Government by accident
There is no great, overarching conspiracy to do things out of duty and honor, or to act out of privilege. It is simply gang mentality at work.
If dog rabbit. That was the quote my high school chemistry teacher would use when someone made an irrational argument; he said he got that from his dad. My uncle used to say, a bit more coarsely, “if the queen had balls, she’d be king.” The two thoughts are along the same lines, which mean making logical leaps without knowing from where and to where you’re leaping is “magical thinking.” There are at least two—no three—classes of magical thinkers, in my mind at least.
First, there’s reporters, who describe things of which they know nothing and then opine on the impact those things have on other things of which they know nothing. Second, there’s lazy historians, who cobble together tales based on other people’s serious work, who apply today’s mores, habits and culture to people who lived long ago and much differently than us. Third, there’s economists—at least the ones who make sweeping predictions based on shaky data. (There’s a difference between econometrics and economics—The Pedant.)
But there’s a class of know-nothings who stand apart from all of these: The Politician. In our case, we have a politician who was previously a reality show star, who, previously to that, spent decades bilking billions from investors, banks, and the public by hawking everything from glitzy buildings, failing casinos, overpriced hotels and golf courses, wine, steaks, and a faux university. He is an expert at know-nothingness.
The reason I say all of this is to cut off arguments that begin with “say what you will…” In the 1890s, looking back at the building of America’s east-west transcontinental railroads and the effects of that upon our nation, historians, economists, and reporters would begin “say what you will about the robber barons, the railroads made this country.” Or, “say what you will about the inept, boneheaded, and vicious way the railroads were built, we wouldn’t have a nation without them.” And don’t get me started on the way the railroads destroyed American Indian culture.
“Say what you will about President Trump…” and go there, but you can’t get past the know-nothingness. Whatever occurs on Trump’s watch (by that, he means the man in charge, not the actual watch—The Pedant) will be remembered by serious historians as accidental, or more accurately, incidental, in nature. For the primary motivation of the people running our country right now is their personal enrichment, whether it be at the cost of other people losing their wealth, or by increasing everyone’s wealth to multiply their own. Either way, the outcome for the majority of Americans is only incidental to their own interests. I can provide many, many examples of this, from Trump’s $2 billion heyday since taking the oath as 47, to Howard Lutnick, to Jared Kushner, to Steve Witkoff, et cetera.
Wealth and power (not necessarily money) has always been one of the primary motivators of people running for office, or currying favor with those who won. But there has also been a counterforce, in the political parties, whose influence is supposed to push back favoring those who serve out of duty and devotion. It is difficult to find a Cincinnatus, or a George Washington, but the nation doesn’t need many to stay the course and keep the wolves, know-nothings, and sycophants at bay.
The last one of these I remember is Mitt Romney, at least in the Republican Party. And say what you will about the Bush family, they were old money rich before they ran for office, and their ethos was service as a duty. There I did it myself, and for that I will allow this: Say what you will about Donald Trump, he was rich before he ran for office. Except he probably wasn’t rich, at least not in the sense of people who own things and acquire great wealth. Trump had a lot of encumbered properties, worthless investments, and loans up to his eyeballs, which were refinanced regularly to keep him in rococo. Now that he’s had five and a half years in office, along with nearly 10 years of owning the Republican Party, Trump is genuinely wealthy, and powerful.
The power brings the wealth, because most wealthy people crave power to remain wealthy, or at least to prevent those with power from stripping them of their wealth. Instead of looking at our current situation through the lens of some rational path, it’s better to look at it as a series of accidents, and incidental outcomes, of a man with tremendous power seeking more wealth for himself, and those around him doing the same.
There’s war with Iran? Maybe? There’s abandoning Israel? Perhaps. Or there’s plenty of influential people who don’t want war with Iran, or to abandon Israel, and to show it they will contribute to the powerful people’s coffers to see to it. There is no great, overarching conspiracy to do things out of duty and honor, or to act out of privilege. It is simply gang mentality at work.
