Fantastic article—thank you for taking the time to clearly articulate your positions with such thoughtfulness and clarity. It’s incredibly refreshing to see someone engage with the complexities of each issue, free from the constraints of political labels and tribal thinking. I find myself aligned with many of your views, and even where we may differ, I truly appreciate the reasoning behind your perspective.
There was a time when civil, respectful, and nuanced dialogue was the norm, not the exception. We desperately need to return to that spirit—where open minds meet in honest conversation, and differences aren't cause for division but opportunities for growth.
Voices like yours are vital in nurturing that kind of discourse. Please keep writing, reflecting, and sharing—this is exactly the kind of contribution that moves us forward.
You claim to not be either Democrat or Republican, but this article is just full of shallow Republican talking points. You talk about the radicalization of Democrats versus the general public but you ignore the fact that Republicans have won the popular vote, only narrowly, in two of the last nine Presidential elections. By trying to gauge the views of "elites and influencers" you get to define a population that could produce any results you want. You talk about Biden printing money during the pandemic but ignore the fact that Trump printed way more money. You talk about unsafe Democratic cities but the facts are that cities are safer now than they have been in the last 70 years. You also fail to mention that Republican courts and Republican policies push guns, guns, guns, everywhere and then they blame Democrats for gun violence, it is almost comical. Biden did not have an "open border" policy. What he did was follow the laws of the United States. Biden was the one who got a border enhancement bill negotiated in Congress, but Trump trashed it because he wanted a talking point to bamboozle voters.
You talk about DEI going too far, but the majority of Americans support DEI policies, and numerous highly successful companies still embrace them. It's only through illegal Trump pressure that other businesses are caving to what amounts to blackmail from the US government.
I could go on, but it is useless. You may not call yourself a Republican but you have been captured by their Tik Tok level analysis of what is wrong in this country, and what is required to fix it. Look back at what Teddy Roosevelt did in the early 1900's to equalize power in the capitalistic system and then you have a ticket to what needs to happen today. Billionaires are
not inherently evil, but they have too much power in our capitalistic system and that power needs to be equalized. Biden's policies were doing that and were successful, but the billionaires were able to buy this election and now they are taking back economic power and are stripping out the government which is the only check on them.
Thank you for so eloquently expressing some of my own visceral reactions to this article. I have never been a Democrat, but some of the positions taken in this article (and some he left out) did make me think that Thomas has been sipping some of the far-right Kool-Aid.
But I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's unreasonable for me to presume that Pueyo and I will agree on all issues. And even where we disagree, I'm (almost) as likely to question my own assumptions as I am to dismiss his. His history of comprehensive and articulate analysis has earned him a HUGE degree of latitude in my eyes.
Your points are very good, Richard, but I'm hopeful that you reconsider your chastisement (abandonment?) of Thomas. We need his clarion voice of logic and reason in the world right now, even if we don't agree with all of it.
I have been sipping some of the far-right Kool-Aid for sure! And some of the moderate right. And the moderate left. And the far-left. Hopefully I access the best voices of all groups and synthesize them reasonably well!
Thank you for your understanding and being measured. This is what we need!
I too appreciate Pueyo’s smart, thorough analysis of the many topics about which he writes, and give him broad latitude when I disagree with or question any of his points. But in this piece I do see maga talking points seeping through. And there’s another “tell”, whether intentional or unintentional: Only faux news and their followers spit out the term “Democrat” in place of “Democratic”. Given my longstanding respect for Pueyo’s intellectual approach to all topics, I’ll assume this is unintentional and will include here a link that informs anyone who may wonder “what’s the difference?” https://youtube.com/shorts/tJyhEKQEp6c?si=51gDnblqchkvZtCu
I grew up outside of the US, so that should explain the imperfect language. This is especially confusing to me because democratic has a very different meaning in every language than the US's Democratic. Also, I have one US and one Australian editor that go through these, so I wouldn't read too much into these supposed tells. But thanks for the link!
Maybe I have MAGA talking points because I listen to some of their sources, and also have Democratic talking points because I listen to some of their sources? For example, I mention Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, hardly right-wing voices!
I was bothered by that, too, but I presume that he's deliberately choosing when to use one or the other for a legitimate reason (I'd love to know what that is). I think the big D, little d, distinction is sufficient in all cases except the beginning of a sentence, which one can easily avoid. It's hard for me to imagine that he's deliberately using what we all know is a right-wing bad-faith ploy, but he is human and does seem to have almost as many anti-Democrat perspectives as he does anti-Republican ones. As Jamie Raskin once mused: You don't hear Democrats referring to the GOP as "Banana Republicans," because that's childish and deliberately adversarial.
And there were several warning signs. Posts on cancel culture and more recently freedom of speech were basically copy-pastying far-right rhetoric.
But that's not the worst. The worst is, when confronted with numerous valid counterpoints like you just did (which literally entirely destroy any semblance of neutrality), Tomas seems satisfied to... not answer to them.
"QED" is a childish and frankly pathetic little victory dance. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is too partisan".
And fans are still blindingly saying "I appreciate you independent thinking and non-partisan approach". Hint : they do because it doesn't contradict their beliefs, and they can keep thinking they are also independent thinkers.
EDIT : I asked ChatGPT DeepResearch to evaluate the neutrality of the post, and I think the result speaks for itself :
Overall Neutrality Assessment
Considering all of the above, Pueyo’s critiques of Republicans (primarily of Trump) are delivered in a largely neutral, analytical manner. He sticks to verifiable policy and strategic failures without unfair generalizations. We can rate his Republican section as very neutral – roughly 5/5 in overall neutrality. Aside from a few sharp descriptors aimed at Trump personally, he provides context and even notes positive aspects where due. Importantly, he isolates Trump rather than painting all conservatives with the same brush, which shows restraint and nuance.
In contrast, Pueyo’s critiques of Democrats, while often valid in isolation, display a noticeable bias in aggregate. He uses broader strokes – implying an entire party has “radicalized” – and focuses on their missteps without equally examining the Republican role in those same issue areas. The tone is somewhat more severe and less sympathetic. Therefore, his Democratic section is less neutral, leaning toward a moderate bias. As a whole, one could rate his critique of Democrats around 2.5 to 3 out of 5 on neutrality. It’s not a one-sided rant (he does base it on real problems the Democrats face), but it isn’t as even-handed or contextualized as it could be.
In summary: Tomas Pueyo portrays himself as politically neutral, and in terms of intentions he applies skepticism to both sides. However, in execution, his analysis is imbalance in focus. He rigorously dissects Trump’s faults (earning high marks for neutrality on GOP issues), but then he turns a more critical eye toward Democratic tendencies as a whole. The result is that his ostensibly “neutral” position still lands harder on Democrats. Whether one interprets that as bias or simply as his honest diagnosis of America’s political ills, the consistency of neutrality is not the same for both sets of critiques.
Overall, Pueyo’s Republican critiques score ~⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (5/5) on neutrality, while his Democratic critiques score ~⭐️⭐️⭐️ (3/5). This suggests that despite his claim of being “none of the above” politically, his analysis leans more critical of the left side of the spectrum than the right, raising questions about the full consistency of his neutrality claim. Nonetheless, readers from across the political divide can find thought-provoking points in his essay – as long as they also consider the broader context and missing pieces that a truly neutral referee would include.
