7 ms·

This seems great. It's increasingly apparent that the government was spending countless billions of dollars to push ideology in plainly weird ways. Why should s

This seems great. It's increasingly apparent that the government was spending countless billions of dollars to push ideology in plainly weird ways. Why should somebody researching e.g. fusion for the Department of Energy also need to create a Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) plan, to even apply? This should greatly reduce the overall bureaucratic nonsense in science and help get back to science simply being science without imposing ideological conformity tests.

taurknaut 2y ago
> It's increasingly apparent that the government was spending countless billions of dollars to push ideology in plainly weird ways. Did you miss the last 80 years of anti-communist, pro-capitalist, free-market propaganda? The american government has been the most powerful ideological force in the world for basically all of living memory.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  [flagged]
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  You're definitely right and I also do not agree with that stuff either, but it was mostly done "appropriately" in that it was through avenues, like the State Department or CIA, who have propaganda as part of their mission. In this case you had things like the Department of Energy requiring Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research plans to even apply for funding. The two big differences I see is that that is a wholly inappropriate avenue for ideological enforcement, and that it's also exceptionally divisive. Things are changing in modern times but historically free markets, capitalism, and so on were very widely shared values. The contemporary equality of outcome (versus opportunity) stuff is extremely new and extremely divisive. The government pushing it, and frequently in very inappropriate ways (the military also comes to mind) is just very weird.
  - idle_zealot 2y ago
    > requiring Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research plans > equality of outcome (versus opportunity) stuff is extremely new and extremely divisive Equality of outcome, in the sense that we should hire unqualified people for research positions, is thankfully an incredibly rare and frankly insane position that almost nobody holds. Also thankfully, that's not what these required plans were. The requirement was that groups applying for grants have a specific and actionable plan for making sure that equality of opportunity was ensured. In fact, advantaging one group over another, such as with quotas, would directly violate DEI policy[1]. Typically, a plan would reference existing enrollment/acceptance policies of the company/university/department making an application, which are designed to make sure employees/students are not advantaged or disadvantaged by immutable or protected characteristics. Common examples would be: - Make sure that your hiring panel is diverse to avoid bias towards whatever groups are over-represented at your company already. It's a well-studied phenomena that people are inclined to like others who are similar to themselves. Without any other factors in play (skill is randomly distributed in applicants, all of your employees are free of sexual/racial bias), if your company consists of, say, 80% men and 20% women, and you pick your interviewers totally at random, you will continue to hire more men than women. If you use a 50/50 split on your interview panel then your hiring becomes more meritocratic by virtue of factoring out self-similarity biases. - Implement structured interviews and standardized qualifications-based hiring, rather than relying on interviewer preference. - Learning about potential subconscious biases helps people account for them. Incorporating bias training can mitigate (though not eliminate) hiring biases. Of course, as you have no doubt experienced, these training courses tend to be pretty boring and patronizing, but that's true of most employee training, so /shrug. - Diversifying applicant sourcing. If you only look for applicants via one platform, adding some more that tend to be used by different groups to your sourcing strategy. You have bought into the oft-repeated lie that DEI is some Harrison Bergeron-esque attempt to cripple institutions. You were probably pointed to one or two extremely poor implementations of such policies that were genuinely unfair. The broader movement, and most implementations of it, are about equality of opportunity. The intentional destruction of public perception of these policies and subsequent removal only guarantees that existing self-perpetuating gaps in opportunity will persist. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20241222222206/https://science.osti.gov/SWI/DOE-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-Policies/Q-and-As https://web.archive.org/web/20241222222206/https://science.o... Archive link, because of course the new admin took down the page.
csomar 2y ago
Because DEI audience leaned Democrats and everyone here is trying the hide the sun with a transparent glass. This is backfiring in a big way and the only hope is that it sets strict rules to who gets the money (ie: rather than going the other way, where the incumbent disburse the money to his audience).
- enkid 2y ago
  I don't understand what you're saying. Who's hiding the sun through transparent glass?
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  This is not backfiring at all, great success, people are really happy about this. Trump's approval rating is higher than ever.
