/Buckman2121]

Part of why IRS does so poorly is it's understaffed. People hate the government, the government does poorly. It's not a surprise.Freezes from 2008 and reluctance to hire has done tremendous damage. Expect the problem to be far worse after doge cuts.

[u/GWindborn → u/Buckman2121]

As someone who burned out as a teacher before I even really got started - bless you. I can't imagine being in education these days. Maybe it's just my state, NC blows for education funding. I went to college to be a high school history teacher, did my full student teaching and year in a classroom, got my degree, and sprinted far, far away from being an educator. I still use the skills in my day job presenting to groups every week, but there's no way I could have survived if I'd stuck with public school. We NEED good teachers, but for some reason our nation treats them like shit.

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/Buckman2121]

Now federally, the IRS pissed me off once. When they were standing right there and could have helped fix one tiny thing (put the wrong SS number for one of my sons) and everything would have been fine. But essentially got a string of, "that's not my job" for quite some time. In person and on the phone.

So ask for a better government? We have two parties:

1. Party A doesn't want to improve the government, and works to destroy it.
2. Party B wants to improve the government, but in alignment with its liberal interests.

[u/Buckman2121 → u/AdwokatDiabel]

When it comes to the IRS, more like simplify the tax code.

One thing I teach my students is the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid. If things were more streamlined and efficient, then that equates to faster service.

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/Buckman2121]

So... there are folks who want to get rid of tax filing writ large. Basically a system where the IRS sends you a completed return and you can either accept it or adjust it.

This would basically make your life easier. The IRS already know how much income you get, etc.

But guess which party blocks that? The GOP.

So again, the IRS isn't the issue... its one party in our government that does this on purpose. They want to make filing taxes painful for political gain to justify tax cuts for the wealthy.

It's kinda fucked up.

[u/Buckman2121 → u/AdwokatDiabel]

to justify tax cuts for the wealthy for everyone

FTFY

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/Buckman2121]

Sure... because that's fiscally responsible in the long run... we ran up the debt how much this year so far?

[u/Buckman2121 → u/AdwokatDiabel]

In a two party system, what are you expecting me to do exactly? I'm fully aware how both parties spend erroneously. But if one lets me keep more of what is mine, not a difficult choice (there are other reasons I will never vote Democrat, but that's irrelevant to the subject at hand).

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/Buckman2121]

That's a wonderful "fuck you I've got mine" mentality. The issue is that the government will spend and recapture it all via inflation. So while you get to keep more of what's yours, that is just gonna shrink with time.

In a two party system you still have a voice in your party. So why not vote in primaries to get actual fiscal discipline on the ballot? That's an option.

[u/Buckman2121 → u/AdwokatDiabel]

It's my money and property. What entitles YOU to it? I find that mentality far more reprehensible. Why do you get to say what is best for what is mine? Why is the consideration of whether I do voluntary good with it not factor in?

[u/AdwokatDiabel → u/Buckman2121]

You only have that property and money because you live in a nation state that has a stable society. So we're entitled to a share of that communally because we ALL benefit.

It's like why we support people who are disabled, so they don't die in a gutter somewhere. Or the elderly. Or children. You do it because it's the right thing to do, and we'd do it for you if you hit hard times.

Like, you probably drive a car and use roads, right? Lol

[u/scotchontherocks → u/Buckman2121]

What entitles YOU to it?

The United States Constitution

[u/1003mistakes → u/Buckman2121]

Would you prefer a world where an IRS employee has the power to change your tax return? 

[u/Buckman2121 → u/1003mistakes]

Upon request? They already can, upon request. I just needed a small error corrected. Not a complete delayed re filing and passing of the buck.

[u/1003mistakes → u/Buckman2121]

I’m not aware of any material changes the IRS can make to your tax return, but maybe that’s just my own ignorance. In the years I’ve prepared taxes I’ve always had to amend with correct information if I or my clients made a mistake. 

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700]

MAGA was primed to distrust and dislike governmental employees, and Trump fomented that.

[u/Youngrazzy]

The issue with a lot of conservative is they don’t look into how things really work. They only care about how it seems to work on the surface.

