♪ i have a wonderful guest, how are you professor. i am fine thinking mark. i have known you for 25 years. you are an expert. on what they call the swamp which is the ministry of state, your professor university nevada reno, you've written extensively your recent book unmasking the administrative state, the crisis of american politics and the 21st century. what is the administrative

state? >> well you ministry of state is such a pervasive phenomenon that most people think of as the bureaucracy but it's really much more pervasive than that but it is not only established as an indian institution that are created by government but it also has authority that you could call rational authority that allows politicians to defer to the authority and relieve them of making political decisions that they need to make about things like making laws. when congress delegates laws to bureaucracies it is no longer deliberative. it is no longer doing what lawmaking was intended to do which was public liberation about how it is that the laws are going to be made for the

people and that requires compromise. that is what public reasoning is. for congress to give that up is terrible thing for democracy. because then, especially bodies that use the so-called expert or rational authority to make rul rules. >> let's start at the beginning and the federal level, state level, even the local level at these days. their administrators and your point is, there also policymakers, lawmakers because all this power is delegated to them by the legislative branch and so comes between we the people in the representatives. so we have this army and the

people at the brokers he are those who are trained in the universities in certain specialized errors it is really batista of the minister state it is utilized by government in one form or another. it takes on more and more decision-making and life, the bureaucracy. those decisions are put into the hands of democrats.

mark: by sieps, you're mostly talking about political science, behavior science, social science, in other words the progressive ideology. >> right. right. mark: and it's very interesting. i haven't thought about that a you're pointing out, which is in many way ways, the bureaucracy n extension of universities and

colleges. >> that's right. mark: and so the kind of, may i say, pablen, indoctrination that takes place in the classrooms, most on the left or progressive or worse, that permeates our bureaucracy. >> yes, it does. mark: where in the constitution did the framers of the constitution create, establish the authority for this massive bureaucracy? >> there's absolutely no authority for the administrative realm in the constitution. every authority that is in the constitution is a political authority. so it derives either from the legislative, tech tif or executr judicial power. every government has to have an administration obviously. but the administration that we have now, the reason it's

sometimes called rational administration is not merely carrying out the political will, it's establishing its own authority to carry out -- to deal with problems that those who have political authority are no longer dealing with. they've, in a certain way, turned those over to those who have special knowledge. >> given the university mind-set. given the self perpetuation of the bureaucracy. it needs to survive, thrive, expand, devour, if you will. >> right. mark: it benefits mostly which ideology versus another and which party versus another? >> there's no question that this is all part of the progressive legacy. the progressive legacy was to establish, really, a modern administrative or rational state.

and that meant, of course, then, that the problems of society would be solved by expert knowledge, not social institutions. it's meant really to replace civil society, these structures. and in a certain way that goes -- that extends all the way down almost to the family. that every other kind of social organization that once dealt with the problems that are now handled by bureaucracies, all of those things have been turned over, you might say, to professions, to expert knowledge. mark: now you've used the word experts, professional, rational. that doesn't mean they're truly experts in human nature. it doesn't mean they're truly rational because they can't possibly know everything that's going on. and it doesn't mean they really know what they're doing, right? these are titles that kind of

assigned themselves, right? >> those are credentials that give them the authority for that. that is not the same as knowledge. and of course in terms of say the american founders, there would have been no substitute for making these moral decisions based on human reason. there's no way that you can delegate that to some other body. and that's why there was no awe oautonomous or independent place for administration. administration was merely the practical way of carrying out the political decisions. so from their point of view politics is about thinking about these questions through reason. the moral questions are not answered by scientists. in order to get scientific authority, you had to separate factual knowledge, empirical

knowledge and value knowledge. but for them, what they call -- they didn't call it value knowledge. they called it -- these are principles. these are virtues. and these are objective sources of authority. so you could never separate those two. mark: and really there is a clash, isn't there, between the principles in the declaration of independence and the principles that undergird our constitution and the progressive ideology, the progressive agenda and this massive admi administrative stae that ballooned up and has ballooned up ever since, isn't that right? >> oh, yeah. and i think the greatest growth was really in the great society, period. mark: lbj. >> lbj, yeah, the '60s.

