Hacker News Reader

You can look to the writing of major political actors on the right and see that they just want to hurt people. People wrote that they want federal workers to be traumatized. They want to make life so unappealing for people working for institutions they hate (the bureaucracy and universities being the big two) that people simply leave and the institutions wither and die.

I have friends who work hard for the federal government to do things that people love. That curator who works at the museum of natural history to bring joy to a child who gets to learn something amazing about our world? That curator broke down sobbing at work multiple times this year. That's what they want.

Your comment made me really, really sad. Please tell your friend that there is someone out there, someone random, someone who will never meet them, who appreciates them and the work they've done over their career.

If you are on social media, maybe reach out? Like museum pages. Comment. Did you go to DC on a school trip? Maybe post it's impacts, or what you enjoyed/remember? Or just 'imagine a job where you get to positively impact so many peoples' lives! You all are doing good things!"

We need to tell each other we are seen. We aren't alone. To keep our heads up. We will get through this together if we keep our heads up. Only when they can force us to cry alone do they win. They are weak and want unnatural things, which is why they are flooding the zone trying to break us all down separately and make us feel isolated/powerless. Every football team defense 'floods the zone' every field goal/extra point kick. It doesn't work. Don't let it work here.

We aren't brave and will just complain from the sidelines, but we can at least cheer on those not on the sidelines. It's never been easier to express support. Hit up peoples/institutions socials and tell them they are seen, tell them keep their heads up because we do support them.

Most people love generic platitudes with no details though.

So when you say they "want smaller government" it's that they are literally agreeing with that statement verbatim rather then any plausible version of what that could be (and that's giving them credit: more cynically it's just "take away services from people who aren't me").

See Brexit for another national scale example of this: had anyone been forced to vote for a specific policy, it wouldn't have happened.

Though this is the exact opposite of the strategy of the Prime Minister at the time - he specifically did not want to make plans for Brexit so that very uncertainty could be used to scare people away from it.

He and the rest of the pro EU side feared that any concrete plans would make it look more like a reasonable option.

> (and that's giving them credit: more cynically it's just "take away services from people who aren't me").

It's like MS Word -- everyone agrees it's bloated, but everyone cannot agree on a subset of features that would be satisfactory.

> But most Americans want the government reduced.

I also want to lose weight but I still want to eat lots of burgers with fries.

People want all sorts of things but they don't really want all the nasty details needed to make them happen and they definitely do not want the negative consequences of their hasty decisions.

Saying "red tribe" is a pretty dead giveaway of, say, a certain way of thinking.

George Soros or Bill Gates will never be able to buy their own department for reasons that the people with the tribalist lens can't seem to grasp: the democratic coalition is FAR more principled and fractured / diverse than the republican coalition. I can already hear people howl for evidence; for evidence, look no farther than the party platforms for the last few electoral cycles.

A lot of things that seemed impossible a few years ago are now old hat. The Democrats wouldn’t be so hamfisted, but never say never.

And my point wasn’t that the Democrats would. It’s that the Democrats could and may even be forced to, in order to win an election. If JD Vance is selling a department for $500M, from a game theoretical perspective, the Democrats may have no choice.

The whole problem is that all the norms that allowed the republic to function are being stripped away, and this is one of the biggest violations of our norms to date, yet no one has even mentioned this aspect.

This makes a fair bit more sense when you realize that hierarchy and the resulting feudalist structures are basically the core tenets of right-wing ideology. On paper, the right should have a harder time working together: The fascists, theocrats, and kleptocrats have wildly divergent worldviews. However, more fundamental than any of their specific views, they all believe in rigid power hierarchies. Which means to bring one branch of the right into the fold of whichever group currently holds the most power, all they really have to do is win over the upper echelons of the weaker faction, and then secure them a place (not necessarily even that highly ranked of a place) within their power structure.

Meanwhile, across the isle, a vague alignment in short term goals is basically all that keeps the left and the liberals together as a coalition. Whereas the right can say and do just about anything as long as it doesn't jeopardize their direct underlings' position in the overarching power structure, even small, strategic concessions can obliterate what little trust leaders have built up over the years.

> the democratic coalition is FAR more principled and fractured / diverse than the republican coalition.

_Currently_. On the other hand, realistically, it's impossible to imagine this happening under, say, Bush (either version of Bush), and yet now here we are. Things change.

Please note - Trump has a 92% approval rating amongst Republicans.

It is tribal affiliation and tribal news channels at this point.

Thinking otherwise is the luxury of assuming you have different problems, and of not checking your assumptions.

Yea man, I cannot fathom why they would carry out actions like this knowing that their opponents could do the same thing next time they are in charge.

It’s almost like they’re governing with the expectation of never losing an election

Or they expect the other side to fold like a wet towel since that is all that they have seen since forever?

Exactly this. Democratic politicians are beyond incompetent.

Incompetent is the wrong word. They showed excellent strategy and cunningness when derailing Bernie Sanders's campaigns. They have repeatedly shown excellence in strategy when outsiders threatened them. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop when it comes to Mamdani's campaign. What trick will the Democrats pull out of their bag to derail him?

It’s a bizarre tactic. The DNC plays very dirty with their own members. On the outward public stage they “take the high road” and seem to constantly neuter themselves to prove how much they care.

Democrat voters didn’t turn out this past election cycle. Even in the face of Trump. They’ve truly made their base apathetic. “Hold your nose” is a tough strategy to sell long term.

I will never forget what they did to Sanders. Maybe he would’ve lost anyways. It’s likely. But that whole take the high road thing is only messaging. Internally they function nothing like a democracy.

