💥💥💥💥 this was delightful to read. Eactly what I thought. Jeez. The time for Underthrow has come. And the *WE* can only happen if we organize as a Network to oppose and Abolish Congress. That's the enemy, the Peruvian political class proves it. The argentinian properly called it a *casta* (it's the glob)
But we never had a real chance to destroy them. Culturally under the spell of representatives and technologicaly trap with the printing press. DOGE is the sign we have been waiting for to disrupt and destroy the monopoly on political representation 💥
One need not be faithful to a dead Constitution to understand that DOGE, as well as the people and party operating it, are just as much authoritarian technocrats as its authoritarian technocrat opponents.
This is a fight over who controls the machine, not a fight over the existence of, or even the scope of, the machine itself.
Perhaps. We'll have to see. But I would like for you to consider this: Besides wrapping oneself in puritanical anarchism, what, pray tell, is the plan? What is one to do?
My perception of YOUR plans from fairly early on was that the best approach was to seek, individually, and with like-minded others, alternatives to the system itself. Decentralized money, gray/black markets, ways of avoiding and insulating ourselves from control, etc.
Which, to a large degree, is my personal direction as well.
When it comes to the existing system, I'm all for encouraging good things and discouraging bad things.
What I'm not for is taking any kind of firm, ongoing side in that system's factional fights. It seems like a waste of energy at best, and at worst a transfer of energy from the first-mentioned plans to worse ones.
I can't be TOO critical here. I praise particular politicians when I like something they're doing, and condemn them when I don't. But I try to maintain a healthy distrust of their motives and a healthy skepticism of likely outcomes. As, I'm sure, you do. It just seems that in the case of DOGE in particular, I'm a little less trusting and a little more skeptical than this post indicates you are.
This is all fair, and you have me correct. I think the only difference in our perspectives, however subtle, is that I see the next couple of years as a window of opportunity "to seek, individually, and with like-minded others, alternatives to the system itself." Even if it turns out not to be, we ought to view it that way and roll up our sleeves.
I will absolutely concede the point that I can't just be a cheerleader for DOGE. I have not only to keep a healthy skepticism of this administration, but I need to get busy building whatever it does.
I fully agree that the window of opportunity is there. Less because of DOGE's claims and actions than because the whole atmosphere -- not just Trump, and not just people on Trump's side -- is becoming more and more chaotic.
This may -- MAY -- be the visible starting point of the system collapsing beneath the weight of its own contradictions, etc. If so, hopefully we can take advantage of that to create the next set of institutions, and have them not be Westphalian Model state style institutions.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm even cautiously optimistic on that, but I'm at least hoping for it. Thanks, as always, for interesting takes!
I think the key issue is not proceduralism, it's the resiliency of the changes.
1. The cuts so far are not big enough to actually save us from a fiscal crisis, and can just be rolled back by subsequent admins (wouldn't even have to be D's): They could defund CPFB because it was set up as an executive branch dodge around Congress, but it can just be re-funded later. Live by the sword .... etc...
2. the best cuts proposed so far (abolish DoEd) really do need congress. Congress passing a law to do a thing is how you establish the legitimacy/resiliency for it to hold. Congress created DoEd and it survived the rule of people who didn't like it because of that resiliency. It doesn't matter if they're being obstructionist, a critical mass of people really do believe in the law and that it works this way, and will get rid of you (one way or another) if you circumvent it. It will not matter that evil sneaky corrupt people are really using this "pretext" to keep their evil corrupt spending, if they're right on legal grounds.
3. If you don't get congress on board they are just going to pass more spending, offsetting your cuts. You could say "well Trump will veto it" and while that is indeed possible, I will point to the previous Trump administration as a preview for his level of interest in vetoing spending that R congressmen want. There's a theory that it's M or others behind the scenes who might make him make better choices, or he's senile now, or he'll die, and that's all fine, but then you really need congress to be on board.
1) I worry you're right, but this point alone doesn't justify inaction.
2) We may yet see Congress act; for example, the Impoundment Control Act offers 45 days for Congress to approve the President's recommended cuts. DOGE may test this statute. But if the Administration tries to work with Congress and gets McConnelled, we are back to political nihilism.
3) This is exactly what I think is going to happen, i. e. they'll just pass more spending. Congress will go back to its old ways, and all of this would have been for naught, which is to say, nothing can stop the fall-of-empire process.
