Kind: captions
Language: en
the way I would do it 75% headcount
reduction across the board in the
federal bureaucracy send them home
packing shut down agencies that
shouldn't exist resend every
unconstitutional regulation that
Congress never passed in a true
self-governing democracy it should be
our elected representatives that make
the laws and the rules not unelected
bureaucrats Merit and Equity are
actually
incompatible Merit and group quotas are
incompatible you can have one or the
other you can't have both it's an
assault and a crusade on the nanny State
itself and that Nanny State presents
itself in several forms there's the
entitlement State that's the welfare
state presents itself in the form of the
regulatory State that's what we're
talking about and then there's the
foreign Nanny state where effectively we
are subsidizing other countries that
aren't paying their fair share of
protection or other resources we provide
them if I was to summarize my ideology
in a nutshell it is to terminate The
Nanny state in the United States of
America in all of its forms the
entitlement State the regulatory State
and the foreign policy in any state once
we've done that we've revived the
Republic that I think would make George
Washington
proud the following is a conversation
with VC ramaswami about the future of
conservatism in America he has written
many books on this topic including his
latest called truths the future of
America first he ran for president this
year in the Republican primary and is
considered by many to represent the
future of the the Republican party
before all that he was a successful
biotech entrepreneur and investor with a
degree in biology from Harvard and a law
degree from yaleo as always when the
topic is politics I will continue
talking to people on both the left and
the right with empathy curiosity and
backbone this is Alex frean podcast to
support it please check out our sponsors
in the description and now dear friends
here's VC Ras
Swami you are one of the great
elucidator of conservative ideas so
you're the perfect person to ask uh what
is conservatism what's your let's say
conservative vision for America well
actually this is one of my criticisms of
the modern Republican party and
direction of the conservative movement
is that we've gotten so good at
describing what we're against there's a
list of things that we could rail
against to wokeism transgender ideology
climate ideology cism Co policies the
radical bid agenda the radical Harris
agenda the list goes on but actually
what's missing in the conservative
movement right now is what we actually
stand for what is our vision for the
future of the country and I saw that as
a deficit at the time I started my
presidential campaign it was in many
ways the purpose of my campaign because
I do feel that that's why we didn't have
the Red Wave in 2022
so they tried to blame Donald Trump they
tried to blame abortion they blamed a
bunch of individual specific issues or
factors I think the real reason we
didn't have that red wave was that we
got so practiced at criticizing Joe
Biden that we forgot to articulate who
we are and what we stand for so what do
we stand for as
conservatives I think we stand for the
ideals that we fought the American
Revolution for in
1776 ideals like Merit right that the
best person gets the job without regard
to their genetics that you get ahead in
this country not on the color of your
skin but on the content of your
character Free Speech an open debate not
just as some sort of Catchphrase but the
idea that any opinion no matter how
heinous you get to express it in the
United States of America self-governance
and this is a big one right now is that
the people we elect to run the
government they're no longer the ones
who actually run the government we in
the conservative movement I believe
should believe in restoring
self-governance where it's not
bureaucrats running the show but
actually elected representatives and
then the other the other ideal that the
nation was founded on that I think we
need to revive and I think as a North
star of the conservative movement is
restoring the rule of law in this
country you think about even the
abandonment of the rule of law at the
southern
border it's particularly personal to me
as the kid of legal immigrants to this
country you and I actually share a
couple of aspects in common in that
regard that also though means your First
Act of entering this country can't break
break the law so there's some policy
commitments and principles Merit Free
Speech self-governance rule of law and
then I think culturally what does it
mean to be a conservative is it means we
believe in the anchors of our identity
in truth the value of the individual
family nation and God beat race gender
sexuality and climate if we have the
courage to actually stand for our own
vision and that's a big part of what's
been missing and it's a big part of not
just through the campaign but through
you know a lot of my future advocacy
that's the vacuum I'm aiming to fill
yeah we'll talk about each of those
issues
immigration the growing bureaucracy of
government religion is a really
interesting topic something you spoken
about a lot uh but you've also had a lot
of really tense debates so you're a
perfect person to ask to steal me on the
other side yeah so let me ask you about
progressivism Can you steal me on the
case for progressivism and leftwing
ideas yeah so look I think the strongest
case particularly for leftwing ideas in
the United States so in the American
context is that the country has been
imperfect in living up to its ideals so
even though our founding fathers
preached the importance of life liberty
in the pursuit of happiness and freedom
they didn't practice those values in
terms of many of our founding fathers
being slave owners inequalities with
respect to women and other disempowered
groups such that they say that that
creat cre a power structure in this
country that continues to last to this
day the vestiges of what happened even
in 1860 in the course of human history
isn't that long ago and that we need to
do everything in our power to correct
for those imbalances in power in the
United States that's the core view of
the modern left I'm not criticizing it
right now I'm steelmanning it I'm trying
to give you I think a good articulation
of why the left believes they have a
compelling case for the government
stepping in to correct for historical or
presid
inequalities I can give you my counter
abuttal of that but the best statement
of the left I think that it's the fact
that we've been imperfect in living up
to those ideals in order to fix that
