HOW LIBERAL ARE BUREAUCRATS?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 6, 2013
• Sequence Number: 38
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
HOW LI
E
UC
AL
ATS?
Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter
DURING THE 1960s AND 1970s the federal
government added several new cabinet
departments and many more new regu-
latory agencies. Among the new agencies were
some, like the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, Occupational Safety and Health Adminis-
tration, and Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, that enjoyed wide-ranging discre-
tionary powers over the whole society instead
of just one industry or sector. At the same time,
a number of sleepy older agencies such as the
Federal Trade Commission and Food and Drug
Administration were being transformed into
aggressive consumer advocates.
Some social critics have asserted that this
expansion has led not only to more government
but also to different government than before.
Stanley Rothman is Mary Huggins professor of
government at Smith College. S. Robert Lichter
is assistant professor of government at George
Washington University. The data on which this
essay is based are from a larger study on Ameri-
can social and political elites, directed by Roth-
man and Lichter and sponsored by Smith Col-
lege, the Research Institute on International
Change at Columbia University, and George Wash-
ington University. The interviews were conducted
by Metro Research, a Washington-based survey
research firm.
16 AEI JOURNAL ON GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY
Declassified and Approved Release 2013/08/06:
They point out that many of the newer regu-
latory agencies (and of the "transformed"
older ones) take a hostile, adversarial attitude
toward those they regulate. The staffers of
these agencies?so the critics charge?are
drawn from the "new class" of intellectuals
and communicators whose political base lies
not in traditional interest groups but in aca-
demia and the media. Accordingly, the new
regulators are said to pursue the ideological
agenda of the liberal left. By contrast, old-line
regulators are said to be much more friendly
with those they regulate?if not actually "cap-
tured" by them.
Is this portrait accurate? Are activist bu-
reaucrats among the shock troops of the new
liberalism that emerged during the 1960s? To
find out, we interviewed 200 top-level admin-
istrators in both the established traditional
agencies and the newer activist ones. For each
agency so defined, we randomly chose names
from the Office of Personnel Management's
List of Senior Executive Service personnel,
after excluding political appointees. Our "tra-
ditional agency" sample consisted of 98 ad-
ministrators from the Departments of Com-
merce, Agriculture, and the Treasury, and the
Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice.
Our "activist agency" sample consisted of 102
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
administrators from the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA), the Federal Trade Com-
mission, Action, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission, the Food and Drug Admin-
istration (FDA), the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and the Justice De-
partment's Civil Rights Division. The interviews
were conducted in 1982, and 85 percent of those
contacted completed the questionnaire.
Our findings give scant support to those
who see the bureaucracy as hostile to business
or other traditional institutions. Senior civil
servants as a whole are indeed somewhat more
liberal than most Americans. However, they are
considerably less disaffected from traditional
American values than their conservative critics
contend. Moreover, while key bureaucrats in
Our findings give scant support to those
who see the bureaucracy as hostile to busi-
ness or other traditional institutions.
the activist agencies are somewhat more lib-
eral than those in the traditional agencies, the
differences are not large enough to explain the
"adversarial" behavior of which businessmen
complain.
Bureaucrats' Opinions?Liberal .
Looking first at social and personal back-
grounds (Table 1), top-level bureaucrats are
overwhelmingly white, male, well-educated,
and well off. Those in activist agencies are
rather more likely to come from high status
families. Five out of ten of them report that
their fathers were businessmen or profes-
sionals, as against four out of ten of the tradi-
tional bureaucrats. Activist bureaucrats are
somewhat more likely than traditionals to
have been raised as Jews, and slightly more
likely to regard themselves as currently non-
religious (36 percent as against 28 percent).
In contrast, over 90 percent of the general pub-
lic describe themselves as having some re-
ligious affiliation.
Furthermore, both groups are far more
likely to classify themselves as political lib-
Table 1
SOCIAL AND PERSONAL BACKGROUNDS
(percent)
Background Traditional Activist Combined
White
95
92
94
Male
96
90
93
From metropolitan area
40
59
50
Father a Democrat
60
55
55
Father a professional
20
28
24
Father a businessman
21
23
22
Parents above average income
31
35
33
Postgraduate degree
74
80
77
Family income $50,000+
99
100
100
Political liberal
48
63
56
Raised in Jewish religion
13
26
20
Current religion "none"
28
36
32
Table 2
PRESIDENTIAL VOTING REQORD, 1968-80
(Percent voting for).
