From Rebels to Regulators: How Liberals Became the Party of Bureaucracy

When did liberals become defenders of the administrative state rather than skeptics of it?

Why is the Left Now Fighting for the Right to Red Tape?

From Free Thinkers to File Clerks: The Left’s Bizarre Bureaucratic Pivot

The Liberal leadership’s reluctance to tackle federal bureaucracy—despite widespread public agreement that it’s bloated and inefficient—is telling. The simplest explanation? They don’t see it as a problem. Or, more precisely, they don’t see it as their voters’ problem.

---

A NOTE BEFORE WE BEGIN: I write a lot about bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a pillar of modern democratic life—a system designed to ensure fairness, continuity, and accountability. It is the way our elected representative government gets things done. It is the scaffolding upon which much of Western prosperity has been built. But like any powerful tool, when left unchecked or allowed to grow without purpose, it can begin to serve itself instead of the public. Its influence is vast—often far beyond what most citizens imagine—and so it deserves not just our gratitude, but our scrutiny. We need to talk about this power and purpose. Honestly, openly, and urgently.

---

Why the Silence?

There are some concerning reasons why the Liberal party in their convivial policies, shows little concern for the cancerous growth of the federal government over the last ten years.

Bureaucracy is Their Power Base
The federal bureaucracy has expanded dramatically under the Liberals, and much of that growth has been in sectors that align ideologically with the party: regulatory agencies, diversity/inclusion initiatives, climate policy offices, media grants, and various consultant-heavy programs. Cutting the bureaucracy means cutting jobs and influence in sectors that tend to vote Liberal.

They Fear the Bureaucracy More Than the Public
The public may be annoyed with a bloated government, but bureaucrats administer government. Any candidate who starts calling for major cuts risks internal resistance, slow-walking of initiatives, and bureaucratic foot-dragging. Pierre Poilievre may not care about making enemies in the civil service (which he is ill-equipped to take on, and seems unprepared for the challenge) but Liberal leadership hopefuls are unlikely to rock the boat.

No Political Payoff for Them
The people who care most about reducing government waste and inefficiency are generally not voting Liberal anyway. Liberals rely on public sector unions, academics, urban professionals, and progressive-minded voters who often believe in a bigger government presence in daily life. Meanwhile, cost-conscious voters who might cheer a crackdown on bureaucracy are already looking at Poilievre.

They Can’t Admit Trudeau’s Government Was Bloated Without Undermining Their Own Legacies
Any admission that the federal workforce is too big and inefficient is also an admission that Justin Trudeau’s government made a mistake. That’s a tough pill to swallow for many who served in his cabinet or caucus.

Media and Elite Consensus Still Favors Big Government in Canada
While the average taxpayer might be fed up with massive government bloat, the chattering classes in media, academia, and policy circles still mostly believe in the “more government, more solutions” model. Liberal candidates don’t want to be accused of embracing a “conservative” critique of government, even if it’s obviously true.

Will This Change?

Not likely—unless the Liberals get crushed in the election and are forced into a real ideological reckoning. Right now, their leadership feels more like a contest over who can manage continuity with the fewest unforced errors. Admitting that bureaucracy is inefficient and out of control would mean taking responsibility for it and promising real change. And none of them seem up for that fight… at least until after the election.

The Problem: Political Tribalism Over Practicality

There was a time when both classical liberals and progressives shared a healthy skepticism of bureaucracy. From FDR’s streamlining of government operations to JFK’s push for efficiency in public administration, and Bill Clinton’s massive purge of the US federal bureaucracy, each has had an echo in Canada. Most notably, Jean Chretien’s life’s work to bring bureaucracy into check. Liberals often sought a balance—expanding government where needed but ensuring it served the public rather than itself.

Today, however, there is a knee-jerk reaction where anything a conservative figure criticizes must be defended, regardless of its merits. Trump and Musk, as populist disruptors, have pointed to government inefficiency and regulatory bloat, and instead of debating the real problems, many liberals instinctively respond by defending inefficiency itself. Likewise in Canada, Conservatives question the astonishing rise in the cost of government, and liberals, under whose government it happened, go on the defensive.

This creates a toxic feedback loop:

• The more the Right criticizes government waste, the more the Left defends it.

