While I saw many people I used to be aligned with abandon one principle after another in order to defend Trump, I also thought something must be fundamentally wrong in their judgment to make him into some kind of hero. If they are so obviously wrong about him - for example, claiming that he's motivated by deep and pure patriotism, or that he's exposing "corruption" - what else have they been wrong about?
That question prompted me to reexamine views I had shared with those people. If my own worldview doesn't align with that of someone who is so clearly psychopathic and devoid of conscience, how much do I have in common with those who will defend absolutely anything he does, and who regard his critics as evil?
One subject I started to rethink was the "administrative state," or more specifically, the conservative hostility to it. I noticed that some valid criticisms of bureaucracy - or the "deep state" - were being rather cynically wielded to delegitimize any restraints on the power of Dear Leader, or any impediments to the agendas of his allies. Then, the reckless, callous, often dishonest way that Trumpers are going about deconstructing the administrative state makes it difficult to believe that there's a thoughtful and moral program behind it - just as it's very difficult to believe that a thoughtful, moral purpose would ever choose Donald Trump as its champion.
This is not an "unplanned experiment" that this administration is currently undergoing that will eventually lead to a dysfunctional government. This is missing the forest for the trees. The goal is not to make government cheaper.
The goal and intent of actors currently in power seems to be explicitly to render the government dysfunctional so as to bring about a collapse of the Federal Government. The plan would be to eliminate the government completely and replace it with a 'Network State', which is loosely based on Libertarian ideas but with a Tech oligarchy twist:
The effects are far reaching and would occur outside of the established frameworks of democratic and republic's institutions. See this Youtube video for a primer ("Trump's 'Freedom Cities'? A Tech Blueprint to Dismantle the USA"):
“State capacity libertarianism.” I like the concept, but the execution is fraught with unsettling implications, as the government we have now demonstrates. One could make a fair argument that the Constitution itself is a framework for state capacity libertarianism. But no honest person would deny that “capacity” has been stretched and abused so as to be unrecognizable as any form of restraint. As they say, the devil is in the details. But I have very little confidence in the ability of the government to restrain itself to optimum size for efficiency and liberty.
P.S. “Apolitical professional bureaucrats?” Please. Are we supposed to take that seriously? In theory, perhaps, it sounds good. But if this was anyone but Trump, I doubt you would be extolling the “virtues” of our current bureaucracy. And a unionized federal bureaucracy is anything but apolitical. Budgets and bureaucracies grow, often very very wastefully. Where are the guardrails against that in “state capacity libertarianism”?
P.P.S. Regarding the DMV, being too small may be inefficient, but that’s not inherently intrusive. But it’s an illustration of another truism: needing *some* people to get the job done does not inherently mean as many as were working there “yesterday.” Interestingly, the pandemic proved that here in California, where the DMV is a decidedly more efficient organization now than it was in 2019. To me, that suggests “capacity” as a limitation will be ineffective so long as we allow the job holders to decide how many job holders are required.
"Apolitical military"? Please. Are we supposed to take that seriously? Since the military bureaucracy is already political, wasteful. So we should abandon the pretense of apolitical militaries, and instead have expressly militarized wings of the political party. /S
[EDIT: I missed Forrest’s sarcasm indicator here; my error.] didn’t suggest any such thing. In fact, I did not mention the military at all. Such a straw man of an argument. We should strive to maintain an apolitical military and bureaucracy. That we have failed at the latter is not an assessment of the former or its desirability.
Ah, I missed that! Thanks for clarifying. On most message boards I’m on, the sarcasm or “sartalics” is indicated slightly differently. I owe you an apology. And now will reiterate my occasional request to Substack; give us more tools for clarity!
That is the plan to make the state or goverment ineffective and therfore, break the trust of the people. It is to privatize everything. To make a very few people extremely wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The goverment is not a bissness. It does not exist to make a profit, as all bissness do, but is a social contract of the society at large. I for one do not vote for or support people who want to downside or destroy goverment. I believe in a right size goverment. If I was truly interested in getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, my frist action whould not fire the people who oversee the system for waste, fraud, and abuse. But that is exactly what this American experiment is doing. Currently a Cue is underway for the rich to control govement. It has been a goal of the rich for as long as I have alive, 73 years. Also, they wish to to social engineer the country. Their beliefs shove down your throat. To do this will require the largest goverment ever seen in this country.
The random destruction of government agencies is Trump and his goons’ revenge against anyone whom they think have crossed them somehow, and to instill fear into anyone who may resist their lawless behavior.
That's part of it, but the right-wing hostility to the "administrative state" goes back long before Trump. People have spent decades plotting to undo the New Deal and rid the country of anything Wilsonian. Those people apparently saw an asset in Trump's contempt for rules, and thought they could harness his despotic ambitions to their own purposes.
While I saw many people I used to be aligned with abandon one principle after another in order to defend Trump, I also thought something must be fundamentally wrong in their judgment to make him into some kind of hero. If they are so obviously wrong about him - for example, claiming that he's motivated by deep and pure patriotism, or that he's exposing "corruption" - what else have they been wrong about?