Traditional Activist Combined
1968
Nixon
33
23
28
Humphrey
67
76
72
1972
Nixon
51
35
42
McGovern
47
65
57
1976
Ford
35
24
28
Carter
65
76
71
1980
Reagan
48
27
36
Carter
34
55
45
Anderson
19
18
18
.Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding or votes for minor
party candidates.
erals than is the general public, though activist
bureaucrats do so to a greater degree than
traditional bureaucrats (63 percent compared
with 48 percent). Only 21 percent of the public
as a whole places itself politically left of center.
?The liberal self-identification of bureau-
crats, especially of the activists, translates into
a strong tendency to vote Democratic (Table
2). However, while traditional bureaucrats
favor the Democrats more than the average
voter does, many of them are quite capable of
crossing over to the Republicans. They sup-
ported Humphrey in 1968 and Carter in 1976
by roughly two-to-one margins, but they gave
pluralities to Nixon and Reagan in 1972 and
1980 respectively. Activists show no such in-
consistency. In the 1972 Nixon landslide, nearly
two out of three supported McGovern. And
even Jimmy Carter, who was highly unpopular
in "official" Washington by 1980, won their sup-
port by a margin of two-to-one against Reagan.
By contrast, the general public gave less than
40 percent of its vote to McGovern and just
REGULATION, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1983 17
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
HOW LIBERAL ARE BUREAUCRATS'
40 percent to Carter, compared with 51 percent
to Reagan.
...But Not Radical
Whatever their party preferences, however, ac-
tivist and traditional bureaucrats differ only
moderately in their economic, social, and po-
litical views. As Table 3 indicates, both groups
are liberal reformist, and both are mildly
alienated from some aspects of the system.
Roughly half of both groups believe that gov-
ernment should substantially reduce the in-
come gap between the rich and the poor, and
nearly as many say that government is respon-,
sible for guaranteeing a good standard of liv-
ing for all. On the other hand, more than half
agree that less government regulation of busi-
ness would be good, and about nine out of ten
believe that people with more ability should
earn more. Activists support deregulation of
business to a lesser degree than traditionals
(57 percent versus 66 percent), but only one
of twenty activists believes that government
should take over large corporations.
We asked a series of questions designed
to measure social and political alienation and
got similar results. Eight out of ten members
of both groups believe that private enterprise
is fair to workers, and fewer than one in seven
thinks it would be a good idea for America to
move toward socialism. Fewer than 30 percent
think that American society alienates people,
and a very substantial majority argue that
hard work will lead to financial security, al-
though activists are slightly less optimistic on
this point than traditionals.
On almost all these questions the activist
bureaucrats' views are considerably more sup-
portive of American society than are those of
leading journalists, public interest group ac-
tivists, or the Hollywood elite (TV producers,
writers, and directors).* For example, only
three out of ten public interest group activists
believe that private enterprise is fair to work-
ers, half think that America should move to-
ward socialism, only 18 percent are confident
that hard work leads to financial security, and
almost three-quarters argue that American
society alienates people.
*We cover these groups' views more fully in Public
Opinion, October/November 1981, December/January
1983 (co-author, Linda Lichter), and April/May 1983.
18 AEI JOURNAL ON GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY
On defense issues bureaucrats are rela-
tively dovish. Although majorities of both
groups accept the notion that the CIA might
sometimes need to undermine hostile govern-
ments, neither group would particularly wel-
come a more forceful policy toward the
U.S.S.R., and neither believes in attempts to
achieve military superiority. Except on CIA
questions, activists are more dovish than tradi-
Table 3
ATTITUDES ON SELECTED ISSUES
(oeicent agreeing)
Tradi-
tional
Acti-
vist
Corn-
bined
Economics
Government should substantially
redistribute income
49
55
52
Government should guarantee jobs
33
33
33
Government should take over big
corporations
3
5
4
Government should guarantee a
good standard of living
41
46
43
Less regulation of business is
good for U.S.