• The more the Left defends it, the more the Right radicalizes its attacks.

• Bureaucracy expands, corruption and waste grow, and the public becomes increasingly cynical about all institutions that spin farther out of anyone’s control.

The View From the UK

A recent study by the polling group More in Common, reported by The Guardian, reveals that leftwing activists in Britain are less inclined to collaborate with political opponents compared to other groups. This faction, termed "progressive activists," comprises about 8-10% of the population and exhibits distinct political behaviors. The study indicates that these activists are more prone to criticize and distance themselves from those holding differing views, often perceiving them as misled. The authors suggest that this insular approach may have inadvertently contributed to the rise of the far right, as it hampers constructive dialogue and understanding across political divides. This tendency to oppose right-leaning positions, potentially for the sake of opposition itself, underscores a broader pattern of leftist support for bureaucratic measures, possibly as a counteraction to right-wing policies.

"two-thirds of (progressive activists) polled said they would never be willing to campaign alongside someone who had voted for Reform, while 46% would not do so alongside Conservative voters."

Proud left supporter Billy Bragg has a different point of view. He wrote,

“Perhaps the authors have genuinely not noticed that everyone who has shown any sign of being a progressive activist has been turfed out of the Labour Party or forced to resign because they can no longer stomach the policies that Starmer is putting forward.”

“Many of us campaigned last year to get what we knew were a bunch of centrist dads elected. We did precisely what this study accuses us of not being able to do. And what did we get for it? Ignored, or worse, purged. In such a climate, being blamed for the rise of the far right is the cherry on the bloody cake!”

Maybe we need to draw this out…

Here’s the old view of the political spectrum with the far left and far right on each end and the middle, well, in the middle. And a new view where it seems like the middle is still in the middle but they are encircled by a radical fringe of all sort that won't move to the centre or engage in any meaningful way with the current democracy, let alone compromise.

Why This is Important… especially to liberals at this moment?

It’s worth noting that Canada is currently not a swing state. It’s a swing country. The next election turns on a voting block that is ready to turn on a dime and vote either Liberal or Conservative based on… you know… which party has the better plan for the country and is best equipped to deal with the problems of the day.

What they are less likely to do is vote for a party or identify with a group that is defined by ideology rather than the free flow of ideas. They - this large centre voting block in Canada - can change their minds based on changing facts, not just be defined and stifled by ideology or opposition. They can compromise, they are hopeful, and they are less sour and bitter about politics than the left - not just in Canada but in the UK, US, and the world too it seems.

THE BEE HAS A POST ABOUT THE CANADIAN SOCIALIST… THE GOOD SOCIALIST.

The Case Against Bureaucratic Bloat (With Data)

1. The Cost of Government Has Exploded

   
   In the U.S., federal spending has doubled in the past 20 years, from $2.7 trillion in 2002 to over $6.3 trillion in 2023.

   
   Yet outcomes haven’t improved proportionally. Roads aren’t twice as good. Schools aren’t twice as effective. Public services aren’t twice as efficient.

2. Bureaucracy Has Outpaced Population Growth

   
   The number of government employees per capita has increased significantly in many Western countries, despite technological advancements that should have made government leaner.

   
   Example: Canada's federal public sector employment has grown 40% since 2015, while population growth was around 10%.

3. Regulatory Burden is Choking Productivity

   
   The U.S. Federal Register, which records new regulations, was 70,000 pages in 1970 and over 185,000 pages today.

   
   Small businesses and entrepreneurs now spend an estimated $1.9 trillion per year complying with government red tape.

   
   The bigger the bureaucracy, the harder it is for individuals and small businesses to succeed.

4. Government Workforces Have Greater Job Security Than Private Workers

   
   In Canada, 99% of government workers keep their jobs each year, compared to a 5-10% annual turnover rate in the private sector.

   
   Public sector unions demand ever-higher salaries and benefits, while private workers must adjust to market conditions.

5. Government Jobs Pay More Than Private Sector Jobs for Similar Work

   
   U.S. federal employees earn approximately 22% more in salary and 48% more in benefits than private-sector workers in comparable positions.

   
   In Canada, government employees earn on average 30% more than private-sector employees when factoring in pensions, benefits, and job security.