Still, these are all good points, Brian. They just sap me of optimism and leave me with nihilism.
1) yes, definitely not saying they shouldn't be done - and many of the things cut had harms far beyond "the money they cost". Defunding executive branch stuff (like CPFB) is also 100% legal and a good first step.
2) and 3): Yes, but "congress" is a (imperfect, yes) proxy for "public support." If " Congress will go back to its old ways" you are obviously right: we're screwed. So that's the problem that needs to be fixed! Trump has obviously shown willingness to threaten, browbeat and encourage primaries for congressmen who don't toe the line - on pretty silly, trivial stuff. The question is: can that be done for "preventing fiscal crisis?" Crafting the public message to convinces/motivates enough voters to threaten the sens/reps into supporting it: that's the real challenge. If only there was some social network this message could be presented on, or mainstream media who can be relied on to reflexively respond negatively to whatever tune that Trump sings?
If you are short on the optimism, and if you don't mind a certain amount of self-promotion, I do have a gordion-knot solution for heavily reducing spending without any pesky congressional approval:
We must not forget, the Department of Government Efficiency is an Executive Office Department, though not a cabinet level department. The acronym has taken of a separate meaning that more than expands its function. It now mean to many if not most a personal extension of Trump: to his enemies an orange-haired Hitler fist, to his friends much needed axe laid to the root and branch of an unconstitutional bureaucracy.
How does one go about excising an honest-to-God tumor? In this case, the truism that words cannot hurt, are true. You can't talk or legislate it away; you have to cut it away. Chainsaw or scalpel are rhetorical flourishes. And cancer is a more accurate metaphor than a diseased limb, for the bureaucracy is more of a foreign growth than a spoiled feature.
Maybe and maybe not a bureaucracy might be impeachable, but even if it is, who would impeach it? A corrupt congress or a corrupt supreme court? Metastasized is apt extension of the cancer metaphor. Government efficiency is too much of an oxymoron to be used as name for what needs to be done. Maybe it should have been the Department of Constitutional Government, but the word constitution no longer has any teeth or claws.
💥💥💥💥 this was delightful to read. Eactly what I thought. Jeez. The time for Underthrow has come. And the *WE* can only happen if we organize as a Network to oppose and Abolish Congress. That's the enemy, the Peruvian political class proves it. The argentinian properly called it a *casta* (it's the glob)
But we never had a real chance to destroy them. Culturally under the spell of representatives and technologicaly trap with the printing press. DOGE is the sign we have been waiting for to disrupt and destroy the monopoly on political representation 💥
Amen, brother!
One need not be faithful to a dead Constitution to understand that DOGE, as well as the people and party operating it, are just as much authoritarian technocrats as its authoritarian technocrat opponents.
This is a fight over who controls the machine, not a fight over the existence of, or even the scope of, the machine itself.
Perhaps. We'll have to see. But I would like for you to consider this: Besides wrapping oneself in puritanical anarchism, what, pray tell, is the plan? What is one to do?
My perception of YOUR plans from fairly early on was that the best approach was to seek, individually, and with like-minded others, alternatives to the system itself. Decentralized money, gray/black markets, ways of avoiding and insulating ourselves from control, etc.
Which, to a large degree, is my personal direction as well.
When it comes to the existing system, I'm all for encouraging good things and discouraging bad things.
What I'm not for is taking any kind of firm, ongoing side in that system's factional fights. It seems like a waste of energy at best, and at worst a transfer of energy from the first-mentioned plans to worse ones.
I can't be TOO critical here. I praise particular politicians when I like something they're doing, and condemn them when I don't. But I try to maintain a healthy distrust of their motives and a healthy skepticism of likely outcomes. As, I'm sure, you do. It just seems that in the case of DOGE in particular, I'm a little less trusting and a little more skeptical than this post indicates you are.
This is all fair, and you have me correct. I think the only difference in our perspectives, however subtle, is that I see the next couple of years as a window of opportunity "to seek, individually, and with like-minded others, alternatives to the system itself." Even if it turns out not to be, we ought to view it that way and roll up our sleeves.
I will absolutely concede the point that I can't just be a cheerleader for DOGE. I have not only to keep a healthy skepticism of this administration, but I need to get busy building whatever it does.
I fully agree that the window of opportunity is there. Less because of DOGE's claims and actions than because the whole atmosphere -- not just Trump, and not just people on Trump's side -- is becoming more and more chaotic.