66
57
61
People with more ability should
earn more
89
92
90
Social and Political Alienation
U.S. institutions need complete
overhaul
25
16
20
Structure of U.S. society causes
alienation
29
26
27
U.S. legal system favors wealthy
71
80
76
In America hard work leads to
financial security
72
63
67
Private enterprise is fair to workers'
84
80
82
U.S. should move toward socialism
14
14
14
Foreign Policy
We should be more forceful with
the U.S.S.R.
34
27
31
CIA overthrows are sometimes
necessary
57
63
60
Goal of U.S. foreign policy has been
to protect. business
37
49
43
U.S. military should be the strongest
in the world regardless of cost
31
19
25
Disadvantaged Groups
Women should get preference in
hiring
28
40
34
Blacks should get preference in hiring
35
53
44
Blacks are denied education to
advance
45
55
50
Blacks lack motivation to advance
17
13
15
Black gains come at white expense
8
6
7
Poor people are victims of circumstance
48
61
55
Sex and Morality
Woman has right to decide on
abortion
80
82
81
Homosexuals should not teach
in schools
42
25
34
Homosexuality is wrong
54
40
47
Adultery is wrong
69
65
67
Energy and Environment
Environmental problems are serious
68
76
72
We should halt nuclear energy
development
5
2
3
Nuclear plants are safe
58
46
52
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
tionals and also more likely to believe that
U.S. foreign policy is designed mainly to pro-
tect American business.
We found the same pattern of responses
on three sets of questions dealing with dis-
advantaged groups, the new morality of the
1960s, and energy and the environment. Again,
bureaucrats are somewhat more liberal than
the population as a whole and activist bureau-
crats are more liberal than the traditionals.
However, neither group is as liberal as the
media, Hollywood, and public interest group
elites.
Twenty-eight percent of traditional bu-
reaucrats and 40 percent of activist bureau-
crats would give women preference in hiring,
and 35 and 53 percent respectively would do
the same for blacks. Over half of the tradi-
tional bureaucrats and four out of ten activists
believe that homosexuality is wrong, and close
to seven out of ten in both groups believe that
adultery is wrong. Thus, while bureaucrats are
more liberal and cosmopolitan in these areas
than the general public, 85 percent of whom
believe that adultery is wrong, they are rather
more conservative than the media, Hollywood,
and public interest group elites. Less than half
the media and Hollywood elites and only 55
percent of the public interest group elite be-
that adultery is wrong.
Finally, two-thirds of the traditional bu-
reaucrats and three-quarters of the bureau-
cratic activists agree that our environmental
problems are serious. However, this does not
translate into opposition to nuclear energy:
only one in twenty traditional bureaucrats and
one in fifty activist bureaucrats would halt
nuclear development, compared to somewhat
more than half of the general public and al-
most 70 percent of public interest group
leaders.
We also presented key administrators with
the following list of goals for America to pur-
sue in the next decade (the same list we have
used in studying other leadership groups):
? ? Maintaining a high rate of economic
growth.
? Making sure that this country has strong
defense forces.
? Giving people more say in how things
get decided at work and in their community.
? Progressing toward a less impersonal,
more humane society.
Table 4
GOALS FOR AMERICAN SOCIETY
(percent)
Goals
Traditional
Activist
Most
impor-
tant
Least
impor-
tant
Most
impor-
tant
Least
impor-
tant
Strong defense
9
15
11
14
Economic growth
54
6
54
11
Fight crime
2
9
4
7
Humane society
19
13
19
13
Ideas, not money
9
31
6
40
Community participation
7
22
5
16
Totals
Instrumental
65
30
69
32
Expressive
35
666
31
69b
?Adds to less than 100 because of 3 percent nonresponse and rounding
b Adds to more than 100 because of rounding
? Fighting against crime.
? Progressing toward a society where
ideas are more important than money.
Political scientist Ronald Inglehart, who
has offered these same choices to subjects in
America and Europe, classifies concern for
economic growth, national defense, and crime
as traditional "instrumental" values, and con-
cern for a humane society, participation, and
placing ideas above money as "expressive" (or
"post-bourgeois") values that are gaining
strength among new elite groups in industrial
societies. In his research, he found that ex-
pressive values are held by only a small (but
growing) minority of the general population.