  - cgh 2y ago
    His approval rating is historically low: https://news.gallup.com/poll/655955/trump-inaugural-approval-rating-historically-low-again.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/655955/trump-inaugural-approval... I wonder how his approval will compare with his first term. His final approval rating is the lowest of any president ever: https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ra...
brookst 2y ago
This is an ideological conformity test.
- cdot2 2y ago
  Yes, being opposed to discrimination is an ideological conformity test.
  - brookst 2y ago
    Other way around — prohibiting steps to reduce discrimination is the test. They’ve literally banned efforts to ensure research is free of discrimination. We’re in opposite world, or at least pretending to be.
  - bumby 2y ago
    You do realize that the EO this replaced has almost the exact verbiage about discrimination, right? We should be focusing on what is different between the two instead of being sidetracked by that argument.
    - nomel 2y ago
      > this replaced has almost the exact verbiage about discrimination, right? It would be useful to show the comparison, rather than claim it. Could you be more specific about this, by at least providing the section that you read, or the EO references?
      - bumby 2y ago
        This is the EO that was repealed. I didn’t originally include it because it was already mentioned in this thread. Both claim to ban discrimination based on race, gender, or religion. https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/12315-12325.pdf https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/1...
andyjohnson0 2y ago
> Why should somebody researching e.g. fusion for the Department of Energy also need to create a Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) plan, to even apply? To try to ensure that the people working on the project are selected fairly and on merit, rather than unfairly and on personal prejudice.
- nickburns 2y ago
  Is that not what Equal Protection under the 14A (applied to the USG through the Due Process clause of the 5A) is for?
  - tangent128 2y ago
    Without enforcement mechanisms (a PIER plan in this context), the 14th Amendment is just blots of ink on paper.
    - nickburns 2y ago
      The US Constitution protects the people from excessive acts of government, not the other way around. It says nothing about "enforcement mechanisms" which, should any actually be enacted by the legislature or ordered by the executive, are subject to constitutional challenge by the people before the judiciary (unless rendered moot by a superseding legislative act or executive order). Our constitutional republic is not merely "just blots of ink on paper" but rather alive and well.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      A PIER plan is not Equal Protection. For the last few years, a PIER plan is explicitly about Un-equal Protection in the service of achieving "equitable" outcomes.
      - larkost 2y ago
        How do you explain the un-equitable outcomes that we have been getting? The whole point of DEI is that there are (largely unconscious) biases that have been producing these un-equitable outcomes, and we need some conscious effort to get rid of them. If truly being race-blind (or any other way of dividing people that is not strictly merit) is really your goal, and you are aware of unconscious bias, then what are people really objecting to?
Fairissquare 2y ago
[flagged]
- Etherlord87 2y ago
  The movie is called "Hidden Figures". Movies tend to exaggerate for a dramatic effect. Yes, racism existed, segregation existed. The situation you described didn't happen. Katherine G Johnson simply used the bathroom for whites.
- TimedToasts 2y ago
  Hollywood is not a trustworthy source. For anything.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    Not even for mindless entertainment?
ADeerAppeared 2y ago
>Why should somebody researching e.g. fusion for the Department of Energy also need to create a Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) plan, to even apply? Why? Because a homogenous culture of researchers is less effective. Because you are not just doing research on a topic, you are also training the next generation of scientists and field experts. And the implication that the old boys club of white dudes is intrinsically the best "meritocratic" outcome is ridiculous. The history of science is full of people who had to fight that norm and succeed despite it. > This should greatly reduce the overall bureaucratic nonsense in science and help get back to science simply being science without imposing ideological conformity tests. Sure, sure. Except for the part where they're also censoring any science topics deemed "woke", where all funding now has to meet the president's ideological conformity test on subject and staff as well.
- tmountain 2y ago
  “Science being science…” Climate science would like a word.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  Your stereotypes belie a lack of familiarity with researchers. Here [1] are the demographics of PhD researchers. White individuals are significantly under represented (and even more so in STEM) though it's not for any nefarious reason. Science has traditionally been merit > all. And lots of highly skilled individuals from China, India, and so on are pursuing education and work in the US, which makes the competition for these spots very different than a random sampling of Americans. [1] - https://www.zippia.com/phd-researcher-jobs/demographics/ https://www.zippia.com/phd-researcher-jobs/demographics/