Complete argumentation with sources and original prompt here :
@Tomas, I know my emotions above are gonna trigger your emotions, but there's a very good machine with no emotions whatsoever thinking you have a significant right-leaning bias.
I think that should be food for thought for you. I mean, either you are indeed center-right, and you could just admit it (it's not an insult), or you are not, and your post was not as neutral as you think.
I've never used AI for this purpose before. Very clever! That doesn't mean that the AI provides an unbiased perspective, but it does give food for thought. I find Pueyo to be a little too forgiving of the Right and a little too unfairly critical of the Left (at times) but that's too be expected since I'm on the Left. I'm sure someone on the Right would have a similar criticism. The AI input is valid but hardly conclusive. Still, if I were Pueyo, I would take it into account. Thanks for your heady contribution (as usual)!
Very interesting but I think you still need a set of values, otherwise the analysis becomes too reductionistic and ultimately irrelevant.
An obvious example is DOGE: whatever good it might accomplish, it is outside the rule of law. Funds are being cut that were already appropriated by Congress.
Thus DOGE actions assault democracy.
They are in line with Curtis Yarvin and an entirely new world order that won't be about your stated priorities (the happiness of the majority).
They can't make democracy better by ignoring what we've voted for. One can't get a fair society by systematically disobeying laws.
On immigration: mass deportations not a thoughtful response to a problem and is leading states like Florida to propose child labor as a solution to the new problems they are creating. Prison labor will be the other solution. Again contradicts the goal of happiness for the majority.
And cruel detention of students and visa holders destroys education and tourism on a large scale. At some point, you need to look at the totality of the actions and understand that you need to dig deeper if any of them look good to you.
IMO analyzing individual actions stripped of their role in the greater context renders the analysis irrelevant.
Election results from yesterday suggest people didn't in fact vote for chaos, annexing Greenland and threatening Canada, inflation, unemployment, and stock market plunge.
A deeper analysis is required here too. One poll I saw said 82% of respondents said the president should obey federal court rulings! Very few people voted for a constitutional crisis.
Yes, 45-48% of respondents still approve of his performance, but only 28% of registered independents. Whatever they heard before the election and voted for, it seems a little reality is now sneaking through.
For the most part the GOP have been explicitly running sans a policy platform for several election cycles. instead projecting a fake DEM platform to run against. Indeed some of your commentary about the Democrats and wokeism is just repeating GOP/FOX talking points about issues that were not part of any platform that any Democrat ran on. There is general sense of you holding Harris and the Dems to a far far higher standard of accountability and credibility than the GOP ... perhaps because they have led the population to believe that there is no point in either. I literally fail to see any any relevance in Harris not being in some way elected despite her being an accountable elected representative for so many years against Trump's complete lack of any electoral or even community contribution.
Between Trump disclaiming Project 2025 and senior GOP reps saying that not Trump just "says stuff" that isn't policy, there isn't a clear sense of what people were voting for. He's doing a lot of things that he didn't declare up front, and as usual flips and turns from week to week. He's ripped up the "great" NAFTA agreement he created in his first term as rubbish as if he had nothing to do with it.
You talk about right and left as not being meaningful - they are certainly not only belief relative in terms of parties and financial/social axes but they have shifted and warped incredibly over the post-Reagan period. Democrats have been dragged to the right of Reagan on many issues and yet are still tagged as some kind of socialists, without any acknowledgement of the enormous move to the right of the GOP and its forsaking of foundational platforms. Much of what is branded as far-left in the US is centrist in other advanced democracies (and I've lived in four of them including the US).
Given the topics I write about, people constantly ask me if I’m a Democrat or a Republican, right-wing or left-wing. So let’s make it clear: I am none of these.
I loved this article but (of course) found myself pushing back against a few things (Biden was frail but still highly competent, "self-made men" aren't self-made, DOGE will NEVER lead to lower taxes for us, the Right has become WAY more radicalized than the Left, etc.). Pueyo is so freaking informed and rational, though, that I question even those minor complaints. He's still susceptible to bias, but so am I—and I'm far less informed. So I will embrace the amazing insights in this article and rethink some of my most strongly held opinions (always a good practice). I just wish more people would take the time to read your long-form content because there's literally nothing else even remotely close out there. Keep up the excellent work!
I appreciate your viewpoint about not bundling policy positions.
Your perspective on DOGE is dead wrong. Regardless of what DOGE says they are doing, it’s pretty clear what they are actually doing. From an article today: “The layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services slashed the staffs of major federal aging, disability and anti-poverty programs, leaving the future of those programs uncertain.” Meals on Wheels, that’s where the waste is, right? You write, “Delete first, and rethink your position after people come to complain.” The random cuts have been arguably illegal, traumatizing for a lot of good workers, and are right now causing thousands of preventable deaths. AIDS, which was all but beaten in Africa, will likely make a comeback. The cuts in health research will likely lead to many more in the future. The other cuts in research will likely lead to slower economic growth. You have aligned yourself with cruelty and stupidity. You do not strike me as a cruel and stupid person. I ask you to rethink your position.
I hear you and understand where you're coming from. I myself would likely haven't done that, if I were in his place.
But I also wouldn't have fired 80% of Twitter employees, and it worked.
The lesson to me is not: "Firing 80% of employees is good."
The lesson is: "There's huge value in novel approaches to things, especially when they are led by intelligent leaders, even if the approaches seem counter-intuitive".
Some of the consequences you discuss will be right. Some will be wrong. There's immense value in knowing which ones are which, and why.
Wow. You find what they are doing is “interesting”. I think you are blinded by your intellect. Where’s your moral compass? Where’s your compassion? Where’s your analysis? The two biggest sources of waste in the federal government are military contracting and Medicare Advantage (and the whole medical-pharma complex where we pay twice as much per capita with worse results compared with other countries). Not people working to prevent forest fires in National Forests.
I would cluster the ending of USAID together with their other ways of punishing their international allies. I expect the African countries that lose US aid to get closer to China and Russia in their search for foreign aid.
This was such a great column it inspired me to become a paying subscriber.
I have a small quibble. You say you aren't a centrist because you aren't milquetoast. I think you are a "centrist" simply because if I plot your views on some high dimensional plot of "political views and values" together with the views and values of the broad population, your views and values will dance around some central point.
This is perfect:
"people tend to be credulous of what leaders say, simply because they are in leadership. I think we should be the opposite.
I have a systematic skepticism, both of what people say and of people in power, so I have twice the skepticism of what people in power say."
In any case, you put into words my own views and values. Thank you so much.
And thanks for the quibble. It made me think harder about this. So let me try again:
Normally, a centrist will have most positions in between those of the left and right. Eg on government size, they might want one bigger than the right, but smaller than the left. I don’t ascribe to that. Instead, I probably have some positions that are very right or very left in some regards.
If we do the averages of what you say, I will tend to be much more pro-freedom than the average person, both in terms of the economy (fewer regulations, smaller government, fewer taxes…) and personal freedom ( protection of minorities for their freedom, more sexual freedom, more child-rearing freedom…)
"Smaller government" as a goal is fraught with problems, as this administration (and our country) is learning the hard way. We should be talking about "optimized government," which doesn't arbitrarily slash people and services just to make them smaller, but instead considers every expenditure on its own merit. This is far more difficult than the slash-and-burn approach of DOGE, but it will lead to a more beneficial outcome. Smaller is not always better. For instance, reducing regulations has proven repeatedly to lead to massive abuse by corporations whose open goal is profit, not safety, efficacy, fairness, etc.