---

CASE STUDIES

Bill Clinton (1993–2001) made significant efforts to cut bureaucracy, though he often isn't the first name that comes to mind when discussing government downsizing.

One of his major initiatives was the National Performance Review (NPR), led by Vice President Al Gore. Launched in 1993, the NPR aimed to make the federal government "work better and cost less." It focused on reinventing government by reducing waste, cutting unnecessary regulations, and streamlining agencies. The initiative led to:

• The elimination of 250,000 federal jobs, mostly through attrition.

• A reduction in federal red tape by cutting outdated rules and regulations.

• The consolidation of government agencies and departments.

• Increased use of technology and outsourcing to improve efficiency.

By the end of Clinton's presidency, the federal workforce had shrunk to its smallest size since the Kennedy administration. Despite being a Democrat, Clinton embraced a "Third Way" approach, balancing government efficiency with social spending.

Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister of Canada, 1993–2003) oversaw one of the most significant federal downsizing efforts in Canadian history, making his record comparable to Bill Clinton’s in terms of reducing bureaucracy.

Chrétien came into power during a time of fiscal crisis, with Canada facing soaring deficits and a debt-to-GDP ratio that was spiraling out of control. His government's response was one of the most aggressive deficit-cutting programs ever seen in a developed country.

In 1995, his government launched a Program Review, which re-evaluated the role of the federal government.

It cut federal spending by nearly 20% over three years, including deep reductions in government programs, defense spending, and transfer payments to provinces.

More than 50,000 federal jobs were eliminated, shrinking the government to its smallest size in decades.

---

The Danger of Bureaucracy as a Left-Wing Cause

The historical left-wing case against unchecked bureaucracy was based on the understanding that large, inefficient systems hurt ordinary people. Bureaucracy:

• Drains resources that could be better spent on real improvements (education, healthcare, infrastructure).

• Becomes unaccountable, entrenching a permanent class of administrators whose interests don’t align with those of the public.

• Crushes innovation, as seen in overregulated industries like housing and energy.

Yet today’s liberals have quickly and surprisingly shifted from fighting bureaucracy to defending it, largely because they see government as the primary tool for social engineering rather than a service provider. It could also be about the base - liberal voters could include bureaucrats as a major constituency. In this shift, they risk alienating working- and middle-class people who see government as an obstacle rather than a savior.

Worse, the ultimate risk is that the Liberal Party and the liberal movement are taken over by a wealthy elite bureaucratic class with enough power and votes to basically take over the nation.

IDEAS

Last fall CBC did a wonderful review of Bureaucracy - maybe somewhat ironically given the nature of CBC itself and the way that the IDEAS series has suffered over many years within the CBC bureaucracy.

Bureaumania: A granular look at corporate red tape | CBC Radio

Bureaucracy was supposed to make life simpler but something went wrong. IDEAS takes a blue-sky, ducks-in-a-row, examination into our love-hate (or hate-hate) relationship with corporate red tape: bureaucracy — or what 19th-century philosopher Max Weber termed an “iron cage."

What Happens If This Continues?

If the Left continues reflexively defending bureaucracy simply because Trump, Musk, and other conservatives criticize it, two things will happen:

1. It will fuel further populist revolts. The more people experience government inefficiency firsthand, the more they will seek radical alternatives. This is what led to Brexit, Trump’s election, and other Canadian anti-establishment movements.

2. It will erode trust in all institutions. If defending big bureaucracy becomes a Left-wing loyalty test and article of faith, people will conclude that no one on the left is serious about needed reform.

A Better Alternative: Reform Instead of Reaction

Instead of reflexively defending the status quo, liberals - following past leaders like Chretien and Clinton - should be proactive in reforming government. A practical approach would include supporting:

• Cutting unnecessary middle management in government.

• Streamlining regulatory processes to support small businesses and entrepreneurs.

• Decentralizing bureaucracy so decision-making is closer to local needs.

• Focusing spending on frontline services, not administrative overhead.

Don't Defend the Indefensible

Opposing bureaucratic bloat isn't a conservative or liberal issue—it should be a common-sense issue. The more the Left becomes the party of defending inefficiency, the more they will lose the people who actually interact with government every day. If liberals care about good governance, they must acknowledge problems, embrace reform, and avoid blind partisan reactionism.