5 ms·

Executive branch employees coined the term “Resistance” to declare their opposition to the democratically elected president’s agenda in 2017. So the war metapho

Executive branch employees coined the term “Resistance” to declare their opposition to the democratically elected president’s agenda in 2017. So the war metaphor seems quite fitting. The shock and awe will stop when the public can be confident that civil servants will work just as hard to implement the agenda of the president regardless of which party wins the election. That is fundamental to our system of democracy. And the unelected government isn’t nice to us “minorities.” it’s full of ideologues who categorize us into meaningless groups like “Hispanic” and “Asian,” fund random NGOs that we have never heard of that purport to speak for us, and want to implement a system of racial preferences in gerrymandering. I’d love to see how many grants went to “Asian” organizations that promote the idea that “AAPI hate” is more of a problem than rising crime or affirmative action.

apawloski 2y ago
What I'm reading then is that it's not about actually about workforce spending or federal debt at all. That's sort of what I expected. Curious if you have thoughts on Elon Musk's conflicts of interest? Both as a large federal contractor, and as someone with business dependence on China. Also the breaking of federal records laws (e.g. using signal and not retaining any other records).
- rayiner 2y ago
  It is about spending and trust over spending. I was skeptical Elon was going to find meaningful cuts. But the again I thought USAID was spending $50 billion on things like vaccines for kids in Bangladesh. Then I find out that it’s funding anti-Trump groups like Kristol’s (https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1886647920566636637 https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1886647920566636637) and left-wing government destabilization abroad. So now I want Elon’s nerds to trace every payment and find out how much USAID money went to “democracy” NGOs to do stuff like encourage the recent overthrow of the government in Bangladesh. The narrative emerging here is that the same permanent-government gremlins that we always knew bankrolled efforts to destabilize the rest of the world are perfectly okay with turning those same tactics inward if the wrong candidate wins the election. If we can put these people out of business and find even $25 billion a year in the process it will be worth it. I don’t care about Elon’s conflicts. Worst thing from that is we get a giant EV credit next year. I’m much more worried about the conflict from federal employees who overwhelmingly support one party funneling federal money to aligned NGOs.
  - apawloski 2y ago
    This is the part that I'm so surprised about. It turns out that people don't actually care about the law when it's inconvenient. And it turns out that people are willing to accept and support crazy things: conflicted/unqualified leaders, the sacrifice of American influence and stability, the alienation of our allies, the purposeful cost-raising for American consumers. What matters most apparently is the culture war. It's clear that we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it here -- so you're welcome to the final word if you want it -- but I think the feeling that resonates with me in these conversations is "I don't care about the law or other consequences as long as I get my way." That feels bad to me. And when people making those points disagree with me on it -- this week it's justification to kill USAID and give treasury control to Musk, next week it will be the destruction of the department of education, soon it will be ignoring the 14th amendment of the constitution -- it's hard to tell if they aren't being honest with me or if they aren't being honest with themselves.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      This is about upholding the highest law. The Framers intended the executive branch to be responsive to elections. Federalist 39 spends a lot of time analyzing the best way for people with authority in the “administration” to be appointed by the politically accountable President and confirmed by the politically accountable senate. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s39.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s.... The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president. It does not envision presidential elections as being some mere signal provided as an input to a permanent administration. That legal rule does not depend on voters’ motivations. If they want to deport all the illegal immigrants—an executive action within the discretion of the president—that’s their prerogative. How civil servants feel about that is immaterial. Voters’ cultural and policy preferences must win out. And the problem we have now is that, regardless of who wins the elections, the government remains overwhelmingly controlled by a group with particular cultural preferences. This isn’t about “law” versus “culture war.” The culture war is simply the factual context in which a legal dispute of tremendous gravity is playing out.
dctoedt 2y ago
> the democratically elected president That doesn't trump (so to speak) all other considerations — Adolf Hitler was "democratically" chosen. (And yes, I'm going there.)
- pcwalton 2y ago
  Easier is just to point out that polls show that all of this DOGE stuff is deeply unpopular [1] (as is Elon himself, incidentally). We don't have to speculate as to which of the president's agenda items have a popular mandate; we can just ask the electorate. [1]: https://today.yougov.com/topics/economy/survey-results/daily/2025/02/03/1210d/3 https://today.yougov.com/topics/economy/survey-results/daily...
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Racially discriminatory SBA loans and affirmative action in colleges also are deeply unpopular, but Democrats keep pursing those policies because they’re important to a portion of their coalition. Trump is the first Republican in memory that understands coalition politics (because he was a Democrat). Most republicans don’t like Gabbard and/or RFK Jr. But, like Musk, they were advertised as part of the package deal and Trump voters satisfied themselves they could live with it.
    - pcwalton 2y ago
      Gabbard's favorables are +43 among Republicans and RFK Jr.'s favorables are +71 among Republicans [1]. [1]: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_eAYQKbY.pdf https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabRepor...
- rayiner 2y ago
  If civil servants invoke Hitler to justify declaring “Resistance” to the democratically elected President, and said President turns out not to be Hitler, then they invite the reaction that results. I was promised Muslim internment camps in 2017. There having been none, I’m cheering on the DOGE strike teams.