Laffer came up with the concept on the back of a napkin. No one has ever managed to determine its shape, or where we are on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
I was really just making a joke, but the Laffer curve does oversimplify complex economic forces and there are limitations to its effectiveness as a model, especially when used to justify supply-side economics. For instance: several large tax cuts over the last 40 years have not led to enhanced revenue as predicted by the curve. As with all things economic, it's more complicated than it appears.
Tomas explained the reason for the cutting budgets and positions first instead of trying to analyze which are unnecessary before deciding - the best way to find out what is really needed is to start from zero. An optimized government won’t be possible if you keep unnecessary employees and duplicative departments and projects. I am for a smaller optimized government.
"Starting from zero" sounds like a great excuse to rationalize a simplistic and childlike approach to something that requires a nuanced and complex solution. I want to renovate my kitchen, so I'm just going to bulldoze the whole house and start from zero so it's easier to get what I want. The optimal solution is to do the hard work of deciding what needs to stay (perhaps the modern flooring and the state-of-the art refrigerator) and what needs to go (the cabinets and the old-school oven). But this requires planning, foresight, and competency—all things that are being ignored by this administration. They just have the bulldozer, so everything looks like a demolition project.
I have always enjoyed Tomas's thoughtful analysis but was surprised to see him endorsing DOGE, even in theory. This famous quote seems very germane:
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken.
Btw, DOGE is not actually a government department.
Today thousands of health workers at the CDC and FDA lost their jobs—effective immediately. Some found out when they tried to badge in, only to be denied entry. This is not cut aid that will affect some other faraway people "not like us". This will directly impact the health of the American people. The reason: Trump has claimed without evidence that the agency was rife with fraud and run by “radical left lunatics”, while Musk falsely accused it of being a “criminal” organization.
Health divisions are gone, and programs are gutted
HIV prevention? Gone.
Asthma and air quality team? Gone.
Environmental hazard response? Gone.
Gun violence prevention? Gutted.
Communications? Gutted.
Worker safety? Gone.
Reproductive health? Gone.
Birth defects? Gone.
Disability health? Gone.
TB prevention? Gone.
Blood disorder programs? Gone.
National survey on drug use and mental health? Gone.
Lead poisoning prevention? Gone.
Water safety? Gone.
Tobacco control division? Gone.
And that’s just CDC. FDA has a list. Same with NIH.
There’s no question that health institutions can be run more efficiently. Reimagining public health is essential. But tearing it down with no plan to rebuild isn’t transformation. It’s sabotage.
The ultimate justification for these cuts is cost savings. But these cuts do not make financial sense. Federal workers make up less than 1% of the HHS budget. And, public health programs are all about prevention—which is not only good for our health but can be much cheaper than treating disease. For every $1 spent on flu vaccines for the elderly, $60 are saved. For every $1 spent in NIH funding, $4.25 is added to the local economies. Cutting these programs may save a dollar today, but when people start to get sick because of eliminated programs, we’ll pay many times more in health care costs down the road, much out of the government’s pocket for Medicare. We’re borrowing from our future selves with far too high an interest rate: in dollars, in health, and in lives.
Disclosure: I am not employed or funded by any US government agency.
Howard: It's always comforting to find someone articulately expressing views I 100% share. It saves me a lot of time when I can just hit the little heart button and leave a comment of praise. Thanks!
It continues to baffle me that intelligent people can't see that this whole size of government argument isn't really about money, it's about power and always has been.
It makes sense to try to reduce the power of tyrants (unless they are that uncommon beast known as a the benign dictator). It makes no sense to take power away from a democratic government and hand it to huge, powerful, undemocratic corporate leaders.
I'm trying to stay constructive, so what I'd point you to is the concept of 'enabling constraints'. A good example?...white lines down the centre of a road. It's a constraint (regulation) but it means you can go faster than would be safe otherwise.
I see your point. I concur. My values would have similar outliers. I used to think that "centrist" didn't mean "milquetoast", but rather "thoughtful" and "independent thinker". I can see "centrist" is not descriptive enough, in part because I don't care where the center is. I'm very much pro-freedom, and pro-distributed-power. I'm not in any way a supporter of Mr. Trump, but I have no problem finding some shared values with friends and acquantances who supoort him and his policies.
This discussion has made me consider again the inherent failure of the US 2-party system.
I agree with you, and the elaboration Tomas offered. What is a better word?
In the US, because of our 2-party system, politicians need to be strongly coupled to one party or another to stay in power. Currently the GOP is mimicking the communist party of China, and the former communist party of the USSR - their primary consideration is keeping the party in power.
The American democratic system is decided by the people with money. And the electoral college skews the results so that the value of each vote is different in each state, and even to the point that a vote for the losing side is worthless.
I find it strange that a government that governs the entire country doesn’t have equitable basis for choosing its president.
Democrats are only slightly less egregious in their machinations to retain power, so it's a systemic issue more than a partisan one. As far as what to call someone who supports both left and right perspectives but not necessarily ones in the "center," I would advocate for "freethinker," although that does sound a bit self-aggrandizing. "Independent," "pluralist," "hybridist," "post-partisan," "fusionist"—take your pick!
I certainly agree that it is a systemic issue rather than a partisan one. It just happens that the GOP has seized power. I won't be surprised to see a number of "Democrats" become "Republicans" so they can join the current party of power.
With vaccination, a point that should be discussed more often is that vaccination is a *collective* choice, not an individual choice.
We all learn at school (or elsewhere) that you get the vaccine, and then you are immune,etc. You.
However, here are two questions: (1) look at your baby’s vaccination schedule. When is the first dose for Measles? (answer: 18 months). So then, (2) why don’t babies die of the Measles?
Vaccination does not work by making everyone who opts in immune. It works by having enough people immune so that outbreaks are self extinguishing. In simplified terms: if a disease is infectious enough that a sick individual exposes, on average, 10 people to an infectious dose, then without any immunity, the outbreak will spread rapidly. Every "generation" of infected people is 10 times as large. If 90% is vaccinated then 9 out of 10 of those exposed people won’t get sick, so you can see that as a balancing point where the outbreak kind of is stable. If, say, 95% is vaccinated, then every sick individual on average will get only 0.5 more people sick, and the outbreak thus will quickly extinguish. We call this herd immunity.
(this is a simplification from a lay man, for details ask a nearby immunologist)
But the important thing here is, we have to *collectively* make a decision to reach that 90+% level of vaccination. In libertarian speak, this herd immunity is a common good, and people who are refusing to get a vaccine even though they are probably healthy enough to take it are freeloading on that common good.
The situation for COVID was a bit more muddy, it being a quickly mutating RNA virus. But overall, vaccinated people ended up in the hospital something like 5 times less. And so getting most people vaccinated allowed us to reopen much more things without swamping the hospitals. As far as I understand the choices were either keep the economy mostly locked for a LONG time, or push most people to get vaccinated, or accept that hospitals will have to build a temporary stack of cooled containers to store dead bodies. And this choice as well cannot be made on an individual level, it must be made collectively.
You are right, which is why I believe that unvaccinated people should be free to do whatever they want (without free healthcare coverage) AFTER THE REST OF THE POPULATION HAS HAD ACCESS TO VACCINES THEMSELVES!