we're going to have to take steps that
are severe steps if needed to correct
for those historical inequalities before
we actually have true equality of
opportunity in this country that's the
case for the leftwing view in modern
America so what's your criticism of that
so my concern with it is even if that's
well motivated I think that it recreates
many of the same problems that they were
setting out to solve I'll give you a
really tangible example of that in the
present right now I may be alone amongst
prominent conservatives who would say
something like this right now but I
think it's true so I'm going to say it
I'm actually even in the last year last
year and a half seeing actually a rise
in anti-black and anti-minority racism
in this country which is a little
curious right when over the last 10
years we got as close to Martin Luther
King's Promised Land as you could
Envision place where you have every
American regardless of their skin color
able to vote without obstruction a place
where you have people able to get the
highest jobs in the land without race
standing in their way why are we seeing
that Resurgence in part it's because of
I believe that left-wing obsession with
racial Equity over the course of the
last 20 years in this country and so
when you take something away from
someone based on their skin color and
that's what correcting for prior
Injustice was supposed to do the
leftwing views are to correct for prior
Injustice by saying that whether you're
white straight
man you have certain privileges that you
have to actually correct for when you
take something away from somebody based
on their genetics you actually Foster
greater animus towards other groups
around you and so the problem with that
philosophy is that it creates there are
several problems with it but the most
significant problem that I think
everybody can agree we want to avoid is
to actually fan the Flames of the very
divisions that you supposedly wanted to
heal I see that in a context of our
immigration policy as well you think
about even what's going on in I'm from
Ohio I was born and raised in Ohio and I
live there today the controversy in
Springfield Ohio I personally don't
blame really any of the people who are
in Springfield either the native people
who have born and raised in Springfield
or even the Haitians who have been moved
to Springfield but it ends up becoming a
divide and conquer strategy and outcome
where if you put 20,000 people in a
community where 50,000 people where the
20,000 are coming in don't know the
language are unable to follow the
traffic laws are unable to assimilate
you know there's going to be a
reactionary backlash and so even though
that began perhaps with some type of
some type of charitable Instinct right
some type of sympathy for people who
went through the Earth the earthquake in
2010 in Haiti and achieved temporary
protective status in the United States
what began with sympathy what began with
Earnest intentions actually creates the
very Division and reactionary response
that's supposedly we say we wanted to
avoid so that's my number one criticism
of that leftwing worldview number two is
I do believe that Merit and Equity are
actually
incompatible Merit and group quotas are
incompatible you can have one or the
other you can't have both and the reason
why is no two people and I think it's a
beautiful thing it's true between you
and I between youi and all of our
friends or family or strangers or
neighbors or colleagues no two people
have the same skill sets we're each
endowed by different gifts we're each
endowed with different talents and
that's the beauty of human
diversity and a true meritocracy is a
system in which you're able to achieve
the maximum of your god-given potential
without anybody standing in your way but
that means necessarily there's going to
be differences and outcomes in a wide
range of parameters not just Financial
not just money not just fame or currency
or whatever it is there's just going to
be different outcomes for different
people in different spheres of lives
and that's what meritocracy demands it's
what it requires and so the left's
vision of group Equity necessarily comes
at the cost of meritocracy and so those
are be my two reasons for opposing the
view is one is it's not meritocratic but
number two is it often even has the
effect of hurting the very people they
claimed to have wanted to help and I
think that's part of what we're seeing
in modern America yeah you had a pretty
intense debate with Mark hubin a great
conversation I think it's on your
podcast actually yes yeah
that's great okay well speaking of good
guys he he messages me all the time with
with beautifully eloquent criticism I
appreciate that Mark uh what was uh what
was one of the more convincing things he
said to you you're mostly focus on kind
of Dei so so let's just take a step back
and understand because people use these
acronyms and then they start saying it
out of muscle memory and stop asking
what it actually means like Dei refers
to Capital D diversity equity and
inclusion which is a philosophy adopted
by institutions principally in the
private sector companies nonprofits and
universities to say that they need to
strive for specific forms of racial
gender and Sexual Orientation Diversity
and it's not just the D it's the equity
in ensuring that you have equal outcomes
as measured by certain group quota
targets or group representation targets
that they would meet in their ranks now
the problem with the Dei agenda is in
the name of diversity it actually has
been a vehicle for sacrificing true
diversity of thought so the way the
argument goes is this is that we have to
create an environment that is receptive
to minorities and minority views but if
certain opinions are themselves deemed
to be hostile to those minorities then
you have to exclude those opinions in
the name of the capital D diversity but
that means that you're necessarily
sacrificing actual diversity of thought
I can give you a very specific example
that might sound like okay well is it
such a bad thing if an organization
doesn't want to exclude people who are
saying racist things on a given day we
could debate that but let's get to the
tangible world of how that actually
plays out I I for my part have not
really heard in ordinary America people
uttering racial epithets if you're going
to a restaurant or in the grocery store
it's not something I've encountered
certainly not in the workplace but
that's a theoretical case let's talk
about the real world case of how this
plays out so there there was an instance
it was a case that presented itself
before the equal employment opportunity