Our own research indicates that public inter-
est group and Hollywood elites prefer expres-
sive values by substantial majorities, whereas
businessmen prefer instrumental values by,
about two to one. It is not surprising, in light
of their other responses, that top-level bureau-
crats also choose instrumental over expressive
values by two to one or more. Indeed, activist
bureaucrats are somewhat more likely to do
so than are traditionals.
Thatcher Fans and Times Readers
To supplement the above data, we used three
other measures to tap bureaucrats' percep-
tions of, and agendas for, American society.
First, we asked administrators to indicate,
using a seven-point scale, how much influence
they thought that each of ten leadership groups
actually wields over American life. We then
asked them how much influence they wanted
REGULATION, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1983 19
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
HOW LIBERAL ARE BUREAUCRATS,
each group to have. As Table 5 shows, tradi-
tionals and activists share roughly the same
perceptions and preferences.
In general their rankings follow the liberal
agenda. Both groups of bureaucrats think that
business, the media, government agencies, un-
ions, and the military dominate American so-
ciety and that consumer groups, black leaders,
intellectuals, and feminists have little influence.
Both would like to see intellectuals and con-
sumer groups near the top of the influence
ladder and the military on the bottom, along
with religious leaders. Perhaps most striking
is their view of intellectuals. They would raise
this group, which they see as nearly devoid of
influence today, to the very pinnacle of power.
Such sentiments notwithstanding, how-
ever, both groups of bureaucrats would re-
duce the power of the media far more than
they would reduce that of business, and both
believe that business should remain influential
in American society. This last view sharply
differentiates bureaucrats from the media and
public interest group elites, both of whom
would place business much lower on their pre-
ferred influence list.
We then asked administrators to assess
some highly visible individuals and groups in
the current political environment. Both tradi-
tional and activist bureaucrats, as Table 6
shows, give their highest ratings to John Ken-
neth Galbraith. But Margaret Thatcher is a
surprising second for traditional bureaucrats
and a close third for activists. She receives a
higher rating among traditionals than either
Ralph Nader or Edward Kennedy, and falls
only slightly behind Nader among activists.
While traditionals hold much more favor-
able views of Ronald Reagan than do activists,
neither group was that much out of line with
the views of the general public in 1982 when
we conducted our interviews. Just as signifi-
cantly, Fidel Castro is at the bottom of the list
for both groups, with the Sandinistas ranking
among the bottom three. Once again, it seems
quite clear that top-level bureaucrats are do-
mestic reformers-with, however, some sur-
prising conservative leanings-and that, un-
like many among the public interest group
elite, they are not particularly sympathetic to
leftist revolutionary movements elsewhere.
Finally, we asked top-level administrators
to rank the reliability of thirteen media outlets.
20 AEI JOURNAL ON GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY
Table 5
RANKINGS OF INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP GROUPS
Traditional Activist
Perceived
5.9
5.8
4.5
4.5
4.2
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.0
Media
Business
Government agencies
Labor unions
Military
Consumer groups
Religious leaders
Black leaders
Intellectuals
Feminists
Influence
Business
Media
Government agencies
Labor unions
Military
Consumer groups
Religious leaders
Black leaders
Feminists
Intellectuals
Preferred Influence
Intellectuals
Business
Consumer groups
Government agencies
Black leaders
Labor unions
Media
Religious leaders
Feminists
Military
5.0 Intellectuals
4.8 Consumer groups
4.7 Business
4.0 Government a encies
4.0 Black leaders
3.7 Media
3.7 Labor unions
3.6 Feminists
3.5 Religious leaders
3.0 Military .
5.9
5.8
4.5
4.2
4.2
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.0
4.9
4.7
4.6
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.4
2.9
Note: Rankings are group mean scores on a scale from one (low influ-
ence) to seven (high influence).