Given that you asked for feedback on your thoughts, here is mine, in the context of DOGE:
- the argument that the state is not pressured to reduce costs seems flawed. Governments are under significant pressure to meet voter demands, and politicians proposing tax increases often face severe pushback. In many Western countries, essential social services like healthcare, education, and pensions are actually underfunded due to budget constraints.
- A more accurate statement would be that the state isn't pressured to innovate and improve the efficiency of existing services. The focus should be on optimizing processes and better delivering services rather than just reducing costs. This highlights how ineffective approach #2 would be in driving meaningful government efficiency.
- To truly make a substantial impact on public spending, cuts would need to target major sectors like pensions, healthcare, education, welfare, and military. However, cuts in these areas are often highly unpopular (depending on which political side you ask). DOGE tends to focus on less impactful programs instead, creating a spectacle of cutting (negligible) costs, which is more about optics than real fiscal change.
- so, if it is not reducing public spending in a meaningful manner, what is DOGE for? Perhaps a more significant, but less discussed goal of DOGE is that it intends to centralize power on the executive branch (Trump) by cutting existing bureaucracies that get in the way.
My preference is for you to abstain from political discussions. Frankly, I don't care. I subscribe because you write about topics that interest me, especially when you use maps to illustrate your points.
"I used to like what you wrote, but in this article you say..." and now I LOVE it! Honestly, I'm just so glad that people like you still exist. So, I guess, thanks for existing :) and for your calmly brave intelligence (and it's not just because I agree with you (which I mostly do), it's about the quality of your arguments and reasoning)
This is absolutely incredible. I don’t think I could have more succinctly stated my position favoring policy over politics either. and we agree on most. I deeply wish more people would think this way so we could have more productive debate and better outcomes. I really appreciate your writing here.
Overall, it appears we agree on almost every issue. However, I disagree on DOGE, and on choosing #2 over #1. The reason will become clear: to save X, you destroy it. Then to rebuild it, when you realize you erred, costs 2x...or more. To date, the damage DOGE has done far exceeds any savings. What value do you put on the long term damage to the US reputation which results from eradicating USAID, which did tremendous good around the world for a relatively modest amount of money, vs. the alternative, which is 5x in military expenditures?
What value do you put on destroying our public health system? On the millions that will die without USAID humanitarian assistance? Public servants who were willing to work for the USG for 20% less than they would command in the private sector...because they felt the work made a difference, and because they liked the job security...now the USG will have to pay 1.3x to hire replacements as it no longer offers any job security. DOGE says it is about efficiency, but to date it has just been Eradication...the Dept of Government Eradication. Musk thinks if we destroy government, it will destroy democracy, and the tech oligarchs can then rule unimpeded. Simply insane. If it were truly about eliminating waste and inefficiency, they would not have started by firing the IGs, whose sole job is to root out waste and inefficiency. You fire them when you want no one around to complain about your corruption. And as to Elon: https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-plot-against-america?r=klo3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
Tomas sorry you felt the need to take sides. Like you I take each issue on its merits and don't align with either party down the line. I do think the Repubs abandoned governance and principle for raw power going back to Gingrich. Their zombie obeisance to the orange king and wealthy donors is shameful and disqualifying. Dems are often well intentioned but lack the courage of their convictions , are too beholden too wealthy donors, and worry more about pronouns than feeding kids. I'd like to see both parties replaced by better alternatives.
I disagree bigly on DOGE. I think Musk and his hackers are committing acts of public vandalism. In the agencies with which I am familiar, NIH, NSF, FDA , and CDC, at each of which I have colleagues and friends, is clear that on the ground level the DOGE chainsaw is not guided by any knowledge of these agencies, understanding of what employees actually do, or any sense that every randomly fired employee is an actual person with a mortgage to pay, kids to feed, clothe, and school, elderly parents to care for, etc. Also, long term employees carry deep institutional knowledge that keeps these agencies functioning and is lost when they are tossed. Hard to see any sense in DOGE when they are dumb enough to fire food inspectors at FDA, disease trackers at CDC, cancel covid and HIV programs at NIH, and nuclear weapons safety inspectors at Energy. Much of the "savings" DOGE claims is exaggerated or false. The damage they do, however, is real and lasting. If the goal is really to reduce federal waste, then first study agency budgets and org charts, ask inspector generals for guidance on effectiveness (after hiring theem back), and then consolidate or cut where it will have greatest impact. That's now what odd Elon and his kids are doing. I predict that Musk will be sent back to Texas soon and DOGE will have made little long lasting impact.
As for implying any long term or 3D chess thinking behind Trump's actions, that's pure fantasy. He is all Id, no ego. A creature motivated only by anger, resentment, bigotry, ignorance, and appetite. He is surrounded by shitheads who think they can bend him to their own self interested goal, only to be slimed .
Tomas, I think your article was extremely good, as usual, with the exception of thinking slashing first and then assessing is a good idea. I agree with EB's points, and am glad to see that you think these points are valid. The loss of institutional knowledge when you slash is an incredible loss, and slashing blindly IMO is really stupidity because you don't even know what you are destroying when you do it. And, there seems to be no regard at all for the fact that these employees have kids to feed, rent and mortgages to pay, etc. I come from a business consulting background and have worked with business, tech, government, non-profits, etc. The purpose of business is profit. The purpose of government is to protect and take care of people. Business people don't necessarily know anything about running the government. It takes someone who is truly dedicated to public service with years of experience to do that well. Business skills can be a useful adjunct, but they are not at the heart of what government is about. Treating the government as if it is a business is a big mistake. The costs to the people that the government is supposed to be protecting and serving already are terrible and will continue to be as long as these cuts are in place.
The DOGE approach is a disaster, and will cost taxpayers multiples of what it saves. Tomas is wrong on selecting option 2. The smart way to cut costs is to be intelligent, and study first. DOGE has already done billions in damage to the taxpayers. The damage to the US around the world is incalculable.
I want to give you credit for how much you expose yourself through your writing. You say what you think about the topics you touch, and today you detail your political thinking. Us, commenters, don't need to do that and we can criticise you (or praise you) on the takes we prefer, without having to disclose what we think. But we know your positions from the inside out. That's not an easy task. Thanks for that :)
good and timely article; it is high time people talk policies rather than politics.
Don't agree with all your points but then again, that is a healthy thing - diversity of opinions encourages debate, which in turn, will lead to better solutions. Thank you Tomas!
Fantastic article—thank you for taking the time to clearly articulate your positions with such thoughtfulness and clarity. It’s incredibly refreshing to see someone engage with the complexities of each issue, free from the constraints of political labels and tribal thinking. I find myself aligned with many of your views, and even where we may differ, I truly appreciate the reasoning behind your perspective.
There was a time when civil, respectful, and nuanced dialogue was the norm, not the exception. We desperately need to return to that spirit—where open minds meet in honest conversation, and differences aren't cause for division but opportunities for growth.
Voices like yours are vital in nurturing that kind of discourse. Please keep writing, reflecting, and sharing—this is exactly the kind of contribution that moves us forward.
