For me, what a "good" version of DOGE would look like would be purely operating within powers already given to the executive, to perform mostly deregulation. We're talking about stuff maybe the executive shouldn't be doing, but the rules are already in place so someone has to remove them. I don't think it would be unconstitutional to roll back rules imposed by prior administrations under executive authority.
Javier Milei has something like this in Argentina, which I think may have been the inspiration for DOGE - he has a team of economists which were empowered to streamline and eliminate regulations poring over the regulatory code and eliminating roadblocks to private enterprise. There's even a tip line for the citizenry to call into to complain about some regulation that's getting in their way. The economists will investigate and determine if the regulation can be simplified or eliminated.
Thank you for your comment, Theresa. I've been thinking about it, as my essay rests in part on the idea that having the wrong concepts for things matters. I think DOGE is defined by the tech spirit of "move fast and break things" -- which is why it disregarded checks and balances in the US constitution. It viewed them as limiting, rather than as protecting rights and managing disagreements. I think it's hard to redefine DOGE to mean something else. The idea of reviewing rules and regulations to ensure that they promote innovation and protect against abuse seems like a core function of government, one we might call democratic, rather than needing to invoke the illiberalism of DOGE, but I'll keep thinking about this and appreciate your note.
Thanks for the reply! Something else I recall is that Vivek Ramuswammy was supposed to be involved but he quit before Trump took office. My guess is that he had a different vision of what DOGE was supposed to be that was less corrupt and less authoritarian and when he realized what direction Musk was going to take it (that it was going to be a political purge), he decided he didn't want to be involved. In retrospect this seems like a quietly principled and smart move on his part.
Before any of this I wonder if more simple reforms in campaign financing, anti-gerrymandering, and term limits for all offices (including SCOTUS) would not get us along way towards were we need to go. Sadly even these less ambitious reimagining appear beyond our ability as a society and country to enact.
Thank you, appreciate the comment: short answer is I intend the piece to act as a framework in which those items cohere and make sense as a project -- agreeing with you that those elements appear beyond our ability to enact on their own. It makes me think that Americans may encounter an analog to the "sequencing" debate on reform in Eastern Europe in the 1990s -- first political, then legal, then economic? That debate was about capacity and focus but ended up concluding all together, especially when the window of opportunity is brief after an election.
For me, what a "good" version of DOGE would look like would be purely operating within powers already given to the executive, to perform mostly deregulation. We're talking about stuff maybe the executive shouldn't be doing, but the rules are already in place so someone has to remove them. I don't think it would be unconstitutional to roll back rules imposed by prior administrations under executive authority.
Javier Milei has something like this in Argentina, which I think may have been the inspiration for DOGE - he has a team of economists which were empowered to streamline and eliminate regulations poring over the regulatory code and eliminating roadblocks to private enterprise. There's even a tip line for the citizenry to call into to complain about some regulation that's getting in their way. The economists will investigate and determine if the regulation can be simplified or eliminated.
Thank you for your comment, Theresa. I've been thinking about it, as my essay rests in part on the idea that having the wrong concepts for things matters. I think DOGE is defined by the tech spirit of "move fast and break things" -- which is why it disregarded checks and balances in the US constitution. It viewed them as limiting, rather than as protecting rights and managing disagreements. I think it's hard to redefine DOGE to mean something else. The idea of reviewing rules and regulations to ensure that they promote innovation and protect against abuse seems like a core function of government, one we might call democratic, rather than needing to invoke the illiberalism of DOGE, but I'll keep thinking about this and appreciate your note.
Thanks for the reply! Something else I recall is that Vivek Ramuswammy was supposed to be involved but he quit before Trump took office. My guess is that he had a different vision of what DOGE was supposed to be that was less corrupt and less authoritarian and when he realized what direction Musk was going to take it (that it was going to be a political purge), he decided he didn't want to be involved. In retrospect this seems like a quietly principled and smart move on his part.
Before any of this I wonder if more simple reforms in campaign financing, anti-gerrymandering, and term limits for all offices (including SCOTUS) would not get us along way towards were we need to go. Sadly even these less ambitious reimagining appear beyond our ability as a society and country to enact.
Thank you, appreciate the comment: short answer is I intend the piece to act as a framework in which those items cohere and make sense as a project -- agreeing with you that those elements appear beyond our ability to enact on their own. It makes me think that Americans may encounter an analog to the "sequencing" debate on reform in Eastern Europe in the 1990s -- first political, then legal, then economic? That debate was about capacity and focus but ended up concluding all together, especially when the window of opportunity is brief after an election.
I’m not familiar with that debate and need to look into it before I can intelligently reply…always something new to dig into!