Override

Via Mark Tapscott, who has been known to be overenthusiastic prematurely or incautiously: Override, over at "EKO Loves You." (You will not understand the following if you have not read a good chunk of the essay.)

Well, this is exactly what opponents of government waste, which used to include Democrats, have said was the problem.  Labyrinthine funding systems and disappearing accountability. Potemkin villages of good deeds fronting for nothing valuable for the actual poor. 

Their traditional defenses—slow-walking decisions, leaking damaging stories, stonewalling requests—proved useless against an opponent moving faster than their systems could react. By the time they drafted their first memo objecting to this breach, three more systems had already been mapped.

Those who think that these decades of interlocking sinecures have had less and less to do with real solutions and more and more to do with feathering nests will be exhilarated by the article. I am tempted to join them, even while harboring the worry that even with 90% accuracy, that means 10% inflicting suffering. I try to read the article with the eyes of my liberal friends, who read of this disruption in horror. "These are not terrible, manipulative, and useless programs!  These are good things that are being destroyed! They might be somewhat wasteful and overgrown, yes.  They might need reform, even serious reform in some cases. But these programs feed people. They shelter people.  They protect the rights of the voiceless, the oppressed, the downtrodden. How dare you think of yourselves as heroic for this robbing the poor?"

Because what if they are flawed but essentially good uses of government, with just a few stinkers and out-of-control petty tyrants making the others look bad? What if we are throwing out literal babies? I see why it hurts these friends so badly to even contemplate this. What if these reforms are just...wrong? Teenage code wizards running amok with no sense of what they are destroying. Brilliant career public servants watching all they have carefully and lovingly built, giving their lives for the efforts of justice and relieving poverty.  How can this be a good thing? 

Some of them are brilliant.  Some of them do care about solving problems. They don't tend to be concentrated in the advocacy sectors.  Your local schools may have some knuckleheaded ideas and useless programs, but a lot of them really do want to transfer knowledge to the next generation. But lots of advocacy is getting transferred as well. At the Federal level, what is the DOE providing besides advocacy and biased research? But when it is being taken apart the accusation is that the critics are "against education." That's just a lie. Why are you against diversity? I am against a lot of things that masquerade as diversity but are just crayon boxes. Same for equality and inclusion.  The prettier a program's title is, the more suspicious I get.  I can tell you already that I am likely to be against the Peace and Justice Act of 2033. Especially if it is named after a child.

"Trump and Vance are asking us to trust them but of course we don't trust them.  They have shown they are evil over and over again. They lie." Do tell. Compared to...?

I hear your sadness and your outrage. I do understand your feelings on the matter. In fact, how is it that I understand your feelings so well? Um, welcome to our world. We don't trust people who cover up that the president was dementing. We don't trust people who try to "re-explain" that their candidate started her political career as a mistress. (Yes, really. Willie Brown was 60 and still technically married.  She was 29.  He appointed her to political positions. What do we call that in any other situation?  Pin that on a Republican female and how often do you think you would have heard about it? But she was qualified. Probably not, but it Doesn't Matter Anyway.  Not even if she was the best person for the job. 60. Married. 29. Sex. Appointed = mistress. It was a long time ago and she has done other things since then. Doesn't matter.  That's what "started a career" means: a long time ago. But she did those jobs well. Says who? She looked tough on crime by offering horrible plea bargains to black men, take-it-or-leave it.)

Christianity Today carries anecdotes* about people who will suffer because of USAID being shut down. The old sad kitties and puppies argument. Christianity Today was also funded $1.8 M yearly by USAID.  Line item. There may be more through other channels. Politico same, more cash. What do you expect them to say? 90% of USAID money goes to the DC area. Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, tried to get rid of it.

You asked us to trust you all these years. We were uncomfortable but went along, tried to limit the cost, worried that you might be right and not wanting to be seen as Simon Legree. We didn't trust you, but we respected playing by the rules. You insulted us and called us evil, and that seems to be the main tactic now as well.

*Whenever I see argument from sad anecdote, I smell a rat.  (One of many examples over the years.) If they had facts and real numbers, they would rely on those instead.