Things are falling apart because the parties have abandoned their counterforce mission. We have Graham Platners popping up all over, and when they get too toxic, they are left to wither, and replaced by others who may in fact be worse. We have an aging class of old Politicians who mixed magical thinking with a sense of institutional memory. But they are literally dying off, or becoming too sick (pray for Sen. Mitch McConnell) to even show up.
The last exemplars of Cincinnatus have been expelled from both parties, and the parties are not content to go back to find more. So we have Gov. Gavin Newsom, who can’t govern California, as the potential great savior of the Democratic Party. And we have J.D. Vance, in all his know-nothingness (but he is a smart cookie), preparing for 2028. I think that’s where we are headed, and Congress is no better. (Are you listening, Ken Paxton?)
Here’s an “if dog rabbit” statement: Say what you will about our “political realignment,” but it’s creative destruction at work. No. It isn’t. It’s government by accident. It’s impotent blight, where some people benefit and some are destroyed, but not through any plan involving those outcomes; more through incidental effects of being in the wrong place (or the right place) at the wrong (or right) time.
The answer to our conundrum isn’t to bring up more Mamdanis or Democratic Socialists, or to scream that “real communism hasn’t been tried!” I think there is some thought behind Trump’s new focus on communism, because his acts have promoted communist ideals to emerge from the left, and then he can make those his new enemy to fight. But again, it’s done without any real understanding of why communism always fails, or the history of all the times it’s been actually, really, tried and failed.
In fact, everything our federal government is doing at the top level is a form of magical thinking. There is no “Department of War,” but to Pete Hegseth, who hails from the first class of magical thinkers, and moved into the professional Politician class, there is, and he runs it. It’s sad that the magical thinkers have taken over and made a government of know-nothings. At least there remain people at lower echelons who know things, and for that I am grateful.
When the incompetence and ineptitude claw their way down to the boiler rooms of operating the government, or the military, or banking, or AI, or whatever endeavors we commit to, then bad accidents happen. We end up with an Ayn Rand dystopia. I still have faith this won’t happen, that the parties will wake up and assume the role of referee between ideals and self-interest.
But like any random walk, or a herd of bull elephants rampaging thorough a town, people will certainly get hurt in the process. The world has been here before, in the summer of 1914, when at the end of June Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by an anarchist in Sarajevo, which caused a catastrophic series of treaties and agreements, along with know-nothings and very effective militaries plunging into a death pit. Except now we all have nuclear weapons. Pray that the know-nothings stay far away from those particular buttons, for if we don’t dig out of this trench quickly enough, that particular outcome will make it so we never do at all.
Bring back the duty, honor, principled servants, even if they are wild-eyed socialists, and the wonky eggheads who put in the work, to run the parties. I’d rather have an economist who’s wrong, who at least knows something, than the class of know-nothings the current system is producing. Oh, and make primary elections illegal. I’d favor a 28th Amendment, to prohibit primary elections for federal office unless those are non-partisan and ranked.
I can dream, at least.
Banger of an article today Steve. I spend every morning reading a variety of substacks and email links that are all written by folks way smarter than me (including The Racket). I find myself, even at my old age of 78, wanting to learn and grow.
One of them this morning was on the value of mindfulness. Goodness, it was brilliant and as i read your column i found the two merging. I know i like to leap to conclusions whenever trump's name is mentioned; i also know when i see crap stories, i start fact checking. Sadly, we are buried in our own algorithms of doom and gloom.
Frankly, this is why i have stayed around The Racket this long, your bias are different than mine. That said, the reality of a "know-nothing" being president of the United States is a simple reality. While some argue they like his policies, they do so while down playing/ignoring the grifting, scamming and lies that he fills our lives every day.
I have no idea where any of this ends, i do have hope we come out the other side better off than where we are now. Thanks for the column, it fit perfectly with where and how i am trying to live life these days: More open, more objective and less intolerant.
Ranked choice or approval voting is more doable than non-partisan - at least in how things would actually work. Parties would still exist regardless, and they'd back whomever their chosen candidate is even if they don't have a party designation listed.
The benefits of approval voting over ranked choice are it's easier to understand - select any you approve of - and ensures the candidate most voters approve of wins.