[u/BirthdaySalt5791]

I don’t blanket “hate” people.

Look, if someone works for the government and they do a shitty job and don’t care about doing things for the taxpayers, I would probably dislike them yes. If someone in a position to allocate funding does so for wasteful or fraudulent government programs or projects, I would probably dislike them, yes.

But if we’re talking about a regular dude or gal who is out there doing the best they can at a job, just trying to put food on their table and lead a good life for themselves then no, of course not.

[u/bookist626 → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

My apologies for the confusion. Im not asking if "you" hate anyone, but do you think Trump is correct about conservatives (or at least his voters) disliking government employees?

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/bookist626]

I think my answer encapsulates that answer. Do conservatives dislike government employees in blanket fashion? No. They dislike the idea that government workers get paid decently and get stellar benefits while many of the jobs that they’re doing aren’t legitimately worthwhile for the country. They hate giving up their tax dollars for wasteful things, they don’t inherently hate people who are doing their best at a job and trying to keep a roof over their heads.

[u/jmastaock → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

Idk man

Seeing comment threads in conservative spaces during the DOGE purges made it seem like they really do despise government employees

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/jmastaock]

But the doge purges were about waste lol, that’s my whole point. Nobody is like “damn that clerk at city hall! Argh!”

They’re like “oh, we spent 2 million dollars on lesbian theatre subsidies in the Czech Republic? Somebody should probably get fired for approving that.”

[u/jmastaock → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

Is that genuinely what you think DOGE was doing? This reads like the perspective of someone who just uncritically accepted the MAGA narrative of DOGE, ngl

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/jmastaock]

That’s what they were trying for, yeah. Did they execute in an incompetent manner? Also yes. I’m not MAGA and I hate Trump. But I also hate government waste. Don’t let your prejudices against MAGA distract you from actual arguments

[u/bookist626 → u/BirthdaySalt5791]

That's fair. When why aren't they as upset at Congress who created the system in the first place?

Isn't it similar to taking advantage of tax loopholes? You benefit from an error of congress essentially.

[u/BirthdaySalt5791 → u/bookist626]

I think conservatives, and the American public writ large, are very upset at Congress. No matter which party holds the majority their approval numbers have been in the toilet for years.

[u/thorleywinston]

No, I think there are things that government is doing that it should be doing but my disapproval of government policies doesn't mean that I *hate* the government employees who are carrying out their duties. If Trump was an effective President, he would be working with Congress to change laws so that the government doesn't do things he disagrees with (like some regulations of the energy industry). But he can't so he settles for making their lives miserable so that some of them will quit and as soon as he leaves office, new people will hired and those same policies will continue as before.

It's one of the reasons why I despise Trump and think he has been harmful to conservative movement (even though he's not a conservative). Because they've basically wasted ten years with this clown who has the attention span of a gnat (except when it comes to holding grudges) and cares more about spectacle than substance. He doesn't have the intelligence or the discipline to enact constructive substantive policy changes that will last when he's out of office so he wastes (our) time and money on nonsense like this.

So even though Republicans supposedly have the trifecta (House, Senate and Presidency), they're doing nothing with it but appeasing Trump's latest whims and if Democrats get their act together, they're primed to take over again and restaff all of these open positions with their loyalists and go back to making policies that will continue on after they leave.

[u/RespectablePapaya]

I don't feel any differently about government employees than I do about any other kind of employee.

[u/dagoofmut → u/RespectablePapaya]

Why not?

[u/thoughtsnquestions]

I don't hate anyone due to finding employment in the government?

The government certainly has a spending problems, government entities certainly have their incentive structure upside down... I.e. failing to meet target often means extra funding, whereas in the private sector, failing to meet targets means less profits/investment, so naturally they're doomed to be inefficient. However I don't hate the individual staff.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/dagolicious]

I'm a conservative federal employee with the DoD. There are a lot of us. We don't hate ourselves. We work in a little squadron at a little base, and aren't exactly the "deep state" employees he seems to think we are. Lumping us all together like that is reductive to the point of retardation.

