## Notes from 04 August 2025 [[2025-08-03|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-08-05|Next note →]] Today I read a [piece](https://stateleadership.substack.com/p/icymi-unelected-bureaucrats-are-undermining) suggested by the [[State Leadership Initiative (SLI)]]. that caught my attention for how it frames a relatively coherent (though ideologically charged) critique of the influence that professional associations have over public policy in US states, including Republican-governed ones. Their core argument is that sector-specific organizations (the kind that bring together state finance officers, health secretaries, transportation officials, and so on) have gradually become channels for progressive agendas, all under the banner of "good governance" or "best practices". These groups, by defining standards and procedures, are said to exert quiet but powerful influence on policymaking, regardless of which party controls a given state. From their perspective, this is both a result of intentional progressive strategy and conservative neglect. They call on red states to be more deliberate in occupying these institutional spaces to prevent what they see as ideological capture. More than that, they advocate for building alternative institutions that are “politically neutral”, though what they really mean is free from progressive influence. Setting aside the obvious ideological filters in the piece (some points are valid, others rely on strawmen) what really stuck with me was the issue of _[telos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos)_ (em grego _τέλος_, e que pode ser traduzida como "fim", "propósito", "finalidade"). These organizations are often founded with a specific, technical mission, and they earn legitimacy by sticking to it. But over time, they begin to accumulate agendas. A voluntary association that once existed to standardize budget reporting, for example, might take on DEI initiatives, climate risk frameworks, social equity goals, and more. It's not that these aims are inherently bad, but when a body starts taking on _everything_, it stops serving its original purpose. That kind of [[Every policy objective, all the time, all at once|policy accumulation]] (or what some call _policy cludge_) becomes problematic, especially in organizations that are supposed to provide clarity and focus for administrative functions. What's striking is how dynamic and well-funded [[Nationalist-Conservative Right|this contest]] is in the US. I learned about the [Bradley Foundation](https://www.bradleyfdn.org/), which backs various conservative governance experiments. One example is the [State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF)](https://sfof.com/), which describes itself as a forum for treasurers and auditors to promote fiscally responsible policy. They host national meetings, push for free-market principles, and present themselves as guardians of financial integrity. But [critics argue](https://sfofexposed.org/) that they’re central to campaigns against ESG investing and operate much like the [American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)](https://alec.org/), building state-level capacity for a specific ideological project (and just to state the obvious: they’re not apolitical). What this all reinforces for me is that political power isn’t only about who wins elections, it’s about who shapes the infrastructure that defines what’s seen as “good policy”. These battles happen in quiet places: meeting rooms, conference calls and procedural documents. But the outcomes shape the day-to-day operation of government. At the same time, this made me think about the importance of [[Institutional Neutrality and Intellectual Pluralism|institutional neutrality]] not in the sense of being without values, but as the ability to host pluralism. Some spaces _must_ be neutral to function. Universities, for example, have been wrestling with this question: how to be pluralistic, how to protect freedom of inquiry while ensuring no one worldview dominates. But this principle doesn’t only apply to universities. It’s just as crucial for other organizations, especially those whose job is to coordinate between people with different political, social, or professional perspectives. If the institution itself takes sides, it breaks down the trust that makes cooperation possible. People need to know that the table they’re sitting at is stable, that the structure holding them isn’t subtly tipping the conversation in one direction.