This may -- MAY -- be the visible starting point of the system collapsing beneath the weight of its own contradictions, etc. If so, hopefully we can take advantage of that to create the next set of institutions, and have them not be Westphalian Model state style institutions.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm even cautiously optimistic on that, but I'm at least hoping for it. Thanks, as always, for interesting takes!
Beautifully said. Inspiring, even. At least we can dream. And dreams fuel great projects.
I think the key issue is not proceduralism, it's the resiliency of the changes.
1. The cuts so far are not big enough to actually save us from a fiscal crisis, and can just be rolled back by subsequent admins (wouldn't even have to be D's): They could defund CPFB because it was set up as an executive branch dodge around Congress, but it can just be re-funded later. Live by the sword .... etc...
2. the best cuts proposed so far (abolish DoEd) really do need congress. Congress passing a law to do a thing is how you establish the legitimacy/resiliency for it to hold. Congress created DoEd and it survived the rule of people who didn't like it because of that resiliency. It doesn't matter if they're being obstructionist, a critical mass of people really do believe in the law and that it works this way, and will get rid of you (one way or another) if you circumvent it. It will not matter that evil sneaky corrupt people are really using this "pretext" to keep their evil corrupt spending, if they're right on legal grounds.
3. If you don't get congress on board they are just going to pass more spending, offsetting your cuts. You could say "well Trump will veto it" and while that is indeed possible, I will point to the previous Trump administration as a preview for his level of interest in vetoing spending that R congressmen want. There's a theory that it's M or others behind the scenes who might make him make better choices, or he's senile now, or he'll die, and that's all fine, but then you really need congress to be on board.
These are all good points. To quickly respond:
1) I worry you're right, but this point alone doesn't justify inaction.
2) We may yet see Congress act; for example, the Impoundment Control Act offers 45 days for Congress to approve the President's recommended cuts. DOGE may test this statute. But if the Administration tries to work with Congress and gets McConnelled, we are back to political nihilism.
3) This is exactly what I think is going to happen, i. e. they'll just pass more spending. Congress will go back to its old ways, and all of this would have been for naught, which is to say, nothing can stop the fall-of-empire process.
Still, these are all good points, Brian. They just sap me of optimism and leave me with nihilism.
re:
1) yes, definitely not saying they shouldn't be done - and many of the things cut had harms far beyond "the money they cost". Defunding executive branch stuff (like CPFB) is also 100% legal and a good first step.
2) and 3): Yes, but "congress" is a (imperfect, yes) proxy for "public support." If " Congress will go back to its old ways" you are obviously right: we're screwed. So that's the problem that needs to be fixed! Trump has obviously shown willingness to threaten, browbeat and encourage primaries for congressmen who don't toe the line - on pretty silly, trivial stuff. The question is: can that be done for "preventing fiscal crisis?" Crafting the public message to convinces/motivates enough voters to threaten the sens/reps into supporting it: that's the real challenge. If only there was some social network this message could be presented on, or mainstream media who can be relied on to reflexively respond negatively to whatever tune that Trump sings?
If you are short on the optimism, and if you don't mind a certain amount of self-promotion, I do have a gordion-knot solution for heavily reducing spending without any pesky congressional approval:
https://moore2024.substack.com/p/doge-rookie-numbers-take-2
Hell yeah, self-promote! There is great stuff in here.
We must not forget, the Department of Government Efficiency is an Executive Office Department, though not a cabinet level department. The acronym has taken of a separate meaning that more than expands its function. It now mean to many if not most a personal extension of Trump: to his enemies an orange-haired Hitler fist, to his friends much needed axe laid to the root and branch of an unconstitutional bureaucracy.
How does one go about excising an honest-to-God tumor? In this case, the truism that words cannot hurt, are true. You can't talk or legislate it away; you have to cut it away. Chainsaw or scalpel are rhetorical flourishes. And cancer is a more accurate metaphor than a diseased limb, for the bureaucracy is more of a foreign growth than a spoiled feature.
Maybe and maybe not a bureaucracy might be impeachable, but even if it is, who would impeach it? A corrupt congress or a corrupt supreme court? Metastasized is apt extension of the cancer metaphor. Government efficiency is too much of an oxymoron to be used as name for what needs to be done. Maybe it should have been the Department of Constitutional Government, but the word constitution no longer has any teeth or claws.