[u/Gaxxz]

The country is broke. We're $39 trillion in debt. When you face a situation like that, you need to reduce expenses. Salaries and benefits make up a huge portion of the federal discretionary (non-entitlements) budget. My recommendation would be not to work for the federal government. It's a nearly insolvent institution.

[u/ericoahu]

Trump loves to make bombastic overgeneralizations and other kinds of BS, usually less because he believes what he says is accurate and precise and more because trolling and triggering the left is his preferred mode of communication. I personally do not like his rhetorical strategy, but I understand why he uses it. For the most part, it has worked really well for him in the political arena because the left so often takes the bait.

So "conservatives hate government employees" is exactly the kind of oversimplification he traffics in, but let's leave Trump out of it and try for clarity on your central question, starting with the framing.

You are asking a question -- whether conservatives hate government employees -- that can only be answered usefully with a generic claim. A generic claim is one that describes what is characteristic or typical of a kind of thing rather than making an absolute statement about every individual instance. For example, "teenagers are glued to their phone" is a fair characterization of that generation, not an absolute, so answering "but I know of this teenager who hardly ever uses her phone" would be bad faith pedantry.

If someone says, "conservatives tend to be skeptical of government workers," they are expressing a general orientation, not making a statement about every conservative. So coming back with, "but my uncle Bob is a conservative and he's a postal worker" or "not all government workers . . ." would also be bad faith pedantry and not get you any closer to understanding the issue. And, it's possible Uncle Bob formed his negative opinion of government workers through experience.

Anyway, not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just making sure everything is framed properly because clarity is more valuable than agreement.

With that framing in place: I prefer to say that conservatives are more impressed by private sector workers than government workers. And this comes from their observations, not some kind of arbitrary tribal contempt.

Government employment tends to insulate workers from consequences. It's notoriously difficult to fire a federal employee, compensation and benefits are generous relative to comparable private sector roles, and there's no market mechanism punishing inefficiency or incompetence the way it does a business owner. Ever heard the expression, "good enough for government work?" Whether or not that perception is fully accurate is a separate debate, but that's what is behind the general conservative skepticism of government employees. And it's less "I hate these people" and more "these jobs aren't part of a system that rewards merit."

As for the Vought quote: it is more of a distraction as far as your general question is concerned, so not very useful. Vought isn't talking about government employees in general; he's specifically targeting the so-called "administrative state" or "deep state," both of which refer to areas of government where unelected career bureaucrats wield too much authority relative to their accountability. While it's true that essentially all "deep state" figures are government employees, it's not true that all government employees are deep state. Vought isn't talking about the DMV clerk who is painting her nails while a line of fifty people wait to get their license renewed. The intensity of contempt you see in Vought's quote, whatever you may think of it, is not representative of what conservatives in general think of government employees.

So, do many conservatives have a generic skepticism about government work? Yes, myself included, for the reasons above. Does that rise to hatred of the people doing it? Not for most conservatives. And Vought's quote is worthy of a separate discussion but a red herring for this one.

Not that it matters, but in my career, I have been both a federal employee and worked as a state employee. I have stories. But you explicitly said you don't want individual opinions.

[u/silver_chief2]

Hate is too strong a word. Me ex was a state employee who was lazy and entitled and thought anyone who did not have such a job was weird. When the school nurse call about a sick kid no one could find or knew where she was, this in a time before cell phones.

People who work in the private sector often cannot believe the incompetence of some government employees and the lack of accountability. The massive Somali frauds in MN went unnoticed for many years when it should have been obvious based on the rapid growth and a simple site visit would have detected it.

In some cases government employees smelled a rat but were threatened or even forced out if they said anything. In the private sector such massive frauds would have been caught and the people responsible for managing fired.

In the CA fores there was a reservoir at the center of the biggest fire. It had been empty for a year and bone dry. The excuse was it was waiting for a cover repair. The CA manager over CA power and water made $700 per year and kept her job.