You claim to not be either Democrat or Republican, but this article is just full of shallow Republican talking points. You talk about the radicalization of Democrats versus the general public but you ignore the fact that Republicans have won the popular vote, only narrowly, in two of the last nine Presidential elections. By trying to gauge the views of "elites and influencers" you get to define a population that could produce any results you want. You talk about Biden printing money during the pandemic but ignore the fact that Trump printed way more money. You talk about unsafe Democratic cities but the facts are that cities are safer now than they have been in the last 70 years. You also fail to mention that Republican courts and Republican policies push guns, guns, guns, everywhere and then they blame Democrats for gun violence, it is almost comical. Biden did not have an "open border" policy. What he did was follow the laws of the United States. Biden was the one who got a border enhancement bill negotiated in Congress, but Trump trashed it because he wanted a talking point to bamboozle voters.
You talk about DEI going too far, but the majority of Americans support DEI policies, and numerous highly successful companies still embrace them. It's only through illegal Trump pressure that other businesses are caving to what amounts to blackmail from the US government.
I could go on, but it is useless. You may not call yourself a Republican but you have been captured by their Tik Tok level analysis of what is wrong in this country, and what is required to fix it. Look back at what Teddy Roosevelt did in the early 1900's to equalize power in the capitalistic system and then you have a ticket to what needs to happen today. Billionaires are
not inherently evil, but they have too much power in our capitalistic system and that power needs to be equalized. Biden's policies were doing that and were successful, but the billionaires were able to buy this election and now they are taking back economic power and are stripping out the government which is the only check on them.
Subscription cancelled.
QED
I understand the instinct to dismiss Richard's post with a bit of Latin panache, but his points are valid and deserve consideration.
Thank you for so eloquently expressing some of my own visceral reactions to this article. I have never been a Democrat, but some of the positions taken in this article (and some he left out) did make me think that Thomas has been sipping some of the far-right Kool-Aid.
But I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's unreasonable for me to presume that Pueyo and I will agree on all issues. And even where we disagree, I'm (almost) as likely to question my own assumptions as I am to dismiss his. His history of comprehensive and articulate analysis has earned him a HUGE degree of latitude in my eyes.
Your points are very good, Richard, but I'm hopeful that you reconsider your chastisement (abandonment?) of Thomas. We need his clarion voice of logic and reason in the world right now, even if we don't agree with all of it.
I have been sipping some of the far-right Kool-Aid for sure! And some of the moderate right. And the moderate left. And the far-left. Hopefully I access the best voices of all groups and synthesize them reasonably well!
Thank you for your understanding and being measured. This is what we need!
I too appreciate Pueyo’s smart, thorough analysis of the many topics about which he writes, and give him broad latitude when I disagree with or question any of his points. But in this piece I do see maga talking points seeping through. And there’s another “tell”, whether intentional or unintentional: Only faux news and their followers spit out the term “Democrat” in place of “Democratic”. Given my longstanding respect for Pueyo’s intellectual approach to all topics, I’ll assume this is unintentional and will include here a link that informs anyone who may wonder “what’s the difference?” https://youtube.com/shorts/tJyhEKQEp6c?si=51gDnblqchkvZtCu
Hi Bill,
I grew up outside of the US, so that should explain the imperfect language. This is especially confusing to me because democratic has a very different meaning in every language than the US's Democratic. Also, I have one US and one Australian editor that go through these, so I wouldn't read too much into these supposed tells. But thanks for the link!
Maybe I have MAGA talking points because I listen to some of their sources, and also have Democratic talking points because I listen to some of their sources? For example, I mention Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, hardly right-wing voices!
I was bothered by that, too, but I presume that he's deliberately choosing when to use one or the other for a legitimate reason (I'd love to know what that is). I think the big D, little d, distinction is sufficient in all cases except the beginning of a sentence, which one can easily avoid. It's hard for me to imagine that he's deliberately using what we all know is a right-wing bad-faith ploy, but he is human and does seem to have almost as many anti-Democrat perspectives as he does anti-Republican ones. As Jamie Raskin once mused: You don't hear Democrats referring to the GOP as "Banana Republicans," because that's childish and deliberately adversarial.
Just didn't have one! I can start using Democratic
I see now that your YouTube link is to the Jamie Raskin piece I referenced. Great minds think alike!
Glad to know I'm not the only one seeing this.
And there were several warning signs. Posts on cancel culture and more recently freedom of speech were basically copy-pastying far-right rhetoric.
But that's not the worst. The worst is, when confronted with numerous valid counterpoints like you just did (which literally entirely destroy any semblance of neutrality), Tomas seems satisfied to... not answer to them.
"QED" is a childish and frankly pathetic little victory dance. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is too partisan".
And fans are still blindingly saying "I appreciate you independent thinking and non-partisan approach". Hint : they do because it doesn't contradict their beliefs, and they can keep thinking they are also independent thinkers.
EDIT : I asked ChatGPT DeepResearch to evaluate the neutrality of the post, and I think the result speaks for itself :
Overall Neutrality Assessment
Considering all of the above, Pueyo’s critiques of Republicans (primarily of Trump) are delivered in a largely neutral, analytical manner. He sticks to verifiable policy and strategic failures without unfair generalizations. We can rate his Republican section as very neutral – roughly 5/5 in overall neutrality. Aside from a few sharp descriptors aimed at Trump personally, he provides context and even notes positive aspects where due. Importantly, he isolates Trump rather than painting all conservatives with the same brush, which shows restraint and nuance.
In contrast, Pueyo’s critiques of Democrats, while often valid in isolation, display a noticeable bias in aggregate. He uses broader strokes – implying an entire party has “radicalized” – and focuses on their missteps without equally examining the Republican role in those same issue areas. The tone is somewhat more severe and less sympathetic. Therefore, his Democratic section is less neutral, leaning toward a moderate bias. As a whole, one could rate his critique of Democrats around 2.5 to 3 out of 5 on neutrality. It’s not a one-sided rant (he does base it on real problems the Democrats face), but it isn’t as even-handed or contextualized as it could be.
In summary: Tomas Pueyo portrays himself as politically neutral, and in terms of intentions he applies skepticism to both sides. However, in execution, his analysis is imbalance in focus. He rigorously dissects Trump’s faults (earning high marks for neutrality on GOP issues), but then he turns a more critical eye toward Democratic tendencies as a whole. The result is that his ostensibly “neutral” position still lands harder on Democrats. Whether one interprets that as bias or simply as his honest diagnosis of America’s political ills, the consistency of neutrality is not the same for both sets of critiques.
Overall, Pueyo’s Republican critiques score ~⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (5/5) on neutrality, while his Democratic critiques score ~⭐️⭐️⭐️ (3/5). This suggests that despite his claim of being “none of the above” politically, his analysis leans more critical of the left side of the spectrum than the right, raising questions about the full consistency of his neutrality claim. Nonetheless, readers from across the political divide can find thought-provoking points in his essay – as long as they also consider the broader context and missing pieces that a truly neutral referee would include.
Complete argumentation with sources and original prompt here :
https://chatgpt.com/share/67ed7bfd-7af0-8001-9eaf-5e372803baf5
Perplexity DeepResearch arrived at a similar conclusion :
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/attached-is-a-post-i-need-you-l3UB9LbzQ5e6xd1C0O28HQ?0=d
@Tomas, I know my emotions above are gonna trigger your emotions, but there's a very good machine with no emotions whatsoever thinking you have a significant right-leaning bias.
I think that should be food for thought for you. I mean, either you are indeed center-right, and you could just admit it (it's not an insult), or you are not, and your post was not as neutral as you think.