  - ADeerAppeared 2y ago
    > Your stereotypes belie a lack of familiarity with researchers I was referencing what the current Trump administration deems "meritocratic" and seeks to "return" to, their policy changes are in direct response and opposition to the demographics you describe.
  - 2y ago
fzeroracer 2y ago
Nothing says reducing overall bureaucratic nonsense by adding more bureaucratic nonsense AND demanding people make a loyalty pledge.
enkid 2y ago
Having the government do anti -DEI purity tests for research is the exact opposite or reducing bureaucracy.
- WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
  Funny how they replaced one performative mantra with another, which is just the same as the one they wanted to get rid of: you have to recite the $SYMBOL_OF_FAITH before you can have a job or apply for a grant.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    In fairness, that's what all political types do. It's all just quasi-religion all the way down. Anyone who thought any different was fooling themselves. It's unfortunate that it comes at the expense of scientific research, but hey, that's what people voted for. Everyone in the US is getting exactly the government we deserve. That's the beauty of democracy! You get government that's precisely as good, or as bad, as you deserve. And you deserve government no better, or worse, than what you get. Basically, we deserve it.
almostgotcaught 2y ago
[flagged]
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  Witches don't exist. The Communist Party USA wanted to violently overthrow democracy and replace it with a dictatorship headed by Stalin, and Communists in the US government who were working towards that goal by committing treason against the US did exist in the 1950's. So no, it was not a witch hunt. Looking back, the "witch hunt" slur seems like gaslighting. "Communists, what communists? You're paranoid and crazy!". The release of the Venona documents is severely damning to the "witch hunt" accusers and vindicating to McCarthy's goals, if not his tactics.
  - almostgotcaught 2y ago
    > Witches don't exist You're aware that dozens of women were hanged in Salem Massachusetts because people believed they were witches? So you're very glibly implying "witch hunts" are not a thing when not only are they a thing, but people in this country, have died due to them. > vindicating to McCarthy's goals, if not his tactics. The question was a litmus test for whether you are a person that subscribes to an orthodox perspective of history or heterodox - it is pointless to argue with someone that does not participate in a shared reality.
jmull 2y ago
I wonder what could go wrong with constraining federal funding to political ideas the current president personally approves of? "Great" isn't how anyone will describe it once the second-order consequences land. (There won't be many who like it once the first-order consequences land.)
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Sure now apply this thinking to the transition from the pre-DEI times to the status quo which Trump et al are dismantling
  - jmull 2y ago
    You may agree with the incoming anti-DEI policies, but don't let that obscure what's happening here. Previously, federal funding was controlled by congress, and subject to its collective politics, via long-playing out machinations/compromises/horse-trading, etc, and then to the collective politics of the various enforcement bodies. It now appears that federal funding is generally subject to the personal politics of the current president. That may seem nice for the specific policies you agree with. But... there are likely to be many policies you don't agree with. Especially since there will be a new president after not too long. Also, since political purity tests have to be subjectively enforced, they are inevitably subverted to corruption. You can pass the test with the right amount of money delivered to the right people in the right way. That's nice for the people receiving the money, but the corruption quickly becomes horrifically inefficient and costly. The question isn't whether the previous system was perfect -- it wasn't. The question is whether the new system is worse, and how much worse. I'm pretty surprised how unaware people seem to be about the power/money grab that is happening. People never seem to learn that you have to look at what people do, not what they say.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      Really level headed and well-informed response. I do agree that this is a totally new paradigm, but I would call it more of a popular revolution than a "power/money grab". I'd also characterize the last system (which you described perfectly btw) as corrupt and ineffective. The most non-political evidence I can offer is the observation that spending decisions only ever went one direction: more spending. This probably seems fair at the "dem vs gop" level but too the taxpayer it was more theft every year. So this newly emerging system does appear more susceptible to corruption, so I totally agree with you there, but as a taxpayer I am very happy that someone is slowing down spending.
eli_gottlieb 2y ago
> the government was spending countless billions of dollars to push ideology We can count the billions that the government spends on science, period, through the NSF, DOE, DARPA, and NIH. Thus, the fraction spent on pushing ideology is certainly not "countless billions".