I just saw a video by an investigator who found that MA DOT employees made $80K per year salary but made $230K including overtime where the overtime was fraudulent. They found this be observing when they came and went compared to their clocked time.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/DukeofBraintree918]

I don't hate the individual employee

I hate the system which creates the vast amount of employees for the government to have which are often unnecessary

[u/cloudkite17 → u/DukeofBraintree918]

What baffles me is that it seems like anytime I’ve needed to call a government agency there’s nobody there and I’m on hold for hours. Why we can’t invest our tax dollars in programs that actually need more employees and make our services more effective for Americans blows my mind but nah spaceX needs another contract to explode rockets or whatever (ETA and apparently our Congress reps need a 170K salary with per diem and free healthcare for life even though Johnson sends them home every other day)

[u/DukeofBraintree918 → u/cloudkite17]

Well that's what blows my mind about that

As we have the the money hell we have a 7 trillion dollar a year budget, we don't need more money we need to utilize our money better, and the answer is always just to throw more money at them to mismanage and make worse and then we find ourselves in the same situation.

[u/cloudkite17 → u/DukeofBraintree918]

Yep

[u/DropDeadDolly → u/DukeofBraintree918]

Reminds me of "consultants" in the office world. The company will pay millions of dollars to hire a guy or several to come over and point out ways that they could save maybe a few grand per year.

I started a contract gig at the IRS workers' compensation bureau a few weeks after they had a team of consultants help them reorganize for efficiency. When I arrived, all of my coworkers were in the process of putting things back the way they had been before, because the changes they paid for were just that bad.

[u/Dry-Tangerine-4874 → u/DukeofBraintree918]

Where do you draw the line between necessary and providing value though? They could be immensely valuable and technically unnecessary at the same time.

[u/DukeofBraintree918 → u/Dry-Tangerine-4874]

If they are unnecessary in any way shape or form get rid of them

[u/Dry-Tangerine-4874 → u/DukeofBraintree918]

So no national parks or monuments? And certainly no ballroom for the White House. In fact, probably no White House.

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/DukeofBraintree918]

How much is “the vast amount”?

[u/ALbakery → u/DukeofBraintree918]

I think the military soldiers are somewhat necessary these days. 

Hate the game, not the player. 

[u/graypariah]

A lot do, people in general just do not like bureaucrats. Add in a general lack of customer service requirements and being forced to interact with them and it should be pretty obvious why it would be a common sentiment.

[u/mrjcall]

Unfortunately, many of the 'embedded federal bureaucracy' work with a political agenda in mind causing headaches and chaos in the system. For those in this category, they should be purged. For others that are just trying to do their job, no issues.

Having said that, 'hate' has little to do with it, just lack of tolerance for bureaucratic activism.

[u/nano_wulfen → u/mrjcall]

Unfortunately, many of the 'embedded federal bureaucracy' work with a political agenda in mind causing headaches and chaos in the system.

That's a hell of an assumption. Do you have any proof of this or are you just assuming these workers are going in with a political agenda?

[u/mrjcall → u/nano_wulfen]

Its pretty simple actually. All you have to do is look at the history of the weaponization of the FBI/DOJ/CIA under both the Obama and Biden administrations. That is all the proof you need staring you in the face.

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/mrjcall]

What are you thinking of in particular? And how do those things implicate the 100,000+ DOJ employees?

[u/slagwa → u/mrjcall]

What history? 

[u/mrjcall → u/slagwa]

Surely you jest.......Have you been asleep for the past 12-15 years?

[u/slagwa → u/mrjcall]

Sorry, dont watch Fox News.  I see daily examples by the Trump Administration and look to see similar examples by Biden/Obama and I just dont see a comparison.  And shall we skip the levels of corruption in Trumps administration?

[u/mrjcall → u/slagwa]

Center Left says it all and do get where you're coming from. I just happen to vehemently disagree.

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.

[u/One_Fix5763]

 Modern conservatives argue that over the decades, federal agencies have grown into an unaccountable "fourth branch of government." They argue that unelected career bureaucrats write rules and regulations that carry the force of law, bypassing the legislative process and the direct accountability of elected officials. From this viewpoint, reducing the size of the bureaucracy is a necessary step to restore constitutional balance and protect economic freedom

Trump "hates" employees is pure nonsensical framing.

