mattnewport:

Incidentally, your theory sounds quite similar to Yes Minister.

Oh, yes! In full seriousness, while the plot and dialogue in that series are exaggerated for comic effect, it depicts the structure of modern governments with more essential accuracy than probably any academic work of political science.

There's a good reason for it. The series was vaguely based on the published diaries of Richard Crossman, who might be the only modern-age politician who published an unadorned day-to-day diary of his work instead of a customary auto-hagiography of the sort we usually get from politicians.

Here's the opening passage of his diaries (with the source of the legendary "Yes, Minister" title highlighted by me):

I was appointed Minister of Housing on Saturday, October 17th, 1964. Now it is only the 22nd... and already I realize the tremendous effort it requires not to be taken over by the Civil Service. My Minister's room is like a padded cell, and in certain ways I am like a person who is suddenly certified a lunatic and put safely into this great, vast room, cut off from real life and surrounded by male and female trained nurses and attendants. When I am in a good mood they occasionally allow an ordinary human being to come and visit me; but they make sure that I behave right, and that the other person behaves right; and they know how to handle me. Of course, they don't behave quite like nurses because the Civil Service is profoundly deferential - 'Yes, Minister! No, Minister! If you wish it, Minister!' and combined with this there is a constant preoccupation to ensure that the Minister does what is correct. The Private Secretary's job is to make sure that when the Minister comes into Whitehall he doesn't let the side or himself down and behaves in accordance with the requirements of the institution. It's also profoundly true that one has only to do absolutely nothing whatsoever in order to be floated forward on the stream...