The Age of Theatrical Politics

I am waiting for the show to close

Note: I apologize for doing a post that relates to the Current Thing. In general, I will try to resist doing so.

Veronique De Rugy writes,

In a 1999 Hoover Institution interview, economist Milton Friedman was asked which federal agencies he would abolish. As host Peter Robinson rattled off the Cabinet list, Friedman gave a blunt verdict on most: "Abolish." Departments of Agriculture and Commerce? "Abolish." Education and Energy? "Abolish." Housing and Urban Development? Gone. Labor? Gone. Transportation? Gone. Even Veterans Affairs, he argued, could eventually be eliminated (with veterans compensated in other ways).

By the end of this exercise, Friedman had effectively reduced 14 Cabinet departments down to about 4.5.

She prefers the 20th-century libertarian to the contemporary DOGE.

My trepidation boils down to two things. First, for all the talk about cutting government waste and fraud, the DOGE-Trump team seems mostly animated by rooting out leftist culture politics and its practitioners in Washington. It feels that it is less about smaller government than it is about political transformation. While the two intersect, this strategy could fall short.

That's in part—and this is my second point—because for those of us who care about permanently downsizing government and keeping it bound by constitutional rules to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power, DOGE is mixed. While there is a small probability the approach will succeed in reining in spending or the administrative state, it will be at the heavy cost of reinforcing the power of the executive branch and opening the door to the same abuse when the left is in power.

What the late Milton Friedman, De Rugy, and I have in common, in addition to libertarian leanings, is a 20th-century mentality. We want political activity to be substantive. But today it is all theater.

Substantively, the responsibility for the Federal Budget is supposed to reside with Congress (as is the responsibility for setting tariffs, for that matter). That is true as a matter of Constitutional theory. But look at Congress in practice. Peggy Noonan writes,

Democrats looked like fools Tuesday night. We don’t need to dwell on how they sat grim-faced, seething, or walked out while the president spoke. One stood, yelled, brandished his cane and was removed by the sergeant at arms. Others held up little paddles bearing little insults. Some wore special color-coded outfits. Almost all refused to show normal warmth or engagement.

… these aren’t serious people.

Many Congressional Republicans are not serious people, either. And Mr. Trump, of course, is a master showman.

What both DOGE and anti-DOGE represent is theater. It is maximal show, minimal substance. De Rugy writes,

While executive action can set the tone and signal priorities, it is a weak substitute for genuine reform. Without congressional backing, most executive-led initiatives are easily reversed.

The bottom line: The DOGE approach to cutting spending should make libertarians uneasy if they want to see lasting reductions in government size and scope, care about the rule of law, and fear executive overreach. Although it could bring some positive changes, it may come with a big price tag, setting a true limited-government agenda back for years. Establishing a smaller and more effective government in the long term is possible—but only if it's achieved the right way.

I agree. But in the age of political theater, I am feeling old and pessimistic.

Murray Edelman’s The Symbolic Uses of Politics, written in the 1960s, which my father greatly admired and which I have often cited, saw political theater as a form of cover. While the symbolic battles played out in front of the audience, backstage the special interests negotiated the allocation of benefits to their constituencies.

Even on this most cynical reading, 20th century politics had its substance. The two parties cooperated in handing out goodies to the powerful interest groups. Today, the two parties cannot cooperate on anything.

The Federal Budget has not been balanced even once this century. That is despite the fact that the economy has generally been closer to full employment than was the case from 1970 to the late 1990s.

I myself am more pro-DOGE than anti-DOGE, but overall the DOGE play is much ado about nothing. It will not stop us from getting to where the government can no longer borrow enough to fund its spending, including the ever-rising share of interest payments. At that point, we will be staring in the face the threat of Weimar-era hyperinflation, confronting our political leaders with the need to suddenly do something serious and substantive. The curtain will come down on the political theater.