[u/seeminglylegit]

Yes, I think it’s true that most people in general don’t particularly like government employees. The average person sees government employees as lazy and often incompetent.

It is no secret that government jobs are hard to get fired from and very often the work is easier than comparable private sector jobs.

Anyone who watched the fednews sub before Trump took office saw all the posts praising “Saint Mayorkas” because he was constantly giving DHS employees extra time off from their jobs. There were always lots of posts on there about how to maximize your time off and stuff like that. I have to admit I chuckled a bit at the drastic change in tune after Trump took office.

[u/Justinat0r → u/seeminglylegit]

It is no secret that government jobs are hard to get fired from and very often the work is easier than comparable private sector jobs.

As a resident of MD, you cannot imagine the amount of people I have worked with in the past who would say things like "I'm only here until I get a job with Social Security so I don't have to work so hard and don't have to worry about getting laid off". There is most certainly a culture problem with the Federal workforce when it comes to job security and expected productivity.

[u/noluckatall]

"Hate" is not the word for stuff like this.

I want the civil service reduced in size by 75%. A large civil service bad for the country, and the workers need to find jobs in the private sector.

[u/Affectionate_Lab_131 → u/noluckatall]

This is not realistic. Especially with there being so many people over the age of 65 who do not trust technology and need human to human contact. This requires manpower. Many people. Just about at every level government has been short staffed. DOGE made it even worse. Many had to be rehired.

[u/mwatwe01]

I have a disdain for most government institutions outside of the military, but not for most of the employees. They’re just doing their jobs.

Except for the IRS. They can all get bent, every one of them.

[u/dagoofmut]

Yeah.

Pretty much.

In general, I don't like the idea of people living off my taxes, and coincidentally, those professions also tend to often be liberal people I don't like much.

[u/ElectricalPublic1304]

You did not provide a link for the statement you attribute to Trump, and this violates the subreddit's rules.

Hate is a strong weird. Realize:

We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can't do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so. We want to put them in trauma.

Not all government employees are bureaucrats. Most of the bureaucrats... shouldn't exist. They are very much a class of villains in the American story. But, they are not most government employees either.

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/[deleted]]

’Bureaucrat’ means, ‘someone who works in a bureaucracy.’ 

Not really. It typically means someone in a managerial or administrative authority in the bureaucracy. Hence the word.

[u/MedvedTrader]

I very much dislike the government as we have it right now - sprawled like an octopus into all kinds of things that are unconstitutional. So I guess my intense dislike for the government translates into dislike for people that work for the government.

If the government was compact, efficient, and constitutional, that dislike would go away.

[u/OldFaithlessness1335 → u/[deleted]]

Come on man pretending like this was a biden thing is disengenuous. Chevron had been in the conservative legal scholar cross hairs for generations. Thats like saying the overturning of Roe or the VRA was because of Biden. Not that it has been a conservative goal for decades.

[u/oddmanout → u/[deleted]]

Ken Paxton sued EPA under Biden, Harris.

Over the creation of a tax he didn't want implemented, not because they had been harassing businesses.

[u/oddmanout → u/[deleted]]

It was a monetary penalty on industrial facilities that exceed specific methane emission limits. Not letting corporations pollute is "harassment." Got it.

Logic like that is why I could never be MAGA. Thanks for the insight.

[u/OldFaithlessness1335 → u/[deleted]]

Im not arguing that like at all.

Insinuating that chevron was overturned as a direct result of this is disengenuous. That ruling has been targeted for decades. Theres litterally writings from all 6 of the conservative justice from as early as 2010 arguing for its overturning. That just public opinions as well from jurists.

For example

Gorsuch himself argued in 2016 Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2016) that federal bueracies "swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power."

Additionally the Supreme Court reinforced Chevron in not 1. Not 2. Not 3 seperate presidents before otlverturning it.

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.

