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.
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.
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.
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)!
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.
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!
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.
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 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 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)
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!
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.
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
Hey Tomas - FYI, AOC dropping the she/her identifier is a response to mandates to federal employees to remove DEI language from official documentation. She did not do it of her own volition.
Compelling description... lots to agree on here... and lots to debate... but thats the crux right? America used to be a land with differing solutions to agreed upon challenges (even if priorities varied amongst groups). Now we struggle to even agree on what is factual and what isn't.
Critical thought, and factual analysis that actively acknowledge and address our biases is crucial.
You are correct, congress members are not federal employees in the traditional sense. I was speaking from personal experience as a federal employee that was given guidance to remove that language from email footers and the like.
I see that the topic with her social media accounts and pronouns has a longer history than I knew. ("fell off" instagram in 2022, removed from X in 2024...) and predates the language changes of the EO's on gender and DEI in federal contexts.
I presume her staffers are more impacted by guidance from these EO's as they are federal employees, and I presume Congressional rules and norms are in lockstep at this point with the new EO's (which would govern what language can be on congressional social media accounts), but...
it does look like I drew a hasty conclusion, so until more explanation is provided by AOC herself, I'll retract my statement. She's certainly drawing attention to herself as a counterpoint to the current administration with her touring with Sanders, so not eschewing current rules and norms of congress seems a thin explanation.
Thanks for a great article. You opened this Canadian's eyes to several political issues with our next door neighbor. You certainly have a wide scope of vision. I appreciate learning what you were teaching even at my advanced age of 85.
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.
You should (and then you should write about it), because it seems like the most likely outcome.
My opinion for what it's worth is that you have your own misreading of the world today. Yes the US has allies since WW2, yes the US props up all the international organisations, and yes all those things reinforce US hegemony. But working & middle class people in the US feel poorer, and they blame globalism for it. (I make no comment on if this is true. But it's what people think.)
Without understanding that you can't claim to understand Trump's foreign policy, but with this in mind it makes it pretty clear what his reading of the world today is.
All that said, great piece, thanks for writing. The comments of people getting triggered because you were harsh on their side are good for a laugh.
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!
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.
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! ❤️❤️
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.
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)!
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!
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!
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.
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 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 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!
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!
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.
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
Hey Tomas - FYI, AOC dropping the she/her identifier is a response to mandates to federal employees to remove DEI language from official documentation. She did not do it of her own volition.
Compelling description... lots to agree on here... and lots to debate... but thats the crux right? America used to be a land with differing solutions to agreed upon challenges (even if priorities varied amongst groups). Now we struggle to even agree on what is factual and what isn't.
Critical thought, and factual analysis that actively acknowledge and address our biases is crucial.
Thanks for sharing
I didn't know that! Thanks
But... She's not a federal employee, is she? She's an elected member of Congress. I would be very surprised if that rule applied to her?
You are correct, congress members are not federal employees in the traditional sense. I was speaking from personal experience as a federal employee that was given guidance to remove that language from email footers and the like.
I see that the topic with her social media accounts and pronouns has a longer history than I knew. ("fell off" instagram in 2022, removed from X in 2024...) and predates the language changes of the EO's on gender and DEI in federal contexts.
I presume her staffers are more impacted by guidance from these EO's as they are federal employees, and I presume Congressional rules and norms are in lockstep at this point with the new EO's (which would govern what language can be on congressional social media accounts), but...
it does look like I drew a hasty conclusion, so until more explanation is provided by AOC herself, I'll retract my statement. She's certainly drawing attention to herself as a counterpoint to the current administration with her touring with Sanders, so not eschewing current rules and norms of congress seems a thin explanation.
Thanks for a great article. You opened this Canadian's eyes to several political issues with our next door neighbor. You certainly have a wide scope of vision. I appreciate learning what you were teaching even at my advanced age of 85.
Cheers!
I, as another Canadian, wish that we had a clear thinker in Canada who could bring a similar thoughtfulness to the issues that we have here.
Thank you to both of 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.
> I don’t want to contemplate the alternative.
You should (and then you should write about it), because it seems like the most likely outcome.
My opinion for what it's worth is that you have your own misreading of the world today. Yes the US has allies since WW2, yes the US props up all the international organisations, and yes all those things reinforce US hegemony. But working & middle class people in the US feel poorer, and they blame globalism for it. (I make no comment on if this is true. But it's what people think.)
Without understanding that you can't claim to understand Trump's foreign policy, but with this in mind it makes it pretty clear what his reading of the world today is.
All that said, great piece, thanks for writing. The comments of people getting triggered because you were harsh on their side are good for a laugh.
What you say is sensible. A good example of why I don't write about these topics!
To be clear: I'm glad you wrote about this and hope you do more. (Doesn't mean I agree with it all!)
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!