Table 6
APPROVAL OF PUBLIC FIGURES AND GROUPS
(pereent approving)
Traditional Activist Combined
J. K. Galbraith
79
81
80
Margaret Thatcher
76
76
76
Ralph Nader
57
80
69
Edward Kennedy
63
68
66
Jeane Kirkpatrick
64
49
56
Andrew Young
64
61
63
Gloria Steinem
56
59
58
Milton Friedman
57
45
51
Ronald Reagan
48
34
41
Sandinistas
20
20
20
Moral Majority
13
4
9
Fidel Castro
6
6
6
Table 7
RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION SOURCES
(Percent rating reliable)
Traditional Activist Combined
New York Times
81
85
83
Public Broadcasting System
80
74
77
Newsweek
69
71
70
Time
65.
73
69
U.S. News & World Report
67
51
59
Washington Post
51
63
57
New York Review of Books
31
39
35
TV Network News
33
36
35
New Republic
23
32
28
National Review
26
23
24
Nation
21
27
24
Commentary
13
27
20
The Public Interest
21
19
20
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
HOW LIBERAL ARE BUREAUCRATS,
Our aim was to obtain some idea of the infor-
mation sources to which they turn in obtain-
ing their perspective on society. The results,
presented in Table 7, are quite in line with our
other findings.
Both traditionalists and activists place the
New York Times at the top of their list. The
quite liberal New York Review of Books re-
ceives high reliability ratings from about a
third of the bureaucrats, far exceeding the
ratings of such conservative and "neoconserva-
tive" journals as National Review, The Public
Interest, or Commentary. (Indeed, most bu-
reaucrats were simply unable to rate the latter
two at all.) On the other hand, both traditionals
and activists see the Nest, York Review as less
reliable than the much more conservative U.S.
News & World Report. Furthermore, tradi-
tional bureaucrats rate National Review higher
than the left-wing Nation or the liberal New
Republic. Interestingly, the Washington Post
receives relatively low marks from both tradi-
tionalist and activist bureaucrats, although the
former are obviously far more disenchanted
with it than the latter.
Adversary Behavior without "Adversary
Culture"
In sum, our findings indicate that top-level
bureaucrats, including those in activist agen-
cies, are not, on the whole, part of an "ad-
versary culture." They come across to us as
liberal and reformist, but not alienated from
American society and not particularly hostile
In general, [top-level bureaucrats, includ-
ing those in activist agencies] describe
themselves as desiring to improve the sys-
tem rather than to change it in funda-
mental ways.
to business. In general, they describe them-
selves as desiring to improve the system rather
than to change it in fundamental ways. Of
course, it is possible that at least some of the
more liberal key administrators left govern-
ment or moved to nonactivist agencies follow-
ing the advent of the Reagan administration.
It might also be argued that more "adver-
sarial" bureaucrats are to be found among
lower-echelon younger personnel who are wag-
ing a sometimes successful war against their
higher-placed colleagues. However, for the top-
level civil servants we interviewed, age is not
an important variable. We found only slight
differences in attitudes between those over and
those under fifty years of age.
Given these facts, how does one account
for the conviction of businessmen and con-
servatives that the bureaucracies of the acti-
vist agencies are hostile to the system? The
liberal reformist tendencies of bureaucrats un-
doubtedly explain it in part. However, other
factors are clearly at work, notably those out-
lined by Eugene Bardach and Robert A. Kagan
(Going by the Book: The Problem of Regula-
tory Unreasonableness, 1982) and James Q. Wil-
son (The Politics of Regulation, 1980). As they
point out, bureaucrats have many masters. They
are responsible to Congress and the political
leadership of the executive branch as well as
to the courts and are very much influenced by
public opinion (especially that of other leader-
ship groups) as it is mirrored in or accentuated
by the media. Serving these masters is a for-
midable task.
For example, Congress presents them with
some regulatory statutes that are extremely
vague, leaving room for substantial bureau-
cratic judgment, and others that are quite re-
strictive, setting ambitious goals in very spe-
cific language. The most famous example of the
latter is the Delaney Amendment, which forbids
any use of a food additive shown to be even a
very weak carcinogen in laboratory animals.
Similarly, the goal of the 1972 Water Pollution
Control Act amendments was to eliminate all
pollution discharges by 1982, without regard
to benefits or costs.