I've never used AI for this purpose before. Very clever! That doesn't mean that the AI provides an unbiased perspective, but it does give food for thought. I find Pueyo to be a little too forgiving of the Right and a little too unfairly critical of the Left (at times) but that's too be expected since I'm on the Left. I'm sure someone on the Right would have a similar criticism. The AI input is valid but hardly conclusive. Still, if I were Pueyo, I would take it into account. Thanks for your heady contribution (as usual)!
Very interesting but I think you still need a set of values, otherwise the analysis becomes too reductionistic and ultimately irrelevant.
An obvious example is DOGE: whatever good it might accomplish, it is outside the rule of law. Funds are being cut that were already appropriated by Congress.
Thus DOGE actions assault democracy.
They are in line with Curtis Yarvin and an entirely new world order that won't be about your stated priorities (the happiness of the majority).
They can't make democracy better by ignoring what we've voted for. One can't get a fair society by systematically disobeying laws.
On immigration: mass deportations not a thoughtful response to a problem and is leading states like Florida to propose child labor as a solution to the new problems they are creating. Prison labor will be the other solution. Again contradicts the goal of happiness for the majority.
And cruel detention of students and visa holders destroys education and tourism on a large scale. At some point, you need to look at the totality of the actions and understand that you need to dig deeper if any of them look good to you.
IMO analyzing individual actions stripped of their role in the greater context renders the analysis irrelevant.
Yeah I didn't say it would be good for DOGE to break the law!
but you can't say they're ignoring what ppl voted for.
Election results from yesterday suggest people didn't in fact vote for chaos, annexing Greenland and threatening Canada, inflation, unemployment, and stock market plunge.
A deeper analysis is required here too. One poll I saw said 82% of respondents said the president should obey federal court rulings! Very few people voted for a constitutional crisis.
Yes, 45-48% of respondents still approve of his performance, but only 28% of registered independents. Whatever they heard before the election and voted for, it seems a little reality is now sneaking through.
For the most part the GOP have been explicitly running sans a policy platform for several election cycles. instead projecting a fake DEM platform to run against. Indeed some of your commentary about the Democrats and wokeism is just repeating GOP/FOX talking points about issues that were not part of any platform that any Democrat ran on. There is general sense of you holding Harris and the Dems to a far far higher standard of accountability and credibility than the GOP ... perhaps because they have led the population to believe that there is no point in either. I literally fail to see any any relevance in Harris not being in some way elected despite her being an accountable elected representative for so many years against Trump's complete lack of any electoral or even community contribution.
Between Trump disclaiming Project 2025 and senior GOP reps saying that not Trump just "says stuff" that isn't policy, there isn't a clear sense of what people were voting for. He's doing a lot of things that he didn't declare up front, and as usual flips and turns from week to week. He's ripped up the "great" NAFTA agreement he created in his first term as rubbish as if he had nothing to do with it.
You talk about right and left as not being meaningful - they are certainly not only belief relative in terms of parties and financial/social axes but they have shifted and warped incredibly over the post-Reagan period. Democrats have been dragged to the right of Reagan on many issues and yet are still tagged as some kind of socialists, without any acknowledgement of the enormous move to the right of the GOP and its forsaking of foundational platforms. Much of what is branded as far-left in the US is centrist in other advanced democracies (and I've lived in four of them including the US).
This is exactly why I love your work:
Given the topics I write about, people constantly ask me if I’m a Democrat or a Republican, right-wing or left-wing. So let’s make it clear: I am none of these.
Thank you! ❤️❤️
I loved this article but (of course) found myself pushing back against a few things (Biden was frail but still highly competent, "self-made men" aren't self-made, DOGE will NEVER lead to lower taxes for us, the Right has become WAY more radicalized than the Left, etc.). Pueyo is so freaking informed and rational, though, that I question even those minor complaints. He's still susceptible to bias, but so am I—and I'm far less informed. So I will embrace the amazing insights in this article and rethink some of my most strongly held opinions (always a good practice). I just wish more people would take the time to read your long-form content because there's literally nothing else even remotely close out there. Keep up the excellent work!
Thank you!
And to be clear, I might be wrong too! Especially in this article, since I lowered my usual standards
I appreciate your viewpoint about not bundling policy positions.
Your perspective on DOGE is dead wrong. Regardless of what DOGE says they are doing, it’s pretty clear what they are actually doing. From an article today: “The layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services slashed the staffs of major federal aging, disability and anti-poverty programs, leaving the future of those programs uncertain.” Meals on Wheels, that’s where the waste is, right? You write, “Delete first, and rethink your position after people come to complain.” The random cuts have been arguably illegal, traumatizing for a lot of good workers, and are right now causing thousands of preventable deaths. AIDS, which was all but beaten in Africa, will likely make a comeback. The cuts in health research will likely lead to many more in the future. The other cuts in research will likely lead to slower economic growth. You have aligned yourself with cruelty and stupidity. You do not strike me as a cruel and stupid person. I ask you to rethink your position.
I hear you and understand where you're coming from. I myself would likely haven't done that, if I were in his place.
But I also wouldn't have fired 80% of Twitter employees, and it worked.
The lesson to me is not: "Firing 80% of employees is good."
The lesson is: "There's huge value in novel approaches to things, especially when they are led by intelligent leaders, even if the approaches seem counter-intuitive".
Some of the consequences you discuss will be right. Some will be wrong. There's immense value in knowing which ones are which, and why.
That's what I find interesting in DOGE.
Wow. You find what they are doing is “interesting”. I think you are blinded by your intellect. Where’s your moral compass? Where’s your compassion? Where’s your analysis? The two biggest sources of waste in the federal government are military contracting and Medicare Advantage (and the whole medical-pharma complex where we pay twice as much per capita with worse results compared with other countries). Not people working to prevent forest fires in National Forests.
Define 'worked'....https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/28/business/elon-musk-sells-x-to-xai ...
I would cluster the ending of USAID together with their other ways of punishing their international allies. I expect the African countries that lose US aid to get closer to China and Russia in their search for foreign aid.
This was such a great column it inspired me to become a paying subscriber.
I have a small quibble. You say you aren't a centrist because you aren't milquetoast. I think you are a "centrist" simply because if I plot your views on some high dimensional plot of "political views and values" together with the views and values of the broad population, your views and values will dance around some central point.
This is perfect:
"people tend to be credulous of what leaders say, simply because they are in leadership. I think we should be the opposite.
I have a systematic skepticism, both of what people say and of people in power, so I have twice the skepticism of what people in power say."
In any case, you put into words my own views and values. Thank you so much.
Thank you! I’m glad to hear!
And thanks for the quibble. It made me think harder about this. So let me try again:
Normally, a centrist will have most positions in between those of the left and right. Eg on government size, they might want one bigger than the right, but smaller than the left. I don’t ascribe to that. Instead, I probably have some positions that are very right or very left in some regards.
If we do the averages of what you say, I will tend to be much more pro-freedom than the average person, both in terms of the economy (fewer regulations, smaller government, fewer taxes…) and personal freedom ( protection of minorities for their freedom, more sexual freedom, more child-rearing freedom…)
"Smaller government" as a goal is fraught with problems, as this administration (and our country) is learning the hard way. We should be talking about "optimized government," which doesn't arbitrarily slash people and services just to make them smaller, but instead considers every expenditure on its own merit. This is far more difficult than the slash-and-burn approach of DOGE, but it will lead to a more beneficial outcome. Smaller is not always better. For instance, reducing regulations has proven repeatedly to lead to massive abuse by corporations whose open goal is profit, not safety, efficacy, fairness, etc.