apawloski 2y ago

What I'm reading then is that it's not about actually about workforce spending or federal debt at all. That's sort of what I expected. Curious if you have thoughts on Elon Musk's conflicts of interest? Both as a large federal contractor, and as someone with business dependence on China. Also the breaking of federal records laws (e.g. using signal and not retaining any other records).

rayiner 2y ago
It is about spending and trust over spending. I was skeptical Elon was going to find meaningful cuts. But the again I thought USAID was spending $50 billion on things like vaccines for kids in Bangladesh. Then I find out that it’s funding anti-Trump groups like Kristol’s (https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1886647920566636637 https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1886647920566636637) and left-wing government destabilization abroad. So now I want Elon’s nerds to trace every payment and find out how much USAID money went to “democracy” NGOs to do stuff like encourage the recent overthrow of the government in Bangladesh. The narrative emerging here is that the same permanent-government gremlins that we always knew bankrolled efforts to destabilize the rest of the world are perfectly okay with turning those same tactics inward if the wrong candidate wins the election. If we can put these people out of business and find even $25 billion a year in the process it will be worth it. I don’t care about Elon’s conflicts. Worst thing from that is we get a giant EV credit next year. I’m much more worried about the conflict from federal employees who overwhelmingly support one party funneling federal money to aligned NGOs.
- apawloski 2y ago
  This is the part that I'm so surprised about. It turns out that people don't actually care about the law when it's inconvenient. And it turns out that people are willing to accept and support crazy things: conflicted/unqualified leaders, the sacrifice of American influence and stability, the alienation of our allies, the purposeful cost-raising for American consumers. What matters most apparently is the culture war. It's clear that we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it here -- so you're welcome to the final word if you want it -- but I think the feeling that resonates with me in these conversations is "I don't care about the law or other consequences as long as I get my way." That feels bad to me. And when people making those points disagree with me on it -- this week it's justification to kill USAID and give treasury control to Musk, next week it will be the destruction of the department of education, soon it will be ignoring the 14th amendment of the constitution -- it's hard to tell if they aren't being honest with me or if they aren't being honest with themselves.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    This is about upholding the highest law. The Framers intended the executive branch to be responsive to elections. Federalist 39 spends a lot of time analyzing the best way for people with authority in the “administration” to be appointed by the politically accountable President and confirmed by the politically accountable senate. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s39.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s.... The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president. It does not envision presidential elections as being some mere signal provided as an input to a permanent administration. That legal rule does not depend on voters’ motivations. If they want to deport all the illegal immigrants—an executive action within the discretion of the president—that’s their prerogative. How civil servants feel about that is immaterial. Voters’ cultural and policy preferences must win out. And the problem we have now is that, regardless of who wins the elections, the government remains overwhelmingly controlled by a group with particular cultural preferences. This isn’t about “law” versus “culture war.” The culture war is simply the factual context in which a legal dispute of tremendous gravity is playing out.

dctoedt 2y ago

> the democratically elected president That doesn't trump (so to speak) all other considerations — Adolf Hitler was "democratically" chosen. (And yes, I'm going there.)

pcwalton 2y ago
Easier is just to point out that polls show that all of this DOGE stuff is deeply unpopular [1] (as is Elon himself, incidentally). We don't have to speculate as to which of the president's agenda items have a popular mandate; we can just ask the electorate. [1]: https://today.yougov.com/topics/economy/survey-results/daily/2025/02/03/1210d/3 https://today.yougov.com/topics/economy/survey-results/daily...
- rayiner 2y ago
  Racially discriminatory SBA loans and affirmative action in colleges also are deeply unpopular, but Democrats keep pursing those policies because they’re important to a portion of their coalition. Trump is the first Republican in memory that understands coalition politics (because he was a Democrat). Most republicans don’t like Gabbard and/or RFK Jr. But, like Musk, they were advertised as part of the package deal and Trump voters satisfied themselves they could live with it.
  - pcwalton 2y ago
    Gabbard's favorables are +43 among Republicans and RFK Jr.'s favorables are +71 among Republicans [1]. [1]: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_eAYQKbY.pdf https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabRepor...
rayiner 2y ago
If civil servants invoke Hitler to justify declaring “Resistance” to the democratically elected President, and said President turns out not to be Hitler, then they invite the reaction that results. I was promised Muslim internment camps in 2017. There having been none, I’m cheering on the DOGE strike teams.