that's when you had a political turning point. at that point congress itself changed the way it did business. it ceased being primarily a law making body and became an administrative oversight body. and that made it much more difficult than ever to reestablish political rule. >> what happened in the '60s and '70s? >> what was happening, of course under roosevelt, one of the reasons that the administrative state did not expand is because ruch of roosevelt's tenure wowz wawaswar making. a traditional activity. so the expenditures, the kinds of categories of expenditures that were in place say 1945, if you took the budget in any decade prior to 1945, you would see that most of the national

government's expenditures had to do with security, national security, defense, et cetera, et cetera. what changed after roosevelt, of course the war ended, is we started getting new kinds of categories of expenditure, social spending. started getting health, education, welfare. and by the way, that was not even started by the democrats. that was eisenhower that created the first hew. that changed the nature of how it is that congressmen could look at spending. before you always had congressmen that were concerned about too much spending. there was always a concern with keeping spending within reasonable limits. but once you could connect dollars to votes, after the '50s -- and i don't think it happened -- it wasn't a -- the great expansion wasn't under eisenhower. the great expansion was in the next decade, after the '64

election. and from '64 to '75 or so, there you saw a fundamental transformation of the institutions. congress reorganized itself in 1970, started expanding its staff. it ceased dealing with the big questions of law making and started acting like little executive. every office was its own executive oversight body of some part of the executive branch bureaucracy. so there was no place where you could say that there was deliberation on what the common good is, what the public good is. that's supposed to happen in congress. and of course once they broke the bureaucracy down, what they did, of course, is they expanded committees, subcommittees, gave chairman manships -- this is

during the '70s primarily but extended further. and they gave great oversight control over the elements of those executive branch bureaucracies that were of concern to their constituents or the interest. >> when i come back i want to ask you, who makes most of the laws in this country? congress or the bureaucracy? and who works for whom? don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, most weeknights you can watch me on levin tv, levin tv. you can join us by going to blazetv.com/or give us a call at 844-levin-tv. and don't forget, the number one book in america, hottest book right now, "unfreedom of the press." get your copy. we'll be right back. ♪

ue psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. but i can tell you liberty mutual customized my car insurance so i only pay for what i need. oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

don't just dream book your next vacation.. ♪ be a booker at booking.com

♪ ♪

professor john moreeny. every two years you vote for a member of the house. every so often you vote for a

senator. four years you vote for president of the united states. and yet there's this thing out there that the people can't touch. that people have no control over. that people don't even know who run these various departments in the senior levels of the civil services. smft there's a civil service to protect them. there's a union to protect them i guess from us. how do you define this? i mean this isn't representative government. it's not, it's not even democracy which you and i would have difficulty with. what is this? >> well, i think it is a government now that is organized around various interests, who have become really petitioners to washington. and you talked about lobbyists. if you're well-organized at the national level, it doesn't matter whether your social interest, religious interest, economic interest, scientific

interest, it doesn't matter. you can have input in washington. you can have input through the way in which these bureaucratic structures affect the various things that you do. if you're an economic interest, you have some ability then to influence the bureaucracies that make the rules that regulate your industries. >> is that why since the 1960s you have an explosion of lobbying firms? >> of course. >> and you got the chamber of commerce, this group, that group and another group because all attention is focused now on washington and even more so on the bureaucracy. >> right. >> because the average person out there has no idea who's doing what. >> no. and the government works perfectly well for organized interest. and to get to your point, if you went to washington before 1964, you would have found no real lobbying in washington by any of

the interests because the federal -- the state still regulated -- if you were a business in california you lobbied sacramento, new york albany. when you centralize administration there's only one place you need to lobby and that's washington. and everybody is there. >> this is very interesting. so when you hear people like bernie sanders on lr elizabeth warren or the others go on and on about we need free college tuition, we need to wipe out college loans, we need centralized single payer health care, everything more and more government, more and more government, isn't it true, then, that what you're exand thing is not representative government. you expanding the bureaucracy because you're going to need for departments, more offices, more bureaucrats to tell ernie in

peoria and sally in albany becaushowthey're going to live r lives. >> yeah. there's no way around it. once you establish rational rule over political rule, the more you expand government that's what you're doing, expanding bureaucratic rule. the real problem of our time is we don't have the ability for people to participate in their own political rule as citizens. it's gotten so difficult that citizens don't even know that they're a part of a country. you have to tell people that this is a country. there's borders and all of the things that make up a country that make people know that they are part of the leg operate of that country and really matter of the sovereign. the people are sovereign under our constitution. they don't know any of that anymore. so, in my view, what has to happen is you cannot reconcile rational rule and political

rule. mark: by rational rule you mean basically masterminds. >> right. mark: telling you what's rational. >> everything is treated uniformly by a formula that's established in one way or another that purports to have some kind of expert knowledge behind it. and so the problem with that is, of course, that you turn that kind of decision-making over to people who are unaccountable, who, thatted that as you said,e electorate has no access to, you have a close relationship that develops between those who are regulated -- the interest, i mean. whether it's economic or social interest. because there's plenty of money generated in a country like this. and there's a benefit. the reason why people centralize and why they become petitioners