Ir really is a case by case, but you should also note that every dollar is more expensive, given the laffer curve
I find the Laffer curve laughable.
The concept is forcefully true!
Laffer came up with the concept on the back of a napkin. No one has ever managed to determine its shape, or where we are on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
I was really just making a joke, but the Laffer curve does oversimplify complex economic forces and there are limitations to its effectiveness as a model, especially when used to justify supply-side economics. For instance: several large tax cuts over the last 40 years have not led to enhanced revenue as predicted by the curve. As with all things economic, it's more complicated than it appears.
Tomas explained the reason for the cutting budgets and positions first instead of trying to analyze which are unnecessary before deciding - the best way to find out what is really needed is to start from zero. An optimized government won’t be possible if you keep unnecessary employees and duplicative departments and projects. I am for a smaller optimized government.
"Starting from zero" sounds like a great excuse to rationalize a simplistic and childlike approach to something that requires a nuanced and complex solution. I want to renovate my kitchen, so I'm just going to bulldoze the whole house and start from zero so it's easier to get what I want. The optimal solution is to do the hard work of deciding what needs to stay (perhaps the modern flooring and the state-of-the art refrigerator) and what needs to go (the cabinets and the old-school oven). But this requires planning, foresight, and competency—all things that are being ignored by this administration. They just have the bulldozer, so everything looks like a demolition project.
I have always enjoyed Tomas's thoughtful analysis but was surprised to see him endorsing DOGE, even in theory. This famous quote seems very germane:
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken.
Btw, DOGE is not actually a government department.
Today thousands of health workers at the CDC and FDA lost their jobs—effective immediately. Some found out when they tried to badge in, only to be denied entry. This is not cut aid that will affect some other faraway people "not like us". This will directly impact the health of the American people. The reason: Trump has claimed without evidence that the agency was rife with fraud and run by “radical left lunatics”, while Musk falsely accused it of being a “criminal” organization.
Health divisions are gone, and programs are gutted
HIV prevention? Gone.
Asthma and air quality team? Gone.
Environmental hazard response? Gone.
Gun violence prevention? Gutted.
Communications? Gutted.
Worker safety? Gone.
Reproductive health? Gone.
Birth defects? Gone.
Disability health? Gone.
TB prevention? Gone.
Blood disorder programs? Gone.
National survey on drug use and mental health? Gone.
Lead poisoning prevention? Gone.
Water safety? Gone.
Tobacco control division? Gone.
And that’s just CDC. FDA has a list. Same with NIH.
There’s no question that health institutions can be run more efficiently. Reimagining public health is essential. But tearing it down with no plan to rebuild isn’t transformation. It’s sabotage.
The ultimate justification for these cuts is cost savings. But these cuts do not make financial sense. Federal workers make up less than 1% of the HHS budget. And, public health programs are all about prevention—which is not only good for our health but can be much cheaper than treating disease. For every $1 spent on flu vaccines for the elderly, $60 are saved. For every $1 spent in NIH funding, $4.25 is added to the local economies. Cutting these programs may save a dollar today, but when people start to get sick because of eliminated programs, we’ll pay many times more in health care costs down the road, much out of the government’s pocket for Medicare. We’re borrowing from our future selves with far too high an interest rate: in dollars, in health, and in lives.
Disclosure: I am not employed or funded by any US government agency.
The fact that I agree with the approach doesn't mean I agree with the actual things they're cutting
Howard: It's always comforting to find someone articulately expressing views I 100% share. It saves me a lot of time when I can just hit the little heart button and leave a comment of praise. Thanks!
It continues to baffle me that intelligent people can't see that this whole size of government argument isn't really about money, it's about power and always has been.
It makes sense to try to reduce the power of tyrants (unless they are that uncommon beast known as a the benign dictator). It makes no sense to take power away from a democratic government and hand it to huge, powerful, undemocratic corporate leaders.
I'm trying to stay constructive, so what I'd point you to is the concept of 'enabling constraints'. A good example?...white lines down the centre of a road. It's a constraint (regulation) but it means you can go faster than would be safe otherwise.
I see your point. I concur. My values would have similar outliers. I used to think that "centrist" didn't mean "milquetoast", but rather "thoughtful" and "independent thinker". I can see "centrist" is not descriptive enough, in part because I don't care where the center is. I'm very much pro-freedom, and pro-distributed-power. I'm not in any way a supporter of Mr. Trump, but I have no problem finding some shared values with friends and acquantances who supoort him and his policies.
This discussion has made me consider again the inherent failure of the US 2-party system.
I think you missed the point. Being “centrist” would imply alignment with weaker policies from left and right, a sort of middle ground.
But I think Tomas is saying that it is possible to agree with policies from both left and right at the same time.
In Switzerland the nation votes on policies, not on left or right politics.
I agree with you, and the elaboration Tomas offered. What is a better word?
In the US, because of our 2-party system, politicians need to be strongly coupled to one party or another to stay in power. Currently the GOP is mimicking the communist party of China, and the former communist party of the USSR - their primary consideration is keeping the party in power.
The American democratic system is decided by the people with money. And the electoral college skews the results so that the value of each vote is different in each state, and even to the point that a vote for the losing side is worthless.
I find it strange that a government that governs the entire country doesn’t have equitable basis for choosing its president.
Or have I misunderstood the system.
Democrats are only slightly less egregious in their machinations to retain power, so it's a systemic issue more than a partisan one. As far as what to call someone who supports both left and right perspectives but not necessarily ones in the "center," I would advocate for "freethinker," although that does sound a bit self-aggrandizing. "Independent," "pluralist," "hybridist," "post-partisan," "fusionist"—take your pick!
I certainly agree that it is a systemic issue rather than a partisan one. It just happens that the GOP has seized power. I won't be surprised to see a number of "Democrats" become "Republicans" so they can join the current party of power.
We've seen some of that already. Tulsi Gabbard is the perfect example.
With vaccination, a point that should be discussed more often is that vaccination is a *collective* choice, not an individual choice.
We all learn at school (or elsewhere) that you get the vaccine, and then you are immune,etc. You.
However, here are two questions: (1) look at your baby’s vaccination schedule. When is the first dose for Measles? (answer: 18 months). So then, (2) why don’t babies die of the Measles?
Vaccination does not work by making everyone who opts in immune. It works by having enough people immune so that outbreaks are self extinguishing. In simplified terms: if a disease is infectious enough that a sick individual exposes, on average, 10 people to an infectious dose, then without any immunity, the outbreak will spread rapidly. Every "generation" of infected people is 10 times as large. If 90% is vaccinated then 9 out of 10 of those exposed people won’t get sick, so you can see that as a balancing point where the outbreak kind of is stable. If, say, 95% is vaccinated, then every sick individual on average will get only 0.5 more people sick, and the outbreak thus will quickly extinguish. We call this herd immunity.
(this is a simplification from a lay man, for details ask a nearby immunologist)
But the important thing here is, we have to *collectively* make a decision to reach that 90+% level of vaccination. In libertarian speak, this herd immunity is a common good, and people who are refusing to get a vaccine even though they are probably healthy enough to take it are freeloading on that common good.