> never losing an election

There are two ways: never loosing or ...

It’s pretty clear that’s the end goal — that there is never a Democratic president ever again and we have a Putin-style authoritarian system. They may get there.

We did have depraved and corrupt government with Jackson and Grant. We didnt have the massive military impact in both terms of economics and power.

The long game is going to be brutal, and the country bumpkins will suffer the most.

> But most Americans want the government reduced...

Citation needed. Do elderly Americans selling their every worldly possession to pay for home healthcare after a medical crisis want reduced or increased government? Do single mothers unable to afford childcare want reduced or increased government? Do the people in Granbury, Texas suffering health effects from the noise of a Bitcoin mine want reduced or increased government? Do the Trump voters who want to round up and deport every last undocumented immigrant want reduced or increased government? Do the families stuck sending their chilren to failing urban schools want reduced or increased government? Do veterans struggling to access healthcare want reduced or increased government? Do consumers paying inflated prices to a proliferation of monopolies and private equity roll-ups want reduced or increased government?

People want everyone else's government programs reduced. The programs that benefit them are of course absolutely crucial to the lifeblood of the nation.

Having more federal government employees doesn't mean better access to affordable healthcare for the elderly. Those things are almost totally disconnected. As for veterans, the VA has been improving access to healthcare by making it easier for them to obtain services from private provider organizations.

Likewise, primary school funding and standards are largely state and local government issues. Cuts to federal staffing don't really impact that, either.

I'm not supportive of DOGE activities but if we're going to criticize then let's at least accurately connect cause and effect.

OP didn't specify decreasing government employees. They said decreasing government. And DOGE was promised to cut federal spending. In any case, I wasn't addressing DOGE, but the specific assertion that most people want less government.

The US has been heading towards this for a long time though. It's almost inevitable as a result of unrestrained capitalism, so the fact it was the wealthiest person in the world that got first crack at it make sense.

Everything is for sale, including government, if unregulated capitalism is the followed ideology.

This is the current state.

Unregulated being the key.

> But most Americans want the government reduced,

facts not in evidence

tldr: no they do not

Exactly. I'm not concerned with the size of government. However, I would like to see better ROI - that is, a government that is more effective at delivery services. The "burn it all down" mentality never takes into account the vast amount of services provided by the government, and simply reducing the size of government won't help that.

>The "burn it all down" mentality never takes into account the vast amount of services provided by the government, and simply reducing the size of government won't help that.

People with that mentality tend to believe most services provided by the government are waste by definition (especially any "social" services) and should be privatized. At the extreme end, they believe the only legitimate role of government is violence - war, policing and enforcing contract law. But somehow not taxes.

Pretty clear a large portion of Americans want smaller government. But they also want the benefits (sometimes only for themselves) that comes with a larger government (and spending).

A large portion of the electorate do not have an accurate sense of how big the government is or what it spends money on. DOGE is a living example. They believed (and musk boasted) they'd find trillions in wasted money. I think a lot of people just believe this must be true because they've heard stories in the past. In fact, DOGE found zero waste. Programs they cut were programs they just didn't like. And they fell short of their goals by multiple orders of magnitude. And are now rolling back some of those cuts because they were either illegal or hastily done. The bulk of federal spending goes straight back to constituents in the form of entitlements or to the military or to debt service. Discretionary spending is a fraction of total spending and covers hundreds of vital services. IGs already look for fraud which is pretty rare.

Yes, everyone wants infintie money without loss in spending power but also don't want to give anything to achieve that.

We live in reality, though.

It's all about how you ask the question; there would be a lot of people who want a thing _called_ small government, because they have been told that that is a good thing, but the _benefits_ of big government (ideally without the _costs_ of big government, but realistically most people in the US do not care about the deficit; if they did Trump would already have been deposed).

Sir Humphrey summarises it fairly well, as usual: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks

Just like the famous poll asked of right-leaning voters.

"If, instead of Obamacare, the government was to offer some form of Affordable Care Act, would you be for or against that?"

Response was overwhelmingly ... for.

Any of these people (Elon Musk , George Soros or Bill Gates) could be 1000x more effective than whoever is running these departments now.

Uh no ... the perspective of corporate businessman does not trivially or with difficulty translate to goverment statesman more so in the legislative branch.

I reject the implied inevitability of your statement.

A nice read of your claim is you dont trust regular state employees at all - I could see that. But don't way overshoot by going 100 light-years beyond that.

I'll leave to others to argue say if musk is running tesla or X well.

Elon Musk had the opportunity to demonstrate that, and his track record is negative savings once you factor in the lawsuit losses, economic shrinkage, and vast inefficiencies DOGE cost. For that matter, I note that there’s a direct line from the DARPA grand challenges two decades ago and Waymo’s L4 self-driving cars while his purportedly magic touch has Tesla stuck at L2 for over a decade despite frequent claims that they’re about to make some advances. I bet the DARPA people wouldn’t have nerfed the sensors to save ~1% per vehicle.

There are two major drivers for talking about government inefficiency. One is the laws Congress passes, which agencies have to follow: requiring use of private contractors instead of hiring staff significantly increases costs and lowers efficiency, for example, and things like the Senate Launch System only make sense when viewed from the perspective of maximizing jobs in home states. The other is that a lot of the inefficiency is really differences in service: when people look at how much the post office, VA, SSA, etc. spend one of the things which is easy to forget is that they can’t reject people who are harder to serve so a comparison to companies who can stop serving unprofitable regions or demographics are going to be really misleading.