in washington is because they can either get subsidies, they can get tax breaks. there are ways of dealing -- mark: smoother their competition. >> sure. mark: let me ask you this. how does any of this benefit individual liberty? >> i think it has the opposite effect. it makes it very difficult for people to live lives, free lives as individuals, as social, as social citizens, in other words in civil society institutions, churches, all kinds of associations that are nonpolitical, nongovernmental. those kinds of associations have been co-oped really -- mark: let me cut to the chase. what you are describing to me, is really a soft form of a slow-growing tea tyranny.

>> that's right. mark: is that true? >> i'll tell you how i got interested in. this. when i first started writing this question about bureaucracy, i was intressed in it from the point of view of view of what is centralized administration. and he said centralized administration is the form that democratic societies are going to have to fear. and the term administrative state, when i first started writing about it, i calls called it administrative centralizati centralization, which that's the form of democratic tyranny. now, as it came to be, by the end of the 1980s, into the 1990s when i wrote that politics of budget control, it was subtitled "congress, presidency and the growth of the administrative state." that has become a concept that was beginning to be used in political science. that's the only reason that i

started using administrative state. i had always called it what i was doing, administrative centralization. but that's the apt description of it. mark: professor, you've written this excellent book unmasking the administrative state. when we come back i want to ask you, is there anything that we can do about this. we'll be right back. ♪

>> while headquarters. the 2020 democrat of candidates for the fox poll out today, joe biden and senator bernie sanders still holding a lead in the head-to-head matchup with president trump. the poll showing president trailing senators and people to judge having a slim lead over mr. trent. american golfer gary woodland wins the u.s. open, the first ever major title. he was the back nine pressure up will enter people beach company. and for three shot tree, he shot to under 69 to become the fifth player to break somebody in all four rounds at the u.s. open. tiger woods tied for 21st place. now back to life, liberty and

levine. mark: professor marine, what you are talking about is a fundamental reformation of how congress conducts itself, the last 50 years it has on board from its constitutional results bully, oversized, keep spending and spending and borrowing and borrowing. but it is a legislative body. isn't it true that the bureaucracy is a legislative body? that we really have no relationship of the bureaucracy? that is what the progressive woman has already been about, talking about we the people can impact it's about controlling we the people, uniformity, centrality, mastermind, claim to have all the rational cancers and so forth, what can be done about this? >> that is a great problem. how do you get congress to

reinstitute what the central power is. the law making power. it is always complaining about congress and the imperial executive for the imperial judiciary but the fundamental power of government is lawmaking. the most powerful branch is going to be congress. why would a branch of government advocate the power? that of course is the perks that are derived from delegating power to a bureaucracy. as to relieve them responsibility and accountability. mark: let me take a swing at this, there might be another reason. if you're a person of lots, to support big government, the best way is to dub this massive

branch of government so that donald trump is elected or conservative or republic or somebody who is not you, they will resist this bureaucracy in the efforts of a president when it comes to immigration or something of that sort and more of a placeholder from your mentality so the next election if you win you can advance your agenda and expand the bureaucracy so another words, you win if you lose an election, you win if you win an election, he support the national popular vote if you win an election and he support the bureaucracy and judges if you lose. >> i think that's exactly right. there's no great incentive once a progressive idea establishing this administrative state, it was always a win-win situation. what i was suggesting is, congress is a body does not think of itself as an

institution or act as a body anymore. that is the first requirement that every member of congress and the leadership of congress has to think in terms of the institutional as well as a constitutional function. they have given that up and that has played into the hands of those who have wanted to have a complete developed administrative state. once that has happened and you get what we have. you get members of congress. >> both parties. >> both parties, right. there is no incentive for anybody in washington who has grown accustom to help businesses conduct in washington over the last 50 years which of course, works to the benefit of everyone who is here and by the way, not just the institutions of government, but i would say all of the knowledge industry

that is established, the lobbyist, media, everything in the washington bubble. >> including, liberal and conservative think tanks. >> let me ask you this, is this one of the reason is not the primary reason while under why they are piling on donald trump. he is not one of them, their entrenched, establishment and maybe different poly under parties and ideologies, but same mindset when it comes to protecting what is theirs, their power. >> trump that from the very beginning when i saw it, i said this guy is a danger to this establishment into the whole washington establishment. partly because he is not an academic, he's not an intellectual, he does not have expertise in those areas where you define excess, abstractly.