taurknaut 2y ago

> It's increasingly apparent that the government was spending countless billions of dollars to push ideology in plainly weird ways. Did you miss the last 80 years of anti-communist, pro-capitalist, free-market propaganda? The american government has been the most powerful ideological force in the world for basically all of living memory.

rbanffy 2y ago
[flagged]
ANewFormation 2y ago
You're definitely right and I also do not agree with that stuff either, but it was mostly done "appropriately" in that it was through avenues, like the State Department or CIA, who have propaganda as part of their mission. In this case you had things like the Department of Energy requiring Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research plans to even apply for funding. The two big differences I see is that that is a wholly inappropriate avenue for ideological enforcement, and that it's also exceptionally divisive. Things are changing in modern times but historically free markets, capitalism, and so on were very widely shared values. The contemporary equality of outcome (versus opportunity) stuff is extremely new and extremely divisive. The government pushing it, and frequently in very inappropriate ways (the military also comes to mind) is just very weird.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  > requiring Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research plans > equality of outcome (versus opportunity) stuff is extremely new and extremely divisive Equality of outcome, in the sense that we should hire unqualified people for research positions, is thankfully an incredibly rare and frankly insane position that almost nobody holds. Also thankfully, that's not what these required plans were. The requirement was that groups applying for grants have a specific and actionable plan for making sure that equality of opportunity was ensured. In fact, advantaging one group over another, such as with quotas, would directly violate DEI policy[1]. Typically, a plan would reference existing enrollment/acceptance policies of the company/university/department making an application, which are designed to make sure employees/students are not advantaged or disadvantaged by immutable or protected characteristics. Common examples would be: - Make sure that your hiring panel is diverse to avoid bias towards whatever groups are over-represented at your company already. It's a well-studied phenomena that people are inclined to like others who are similar to themselves. Without any other factors in play (skill is randomly distributed in applicants, all of your employees are free of sexual/racial bias), if your company consists of, say, 80% men and 20% women, and you pick your interviewers totally at random, you will continue to hire more men than women. If you use a 50/50 split on your interview panel then your hiring becomes more meritocratic by virtue of factoring out self-similarity biases. - Implement structured interviews and standardized qualifications-based hiring, rather than relying on interviewer preference. - Learning about potential subconscious biases helps people account for them. Incorporating bias training can mitigate (though not eliminate) hiring biases. Of course, as you have no doubt experienced, these training courses tend to be pretty boring and patronizing, but that's true of most employee training, so /shrug. - Diversifying applicant sourcing. If you only look for applicants via one platform, adding some more that tend to be used by different groups to your sourcing strategy. You have bought into the oft-repeated lie that DEI is some Harrison Bergeron-esque attempt to cripple institutions. You were probably pointed to one or two extremely poor implementations of such policies that were genuinely unfair. The broader movement, and most implementations of it, are about equality of opportunity. The intentional destruction of public perception of these policies and subsequent removal only guarantees that existing self-perpetuating gaps in opportunity will persist. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20241222222206/https://science.osti.gov/SWI/DOE-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-Policies/Q-and-As https://web.archive.org/web/20241222222206/https://science.o... Archive link, because of course the new admin took down the page.

csomar 2y ago

Because DEI audience leaned Democrats and everyone here is trying the hide the sun with a transparent glass. This is backfiring in a big way and the only hope is that it sets strict rules to who gets the money (ie: rather than going the other way, where the incumbent disburse the money to his audience).

enkid 2y ago
I don't understand what you're saying. Who's hiding the sun through transparent glass?
flanked-evergl 2y ago
This is not backfiring at all, great success, people are really happy about this. Trump's approval rating is higher than ever.
- cgh 2y ago
  His approval rating is historically low: https://news.gallup.com/poll/655955/trump-inaugural-approval-rating-historically-low-again.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/655955/trump-inaugural-approval... I wonder how his approval will compare with his first term. His final approval rating is the lowest of any president ever: https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ra...