That question prompted me to reexamine views I had shared with those people. If my own worldview doesn't align with that of someone who is so clearly psychopathic and devoid of conscience, how much do I have in common with those who will defend absolutely anything he does, and who regard his critics as evil?
One subject I started to rethink was the "administrative state," or more specifically, the conservative hostility to it. I noticed that some valid criticisms of bureaucracy - or the "deep state" - were being rather cynically wielded to delegitimize any restraints on the power of Dear Leader, or any impediments to the agendas of his allies. Then, the reckless, callous, often dishonest way that Trumpers are going about deconstructing the administrative state makes it difficult to believe that there's a thoughtful and moral program behind it - just as it's very difficult to believe that a thoughtful, moral purpose would ever choose Donald Trump as its champion.
Great essay, Robert.
This is not an "unplanned experiment" that this administration is currently undergoing that will eventually lead to a dysfunctional government. This is missing the forest for the trees. The goal is not to make government cheaper.
The goal and intent of actors currently in power seems to be explicitly to render the government dysfunctional so as to bring about a collapse of the Federal Government. The plan would be to eliminate the government completely and replace it with a 'Network State', which is loosely based on Libertarian ideas but with a Tech oligarchy twist:
https://america2.news/the-nerd-reich-with-gil-duran/
The effects are far reaching and would occur outside of the established frameworks of democratic and republic's institutions. See this Youtube video for a primer ("Trump's 'Freedom Cities'? A Tech Blueprint to Dismantle the USA"):
https://youtu.be/CCj_q8tw-mI
Trumpism is big government statism against pluralism, freedom and humanity
“State capacity libertarianism.” I like the concept, but the execution is fraught with unsettling implications, as the government we have now demonstrates. One could make a fair argument that the Constitution itself is a framework for state capacity libertarianism. But no honest person would deny that “capacity” has been stretched and abused so as to be unrecognizable as any form of restraint. As they say, the devil is in the details. But I have very little confidence in the ability of the government to restrain itself to optimum size for efficiency and liberty.
P.S. “Apolitical professional bureaucrats?” Please. Are we supposed to take that seriously? In theory, perhaps, it sounds good. But if this was anyone but Trump, I doubt you would be extolling the “virtues” of our current bureaucracy. And a unionized federal bureaucracy is anything but apolitical. Budgets and bureaucracies grow, often very very wastefully. Where are the guardrails against that in “state capacity libertarianism”?
P.P.S. Regarding the DMV, being too small may be inefficient, but that’s not inherently intrusive. But it’s an illustration of another truism: needing *some* people to get the job done does not inherently mean as many as were working there “yesterday.” Interestingly, the pandemic proved that here in California, where the DMV is a decidedly more efficient organization now than it was in 2019. To me, that suggests “capacity” as a limitation will be ineffective so long as we allow the job holders to decide how many job holders are required.
"Apolitical military"? Please. Are we supposed to take that seriously? Since the military bureaucracy is already political, wasteful. So we should abandon the pretense of apolitical militaries, and instead have expressly militarized wings of the political party. /S
[EDIT: I missed Forrest’s sarcasm indicator here; my error.] didn’t suggest any such thing. In fact, I did not mention the military at all. Such a straw man of an argument. We should strive to maintain an apolitical military and bureaucracy. That we have failed at the latter is not an assessment of the former or its desirability.
That's why I had the sarcasm indicator at the end. We have failed at both, but I agree that we should strive for both.
Ah, I missed that! Thanks for clarifying. On most message boards I’m on, the sarcasm or “sartalics” is indicated slightly differently. I owe you an apology. And now will reiterate my occasional request to Substack; give us more tools for clarity!
That is the plan to make the state or goverment ineffective and therfore, break the trust of the people. It is to privatize everything. To make a very few people extremely wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The goverment is not a bissness. It does not exist to make a profit, as all bissness do, but is a social contract of the society at large. I for one do not vote for or support people who want to downside or destroy goverment. I believe in a right size goverment. If I was truly interested in getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, my frist action whould not fire the people who oversee the system for waste, fraud, and abuse. But that is exactly what this American experiment is doing. Currently a Cue is underway for the rich to control govement. It has been a goal of the rich for as long as I have alive, 73 years. Also, they wish to to social engineer the country. Their beliefs shove down your throat. To do this will require the largest goverment ever seen in this country.
Dirtbag wyt boi wants a medal now
"But it also means that no one can get anything positively approved because there aren’t enough people to do it."
Since when are we beholden to the government to approve(!) everything we do?
The random destruction of government agencies is Trump and his goons’ revenge against anyone whom they think have crossed them somehow, and to instill fear into anyone who may resist their lawless behavior.
That's part of it, but the right-wing hostility to the "administrative state" goes back long before Trump. People have spent decades plotting to undo the New Deal and rid the country of anything Wilsonian. Those people apparently saw an asset in Trump's contempt for rules, and thought they could harness his despotic ambitions to their own purposes.