[reallymental]

All this hullabaloo about trade, tariffs and international relations has really got me thinking about the role of career "diplomats". I know of (peripherally) a few european people who have studied for this as a career, they've spent a lot of time on it (education wise). From far away it seems like a professional-level thing like being a doctor or a lawyer. They spend a lot of time studying, then working at the gov level as a lackey for a few years, then they gain some "contacts" and then... what? They join a "think-tank"? They help draft "policy"?

What's the point of all this? Aren't they all supposed to be just elected officials, and with the help of admin, supposed to just do their jobs?

I know I sound naive, I know it's more than this. I know interpersonal relationships matter and that's what these "contacts" are. But if all this can be thrown away by the actions of the few, what's the point of all this effort? Just simplify the entire structure, slash all this admin to the bare bones and let the people at the top show their competency, instead of the admin covering for them.

[avidiax]

There are many affairs of state that won't be skillfully managed by someone learning on the job every 4-8 years.

You wouldn't replace the entire CIA with political appointees every 4-8 years would you?

The CDC will need people that remember COVID in 30 years, will it not?

Surely, the delegation to Tehran should have some people that speak Farsi and have known their counterparts for 15-20 years, right?

The people at the top can't possibly have institutional knowledge for all the institutions under their control. Even a statesman like George H. W. Bush only has institutional knowledge for one branch of the military and the CIA. Should we have shown his competency in the affairs of the state department, department of energy, education, FBI, etc.?

[reallymental]

Appreciate the reply. I see your argument, I'll have to reframe my statements better.