brookst 2y ago

This is an ideological conformity test.

cdot2 2y ago
Yes, being opposed to discrimination is an ideological conformity test.
- brookst 2y ago
  Other way around — prohibiting steps to reduce discrimination is the test. They’ve literally banned efforts to ensure research is free of discrimination. We’re in opposite world, or at least pretending to be.
- bumby 2y ago
  You do realize that the EO this replaced has almost the exact verbiage about discrimination, right? We should be focusing on what is different between the two instead of being sidetracked by that argument.
  - nomel 2y ago
    > this replaced has almost the exact verbiage about discrimination, right? It would be useful to show the comparison, rather than claim it. Could you be more specific about this, by at least providing the section that you read, or the EO references?
    - bumby 2y ago
      This is the EO that was repealed. I didn’t originally include it because it was already mentioned in this thread. Both claim to ban discrimination based on race, gender, or religion. https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/12315-12325.pdf https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/1...

andyjohnson0 2y ago

> Why should somebody researching e.g. fusion for the Department of Energy also need to create a Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) plan, to even apply? To try to ensure that the people working on the project are selected fairly and on merit, rather than unfairly and on personal prejudice.

nickburns 2y ago
Is that not what Equal Protection under the 14A (applied to the USG through the Due Process clause of the 5A) is for?
- tangent128 2y ago
  Without enforcement mechanisms (a PIER plan in this context), the 14th Amendment is just blots of ink on paper.
  - nickburns 2y ago
    The US Constitution protects the people from excessive acts of government, not the other way around. It says nothing about "enforcement mechanisms" which, should any actually be enacted by the legislature or ordered by the executive, are subject to constitutional challenge by the people before the judiciary (unless rendered moot by a superseding legislative act or executive order). Our constitutional republic is not merely "just blots of ink on paper" but rather alive and well.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    A PIER plan is not Equal Protection. For the last few years, a PIER plan is explicitly about Un-equal Protection in the service of achieving "equitable" outcomes.
    - larkost 2y ago
      How do you explain the un-equitable outcomes that we have been getting? The whole point of DEI is that there are (largely unconscious) biases that have been producing these un-equitable outcomes, and we need some conscious effort to get rid of them. If truly being race-blind (or any other way of dividing people that is not strictly merit) is really your goal, and you are aware of unconscious bias, then what are people really objecting to?

Fairissquare 2y ago

[flagged]

Etherlord87 2y ago
The movie is called "Hidden Figures". Movies tend to exaggerate for a dramatic effect. Yes, racism existed, segregation existed. The situation you described didn't happen. Katherine G Johnson simply used the bathroom for whites.
TimedToasts 2y ago
Hollywood is not a trustworthy source. For anything.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  Not even for mindless entertainment?

ADeerAppeared 2y ago

>Why should somebody researching e.g. fusion for the Department of Energy also need to create a Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) plan, to even apply? Why? Because a homogenous culture of researchers is less effective. Because you are not just doing research on a topic, you are also training the next generation of scientists and field experts. And the implication that the old boys club of white dudes is intrinsically the best "meritocratic" outcome is ridiculous. The history of science is full of people who had to fight that norm and succeed despite it. > This should greatly reduce the overall bureaucratic nonsense in science and help get back to science simply being science without imposing ideological conformity tests. Sure, sure. Except for the part where they're also censoring any science topics deemed "woke", where all funding now has to meet the president's ideological conformity test on subject and staff as well.

tmountain 2y ago
“Science being science…” Climate science would like a word.
ANewFormation 2y ago
Your stereotypes belie a lack of familiarity with researchers. Here [1] are the demographics of PhD researchers. White individuals are significantly under represented (and even more so in STEM) though it's not for any nefarious reason. Science has traditionally been merit > all. And lots of highly skilled individuals from China, India, and so on are pursuing education and work in the US, which makes the competition for these spots very different than a random sampling of Americans. [1] - https://www.zippia.com/phd-researcher-jobs/demographics/ https://www.zippia.com/phd-researcher-jobs/demographics/
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago
  > Your stereotypes belie a lack of familiarity with researchers I was referencing what the current Trump administration deems "meritocratic" and seeks to "return" to, their policy changes are in direct response and opposition to the demographics you describe.
- 2y ago

fzeroracer 2y ago

Nothing says reducing overall bureaucratic nonsense by adding more bureaucratic nonsense AND demanding people make a loyalty pledge.

enkid 2y ago

Having the government do anti -DEI purity tests for research is the exact opposite or reducing bureaucracy.

WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
Funny how they replaced one performative mantra with another, which is just the same as the one they wanted to get rid of: you have to recite the $SYMBOL_OF_FAITH before you can have a job or apply for a grant.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  In fairness, that's what all political types do. It's all just quasi-religion all the way down. Anyone who thought any different was fooling themselves. It's unfortunate that it comes at the expense of scientific research, but hey, that's what people voted for. Everyone in the US is getting exactly the government we deserve. That's the beauty of democracy! You get government that's precisely as good, or as bad, as you deserve. And you deserve government no better, or worse, than what you get. Basically, we deserve it.

almostgotcaught 2y ago

[flagged]

rufus_foreman 2y ago
Witches don't exist. The Communist Party USA wanted to violently overthrow democracy and replace it with a dictatorship headed by Stalin, and Communists in the US government who were working towards that goal by committing treason against the US did exist in the 1950's. So no, it was not a witch hunt. Looking back, the "witch hunt" slur seems like gaslighting. "Communists, what communists? You're paranoid and crazy!". The release of the Venona documents is severely damning to the "witch hunt" accusers and vindicating to McCarthy's goals, if not his tactics.
- almostgotcaught 2y ago
  > Witches don't exist You're aware that dozens of women were hanged in Salem Massachusetts because people believed they were witches? So you're very glibly implying "witch hunts" are not a thing when not only are they a thing, but people in this country, have died due to them. > vindicating to McCarthy's goals, if not his tactics. The question was a litmus test for whether you are a person that subscribes to an orthodox perspective of history or heterodox - it is pointless to argue with someone that does not participate in a shared reality.

jmull 2y ago

I wonder what could go wrong with constraining federal funding to political ideas the current president personally approves of? "Great" isn't how anyone will describe it once the second-order consequences land. (There won't be many who like it once the first-order consequences land.)

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Sure now apply this thinking to the transition from the pre-DEI times to the status quo which Trump et al are dismantling
- jmull 2y ago
  You may agree with the incoming anti-DEI policies, but don't let that obscure what's happening here. Previously, federal funding was controlled by congress, and subject to its collective politics, via long-playing out machinations/compromises/horse-trading, etc, and then to the collective politics of the various enforcement bodies. It now appears that federal funding is generally subject to the personal politics of the current president. That may seem nice for the specific policies you agree with. But... there are likely to be many policies you don't agree with. Especially since there will be a new president after not too long. Also, since political purity tests have to be subjectively enforced, they are inevitably subverted to corruption. You can pass the test with the right amount of money delivered to the right people in the right way. That's nice for the people receiving the money, but the corruption quickly becomes horrifically inefficient and costly. The question isn't whether the previous system was perfect -- it wasn't. The question is whether the new system is worse, and how much worse. I'm pretty surprised how unaware people seem to be about the power/money grab that is happening. People never seem to learn that you have to look at what people do, not what they say.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Really level headed and well-informed response. I do agree that this is a totally new paradigm, but I would call it more of a popular revolution than a "power/money grab". I'd also characterize the last system (which you described perfectly btw) as corrupt and ineffective. The most non-political evidence I can offer is the observation that spending decisions only ever went one direction: more spending. This probably seems fair at the "dem vs gop" level but too the taxpayer it was more theft every year. So this newly emerging system does appear more susceptible to corruption, so I totally agree with you there, but as a taxpayer I am very happy that someone is slowing down spending.

eli_gottlieb 2y ago

> the government was spending countless billions of dollars to push ideology We can count the billions that the government spends on science, period, through the NSF, DOE, DARPA, and NIH. Thus, the fraction spent on pushing ideology is certainly not "countless billions".