>> from a government perspective. >> and from the point of view of what your theoretical argument or your abstract idea in solving a particular problem for somebody like trump you've made your success by the outcome, whether this works or doesn't work. and that's not the way washington has worked for decades. you accept the outcome that whoever has the power to make the decisions because the people that stand behind the power or those who have suppose a knowledge, my concern in recent years that it is not clear to me that organized knowledge would be initial knowledge, is genuine knowledge about politics. i think in fact, it is made harder to understand politics by the obstructions that they've created that is made it very difficult to understand

politics, common sense and a practical point of view which is the way the american founders would have. mark: you like trump? >> i don't know him at all but i like what he's doing. i saw it right from the beginning if he does what he looked like he was doing he will be the first person to be political since reagan. mark: political and the positive sense? >> yes. in trying to get people to participate in their own government. not the people who are the class that participate. what we have right now, americans are spectators to politics, but whether your anybody in washington, participating in a certain way and public life, they don't make all the great decisions but they're not spectators the way american citizens are, you have no say you are not asked, there

are opinions about things. mark: you seem to be said the president trump is attempting to bring the stranglehold of this establishment whether it be in the media, democrat party, republican party or bureaucracy and through the way he manages, talks, the things that he wants to do. which is why they are ganging up on him. is that right? >> that is right. and think about it, when he looks at politics from the point of view of a citizen, from the point of view of what the common good, public good is. and i think he's right in thinking this. that so many in washington refused to take the interest of the country first, your office, when you remember of any governmental entity that is

created under the constitution, you have an office that is obligated to the sovereign which is the people of this country. you don't have a right when you get into office to do whatever he feeling doing. and that is precisely what they'll do. they go in thinking that i'll do what i feel like doing. mark: and he says no you won't, he tries to enforce that. we'll be right back. just listen. (vo) there's so much we want to show her. we needed a car that would last long enough to see it all. (avo) subaru outback. ninety eight percent are still on the road after 10 years. come on mom, let's go! omar, check this out.

uh, yeah, i was calling to see if you do laser hair removal. for men. notice that my hips are off the ground. [ engine revving ] and then, i'm gonna pike my hips back into downward dog. [ rhythmic tapping ] hey, the rain stopped. -a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. -tell me about that dental procedure again! -i can still taste it in my mouth! -progressive helps keep you out there. -i can still taste it in my mouth! if you have moderate to little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.

otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. ♪ you want a fresh-smelling home, but some air fresheners use heavy, overwhelming scents. introducing febreze one; a new range of innovative air fresheners with no heavy perfumes that you can feel good about using in your home to deliver a light, natural-smelling freshness. febreze one neutralizes stale, stuffy odors and releases a subtle hint of fragrance like bamboo or lemongrass ginger. to eliminate odors with no heavy perfumes, try new febreze one. brand power. helping you buy better.

amount in fact they attack him because of the communication and twitter with get around her. he is kryptonite to them. right? he is pointing out all the soft spots. thank you not get anything done in congress. he wants to rain and records, he recognizes sirens he, he wants a strong defense, these are all things that establish has undermined over the decade. >> that is right. i think one of the reasons he had to address the american people directly, not through the media is because the media is also an important part of the washington establishment, it establishes how it is what people know what is going on in washington. in a sense it is in charge of

the national conversation. mark: how is it doing? >> how is it doing? he had to in a certain way delegitimize the media from the start. he knew, i don't know if you do extinct billy, but he knew the public opinion is crucial in a democracy. in public opinion is in the hand of expert class. in trying to address the american people he has to appeal to them as a whole. and he has to appeal to them as good as a whole. he even did not run in the way

all candidates have been running in the last 30 or 40 years by breaking down the electric into selective groups. he ran trying to get everyone to vote. and yet they tried to portray him as he was divine. mark: that's a very interesting point. they try and paint him as the great divider and when you listen to the candidates from the left from the democrat party, they break down the economic groups, racial groups, based on genitalia and whether your young person or an elderly person and your point is, trump does not see the world as a. >> no he doesn't. the only way a liberal kind of a ministry of state can exist because there is no way of establishing either the rule of law for the common good when you

have broken down government weightings. what you have to do, you have to be groups, you have to establish morality in groups. the whole political theory for thousands of years about justice was about establishing a common good. there could be no way of establishing a partial good. and yet, what is all of these groups but establishing in trying to establishing a moral authority for fashions. mark: exactly what the founders were fearful of which is why they set up a republican not a direct marketing. and what they said constitution divides power and federalism in all these different things against centralized power and factional power.