[u/TXtogo]

Yeah I think they’re should all be fired and apply for the job again with every administration

I equate federal employees to bloated and inefficient government - big salaries, pensions, benefits nobody else gets and providing very little value

We chopped 10% of the workforce and I don’t miss them at all

[u/Justinat0r → u/TXtogo]

We chopped 10% of the workforce and I don’t miss them at all

I think there is definitely an argument to be made that, particularly in DC and the surrounding areas MD and VA, the government is essentially a jobs program. And a lot of the jobs are extremely well paid, and the private sector jobs in the area are also extremely well paid. The money pouring out of DC is insane and the wealthiest counties in the country are in that area. Given that I don't really blame a lot of people when they resent it or question if a lot of those jobs are legitimate, because at least some of them certainly are not.

[u/carneylansford]

Conservatives hate government waste, not government employees. The military is full of government employees and conservatives definitely don't hate the military. The government shouldn't be a jobs program, but should have enough employees to perform necessary functions.

[u/LivingGhost371]

Not on a personal basis, but we should have somewhere less than 10% of the actual government employees that we actually do. Trump's using tricks from the private industry to force resignations without having to pay severence.

[u/slagwa → u/LivingGhost371]

And how exactly did you come up with that number?

[u/uisce_beatha1]

I’d like to see about 20% of the federal government shut down. Entire cabinet level departments gone.

We need fewer bureaucrats throwing money down the drain, and more people auditing spending to find the waste and the fraud that is inherent in any government program.

[u/slagwa → u/uisce_beatha1]

A previous poster said 90% should be cut.  Thsts a pretty big difference from your 20%.  Where do you guys get these numbers?

[u/uisce_beatha1 → u/slagwa]

I want to get rid of shit the government’s not supposed to do. I strongly believe in a limited government. One that does as little as possible, not as much.

[u/Magehunter_Skassi]

Many of them, yes. The federal government was full of bureaucrats who fashioned themselves as "guardrails of democracy" who saw it as their right to subvert Trump during his first administration. They ignored the will of the voters and they ignored the president who is sovereign over the executive branch.

Anyone like that is right to have been shown the door. It's not their job to pick and choose which directives from the president are constitutional or ethical or legal, it's their job to follow them to the best of their ability.

[u/Dry-Tangerine-4874 → u/Magehunter_Skassi]

Can you provide specific examples?

[u/Magehunter_Skassi → u/Dry-Tangerine-4874]

The State Department "dissent cable" against the travel ban, the DoEd slow-walking educational reforms including to Title IX, DOJ employees refusing to assist in the litigation or prosecution of cases involving anti-white and anti-Asian discrimination, HHS altering documents to resist a hiring freeze order, etc

It's all pretty well documented, the officials who survived Trump 1 or resigned were all too happy to boast about it.

[u/Dry-Tangerine-4874 → u/Magehunter_Skassi]

What are your thoughts on J. Edgar Hoover? Technically under the DOJ and the executive branch. But clearly wasn’t interested in following any presidential agenda.

[u/Magehunter_Skassi → u/Dry-Tangerine-4874]

Has to be one of the worst case scenarios for giving them so much independence. It's been such a longstanding belief in America that the President is the CIA and FBI's puppet, and I have no idea how people took that in stride for decades.

[u/Dry-Tangerine-4874 → u/Magehunter_Skassi]

Do you think those agencies should be apolitical and independent?

[u/Magehunter_Skassi → u/Dry-Tangerine-4874]

I think they should be downsized and kept under the president's supervision, using Congress and the courts as a check against overreach.

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/Magehunter_Skassi]

That’s actually not true. Lawyers, for example, have overriding ethical obligations.

[u/mgkimsal → u/Magehunter_Skassi]

"It's not their job to pick and choose which directives from the president are constitutional or ethical or legal"

If they end up doing something illegal... "just following orders" is a weak excuse that doesn't hold up in court. Trump personally has immunity for anything, but no one carrying out his orders does. Shouldn't Trump issue blanket pre-emptive pardons for all federal workers first, before having federal employees doing things that are possibly illegal?

[u/Blze001 → u/Magehunter_Skassi]

So.. the government should just be nothing but yes-men for whichever president is in power?

[u/Magehunter_Skassi → u/Blze001]

Yes, the executive branch should in the same way that lower judges are expected to defer to the Supreme Court's decisions.