Even where the goals are not so ambitious
and specific, public interest groups can often
count on the courts to support their demand
for interpretations stricter than Congress may
have had in mind. The Clean Air Act is a case
in point. When EPA approved state imple-
mentation plans giving temporary variances
from the 1975 primary air quality targets for
certain pollution sources, the National Re-
sources Defense Council sued the agency and
won.
Rather than being bold adventurers who
seek to build empires or rigid ideologues who
REGULATION. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1983 21
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
? I.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5
HOW LIBERAL ARE BUREAUCRATS)
wish to harass the business community, ad-
ministrators are more likely to err on the side
of caution, as Bardach-Kagan and Wilson point
out. They may want to increase the size of their
division or department, but not at great risk.
For them, the fear that an approved substance
may turn out to harm a few individuals has
far more impact, because of the way the media
tend to report such issues, than the loss of
possible widespread benefits from less rigid
regulations. This is where appropriate leaks
to the press by more ideologically committed
colleagues can play an important role. Pity the
bureaucrat who is charged with having "sold
out" to business when all he or she did was
to write a rule that sought to balance estimated
costs and benefits.
The evidence we gathered would seem to
support the argument that much of the
"unreasonable" behavior of activist
bureaucrats is defensively rather than
ideologically motivated.
The evidence we gathered would seem to
support the argument that much of the "un-
reasonable" behavior of activist bureaucrats
is defensively rather than ideologically moti-
vated. This would explain their perception of
the media's power and their hostility to jour-
nalists.
It is true that activist bureaucrats over-
whelmingly approve of Ralph Nader. But that
approval is not quite as strong as it might seem.
In evaluating individuals or social movements,
respondents could choose one of five categor-
ies, ranging from strong disapproval through
strong approval. Only 20 percent of our acti-
vist bureaucrats strongly approve of Ralph
Nader. In comparison, 25 percent strongly ap-
prove of Margaret Thatcher.
Aside from liberal ideology and defensive
posture, there are other factors that help ex-
plain the behavior of bureaucrats in the newer
health and safety agencies. Different regulatory
agencies attract different kinds of experts. For
example, administrators with backgrounds in
public health gravitate toward EPA and the
FDA, while the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration attracts those trained in safety
22 AEI JOURNAL ON GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY
design. The professional norms of health ex-
perts emphasize extreme caution in dealing
with potential toxic substances, and safety ex-
perts are likely to choose expensive engineering
solutions for industrial safety problems rather
than solutions that stress worker education,
health screening, or the use of personal pro-
tection devices (such as industrial earmuffs in
noisy areas). While neither group of bureau-
crats is hostile to business, both are less con-
cerned with cost-benefit analyses than are, say,
economists.
Another factor, of course, is the increased
litigiousness of our society and the growing
role for lawyers within government, which en-
courages the proliferation of formal?some-
times rigid?rules at the expense of more flexi-
ble enforcement. Finally, above and beyond all
this, Americans now are more aware of possi-
ble environmental dangers than they were sev-
eral decades ago and more Confident that
government can eradicate these dangers with-
out seriously lowering living standards. While
this confidence has been abetted (sometimes
unwittingly) by the media, it has deeper roots
and can easily lead to overreaction when a
problem is discerned.
While our data indicate that activist bu-
reaucrats are more liberal than the general
run of high-level civil servants, we would not
conclude that they necessarily affirm the more
extreme policies to which businesses and regu-
latory reformers object. They are struggling to
implement a broad range of new activities,
mandated by Congress and often promoted by
articulate segments of the population, at a time
when faith in business and government is low.
It is not surprising that they are attacked by
those they supposedly protect for being too
lenient (or even corrupt) and by those they
regulate for being hostile or irrational.
Thus the adversary character of many
agencies is, as Wilson and Bardach-Kagan con-
clude, not primarily a function of a new breed
of bureaucrats. Rather it reflects important
changes in American culture as well as in
American social structure, including broad
shifts in the patterns of power and influence
that characterize the society. While bureau-
cratic reforms might mitigate some of the
worst aspects of "bureaucratic unreasonable-
ness," the present pattern is unlikely to change,
unless America itself changes once again. ?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/06: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300080038-5