the mobs. >> included the separation of powers, that is another thing that is been destroyed by the ministry of state. mark: don't forget, almost every weeknight you can catch me on the bin tv, we would love to have you over there. you can sign-up by calling 844 leaven tv, 844 leaven tv or go to blazetv.com/mark. in unfreedom in the press, inc. to you. i will expect them to read this as cnn. we'll be right back i switched to liberty mutual, because they let me customize my insurance. and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything,

like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ applebee's new loaded chicken fajitas. now only $10.99. that have made the rx crathe leading luxury suvogy

of all time. lease the 2019 rx 350 for $399/month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

mark: this is your great book, unmasking the administrative state, the crisis of american politics in the 21st century. i don't do book shows here, but this is very important and very relevant to what is going on today. if one of these democrats get elected president of the united states who keeps talking about expending government on behalf of the united people and they're talking about expanding the elected government undermining the role under article one of

the congress, giving more power to unelectable aircraft, growing to bureaucracy, people listen touch with the government than ever before. are they pushing ally into deception, not just the economics, healthcare fraud, but their fundamentally altering the constitutional contract. >> yes, i think the undermining what self-government is. our constitution was a constitution that enabled the people to govern themselves and to participate in the government of others. of course, that meant that you had to be capable of participating in political life and what you have seen is slowly removing people from participation in political life. and by giving the more things, by giving them more supposedly

whatever it is that entices them to abandon their own desire for self government or freedom. all you are doing is imposing a form of soft despotism. mark: is also the fact that their decentralized in the decision is ambiguous, isn't that really the driving force dividing a society? it is one thing you're making decisions in your own life and own community, but to have a handful of people empowered by this bureaucracy, controlling massive bureaucracy, telling people what to do, how to do it, when to do it isn't to impart creating this division because there's no work to let off steam, nowhere to go, your under the iron fist. >> i think the problem here, in

principle when you look at it in the way huge is described, when you take these things and you obstruct them, you universalize them, the future and one of the great difficulties of the future will be to prevent globalization from establishing uniform global you're a supreme the nation itself is a threat to this kind of ration. mark: the international organizations led by god knows who, imposing the wealth on a society so you have now bypassed the whole constitutional contract, like on climate change deals or deals of that sort. we'll be right back low battery sound.

do you want a charge? yeah battery charging. ♪ ♪

thank you so much. battery charging. ♪ too many people a restless night's sleep. there's a better choice. aleve pm.

the only one to combine a safe sleep aid and the 12-hour pain-relieving strength of aleve. that dares to last into the morning. so you feel refreshed. aleve pm. there's a better choice. can't see what it is yet.re? what is that? that's a blazer? that's a chevy blazer? aww, this is dope. this thing is beautiful. i love the lights. oh man, it's got a mean face on it. it looks like a piece of candy. look at the interior. this is nice. this is my sexy mom car. i would feel like a cool dad. it's just really chic. i love this thing.

it's gorgeous. i would pull up in this in a heartbeat. i want one of these. that is sharp. the all-new chevy blazer. speaks for itself. i don't know who they got to design this but give them a cookie and a star. that i won the "best of" i casweepstakes it. and i get to be in this geico commercial? let's do the eyebrows first, just tease it a little. slather it all over, don't hold back. well, the squirrels followed me all the way out to california! and there's a very strange badger staring at me... no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. uh-huh, where's the camel? "mr. big shot's" got his own trailer. ♪ wheeeeeee! believe it! geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance. mark: professor you say donald trump really is unique in modern history, how he approaches the federal divide that we will call

it but in the next, ten, 20 years ucs pushing away back towards constitution republicanism or ucs getting worse and worse? >> if you can mobilize in the sense of getting people to understand the extent to which they have been deprived of their own ability to participate in political life, you cannot stop that once it becomes apparent people. >> there was no way that the american people could participate in political life. the president is a start. i said from the beginning, if trump succeeds that is just a

start. it took us a hundred years ago. mark: see you next time on life, liberty and levin ♪ ♪ >> welcome to waters were, i'm jesse watters. the biden stop, that tonight's subject. oil by did the media hide biting, before he even spoken i will, cnn had their speech on the screen this way, biden to eviscerate and i was speech today. sometimes it's hard to know where the biden campaign ends and begins. he did not eviscerate trump, and the media knows it. that is why his name was nowhere to be seen the next day. here is biden boring the crowd to death.