The situation for COVID was a bit more muddy, it being a quickly mutating RNA virus. But overall, vaccinated people ended up in the hospital something like 5 times less. And so getting most people vaccinated allowed us to reopen much more things without swamping the hospitals. As far as I understand the choices were either keep the economy mostly locked for a LONG time, or push most people to get vaccinated, or accept that hospitals will have to build a temporary stack of cooled containers to store dead bodies. And this choice as well cannot be made on an individual level, it must be made collectively.
You are right, which is why I believe that unvaccinated people should be free to do whatever they want (without free healthcare coverage) AFTER THE REST OF THE POPULATION HAS HAD ACCESS TO VACCINES THEMSELVES!
Which is a free-rider problem. I'm disappointed in you.
Given that you asked for feedback on your thoughts, here is mine, in the context of DOGE:
- the argument that the state is not pressured to reduce costs seems flawed. Governments are under significant pressure to meet voter demands, and politicians proposing tax increases often face severe pushback. In many Western countries, essential social services like healthcare, education, and pensions are actually underfunded due to budget constraints.
- A more accurate statement would be that the state isn't pressured to innovate and improve the efficiency of existing services. The focus should be on optimizing processes and better delivering services rather than just reducing costs. This highlights how ineffective approach #2 would be in driving meaningful government efficiency.
- To truly make a substantial impact on public spending, cuts would need to target major sectors like pensions, healthcare, education, welfare, and military. However, cuts in these areas are often highly unpopular (depending on which political side you ask). DOGE tends to focus on less impactful programs instead, creating a spectacle of cutting (negligible) costs, which is more about optics than real fiscal change.
- so, if it is not reducing public spending in a meaningful manner, what is DOGE for? Perhaps a more significant, but less discussed goal of DOGE is that it intends to centralize power on the executive branch (Trump) by cutting existing bureaucracies that get in the way.
Agreed!
Except on the last point. Not sure about that. Maybe.
My preference is for you to abstain from political discussions. Frankly, I don't care. I subscribe because you write about topics that interest me, especially when you use maps to illustrate your points.
I agree with you!
"I used to like what you wrote, but in this article you say..." and now I LOVE it! Honestly, I'm just so glad that people like you still exist. So, I guess, thanks for existing :) and for your calmly brave intelligence (and it's not just because I agree with you (which I mostly do), it's about the quality of your arguments and reasoning)
Thank you!
This is absolutely incredible. I don’t think I could have more succinctly stated my position favoring policy over politics either. and we agree on most. I deeply wish more people would think this way so we could have more productive debate and better outcomes. I really appreciate your writing here.
Overall, it appears we agree on almost every issue. However, I disagree on DOGE, and on choosing #2 over #1. The reason will become clear: to save X, you destroy it. Then to rebuild it, when you realize you erred, costs 2x...or more. To date, the damage DOGE has done far exceeds any savings. What value do you put on the long term damage to the US reputation which results from eradicating USAID, which did tremendous good around the world for a relatively modest amount of money, vs. the alternative, which is 5x in military expenditures?
What value do you put on destroying our public health system? On the millions that will die without USAID humanitarian assistance? Public servants who were willing to work for the USG for 20% less than they would command in the private sector...because they felt the work made a difference, and because they liked the job security...now the USG will have to pay 1.3x to hire replacements as it no longer offers any job security. DOGE says it is about efficiency, but to date it has just been Eradication...the Dept of Government Eradication. Musk thinks if we destroy government, it will destroy democracy, and the tech oligarchs can then rule unimpeded. Simply insane. If it were truly about eliminating waste and inefficiency, they would not have started by firing the IGs, whose sole job is to root out waste and inefficiency. You fire them when you want no one around to complain about your corruption. And as to Elon: https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-plot-against-america?r=klo3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
I hear you. I do put a lot of value on the *political innovation* part though
Tomas sorry you felt the need to take sides. Like you I take each issue on its merits and don't align with either party down the line. I do think the Repubs abandoned governance and principle for raw power going back to Gingrich. Their zombie obeisance to the orange king and wealthy donors is shameful and disqualifying. Dems are often well intentioned but lack the courage of their convictions , are too beholden too wealthy donors, and worry more about pronouns than feeding kids. I'd like to see both parties replaced by better alternatives.
I disagree bigly on DOGE. I think Musk and his hackers are committing acts of public vandalism. In the agencies with which I am familiar, NIH, NSF, FDA , and CDC, at each of which I have colleagues and friends, is clear that on the ground level the DOGE chainsaw is not guided by any knowledge of these agencies, understanding of what employees actually do, or any sense that every randomly fired employee is an actual person with a mortgage to pay, kids to feed, clothe, and school, elderly parents to care for, etc. Also, long term employees carry deep institutional knowledge that keeps these agencies functioning and is lost when they are tossed. Hard to see any sense in DOGE when they are dumb enough to fire food inspectors at FDA, disease trackers at CDC, cancel covid and HIV programs at NIH, and nuclear weapons safety inspectors at Energy. Much of the "savings" DOGE claims is exaggerated or false. The damage they do, however, is real and lasting. If the goal is really to reduce federal waste, then first study agency budgets and org charts, ask inspector generals for guidance on effectiveness (after hiring theem back), and then consolidate or cut where it will have greatest impact. That's now what odd Elon and his kids are doing. I predict that Musk will be sent back to Texas soon and DOGE will have made little long lasting impact.
As for implying any long term or 3D chess thinking behind Trump's actions, that's pure fantasy. He is all Id, no ego. A creature motivated only by anger, resentment, bigotry, ignorance, and appetite. He is surrounded by shitheads who think they can bend him to their own self interested goal, only to be slimed .
Your points on DOGE are valid. This is not an easy problem!
Tomas, I think your article was extremely good, as usual, with the exception of thinking slashing first and then assessing is a good idea. I agree with EB's points, and am glad to see that you think these points are valid. The loss of institutional knowledge when you slash is an incredible loss, and slashing blindly IMO is really stupidity because you don't even know what you are destroying when you do it. And, there seems to be no regard at all for the fact that these employees have kids to feed, rent and mortgages to pay, etc. I come from a business consulting background and have worked with business, tech, government, non-profits, etc. The purpose of business is profit. The purpose of government is to protect and take care of people. Business people don't necessarily know anything about running the government. It takes someone who is truly dedicated to public service with years of experience to do that well. Business skills can be a useful adjunct, but they are not at the heart of what government is about. Treating the government as if it is a business is a big mistake. The costs to the people that the government is supposed to be protecting and serving already are terrible and will continue to be as long as these cuts are in place.
Very well said Kay. I agree completely. Eliot
Tomas explained in his post why your approach doesn’t work for fixing bloated bureaucracy.
The DOGE approach is a disaster, and will cost taxpayers multiples of what it saves. Tomas is wrong on selecting option 2. The smart way to cut costs is to be intelligent, and study first. DOGE has already done billions in damage to the taxpayers. The damage to the US around the world is incalculable.
Legitimate position
Hey,
I want to give you credit for how much you expose yourself through your writing. You say what you think about the topics you touch, and today you detail your political thinking. Us, commenters, don't need to do that and we can criticise you (or praise you) on the takes we prefer, without having to disclose what we think. But we know your positions from the inside out. That's not an easy task. Thanks for that :)
I will second that wholeheartedly.
good and timely article; it is high time people talk policies rather than politics.
Don't agree with all your points but then again, that is a healthy thing - diversity of opinions encourages debate, which in turn, will lead to better solutions. Thank you Tomas!