commission the EEOC one of the
government enforcers of the Dei agenda
and there was a case of a woman who wore
red sweater on Fridays in celebration of
veterans and those who had served the
military and invited others in the
workplace to do the same thing and they
had a kind of affinity group you could
call it that a veteran type affinity
group appreciating those who had served
her son had served as well there was a
minority employee at that business who
said that he found that to be a
microaggression so the employer asked
her to stop wearing said clothes to the
office well she still felt like she
wanted to celebrate I think it was
Friday was the day of the week where
they did it she still wore the red
sweater and she she she didn't wear it
but she would hang it on the back of her
seat right put it on the back of her
seat at the office they said no no no
you can't do that either so the iron is
in the name of this capital D diversity
which is creating a supposedly welcoming
workplace for all kinds of Americans by
focusing only on certain kinds of
so-called diversity that translates into
actually not even a diversity of your
genetics which is what they claim to be
solving for but also a host ility to
diversity of thought and I think that's
dangerous and you're seeing that happen
in the last four years across this
country it's been pretty rampant I think
it leaves America worse off the beauty
of America is we're a country where we
should be able to have institutions that
are stronger from different points of
view being expressed but my number one
criticism of the Dei agenda is not even
that it's anti meritocratic it is anti
meritocratic but my number one criticism
is actually hostile to the free and open
exchange of ideas by creating off legal
liabilities for organizations that even
permit certain viewpoints to be
expressed and I think that's the biggest
concern I think what mark would say is
that
diversity uh allows you to look for
talent in places where you haven't
looked before and therefore find really
special uh Talent special people I think
that's the case he made he did make that
case and it was a great conversation and
and my response to that is great that's
a good thing we don't need a
three-letter acronym to do that right
you don't need special programmatic Dei
incentives to do it because companies
are always going to seek in a truly free
market which I think we're missing in
the United States today for a lot of
reasons but in a truly free market
companies will have the incentive to
hire the best and brightest or else
they're going to be less competitive
versus other companies but you don't
need ESG Dei CSR regimes in part
enforced by the government to do it
today to be a government contractor for
example you have to adopt certain racial
and gender representation targets and
Workforce that's not the free market
working so I think you can have it both
ways either it's going to be good for
companies and companies are going to do
what's in their self-interest that's
what capitalists like Mark Cuban and I
believe but if we really believe that
then we should let the market work
rather than forcing it to adopt these
top- down standards that's my issue with
it I don't know what it is about human
psychology but whenever you have a sort
of administration a committee that gets
together to do a good thing the
committee starts to use the good thing
that ideology behind which there's a
good ideal to bully people and to do bad
things I don't know what it is this has
less to do with leftwing versus
right-wing ideology and more the nature
of a bureaucracy is one that looks after
its own existence as its top goal so so
part of what you've seen with the
so-called perpetuation of wokeness in
American life is that the bureaucracy
has used the appearance of virtue to
actually deflect accountabilities for
its own failure so you've seen that in
several different spheres of American
life you could even talk about in the
military right you think about our entry
into Iraq after 911 had nothing to do
with the stated objectives that we had
and I think by all accounts it was it
was a policy move we regret our policy
ranks and our foreign policy
establishment made a mistake in entering
Iraq invading a country that really by
all accounts was not at all responsible
for 911
nonetheless if you're part of the US
military or your general Mark Millie you
would rather talk about white Rage or
systemic racism then you would actually
talk about the military's actual
substantive failures it's what I call
the practice of blowing woke smoke to
deflect accountability can say the same
thing with respect to the educational
system it's a lot easier to claim that
and I'm not the one making this claim
but others have made this claim that
math is racist because there are
inequitable results on objective tests
of mathematics based on different
demographic attributes you can claim
using that that math is racist it's a
lot easier to blow that woke smoke than
it is to accept accountability for
failing to teach black kids in the inner
city how to actually do math and fix our
Public School Systems and the and the
zip code coded mechanism for trapping
kids in poor communities in bad schools
so I think that in many cases what these
bureaucracies do is they use the
appearance of signaling this virtue as a
way of not really advancing a social
cause but it's strengthening the power
of the bureaucracy itself and insulating
that bureaucracy from criticism so so in
many ways bureaucracy I think carves the
channels through which much of this woke
ideology has flowed over the last
several years and that's why part of my
focus has shifted away from just
combating wokeness because that's just a
symptom I think versus combating actual
bureaucracy itself the rise of this
managerial class the rise of the deep
State we talk about that in the
government but the Deep State doesn't
just exist in the government it exists I
think in every sphere of Our Lives from
companies to non-profits to universities
it's the rise of you call the managerial
class the committee class the people who
professionally sit on committees I think
are wielding far more power today than
actual creators entrepreneurs original
ideators and and ordinary citizens alike
yeah you need managers but as few as
possible uh it seems like when you have
a giant managerial class they the actual
doers don't get to to do uh but like you
said
bureaucracy is uh a phenomena of both
the left and the right this is not it's
not even a left or right it's it's it's
just transcends that but it's
anti-American at its core so our
founding fathers they were
anti-bureaucratic at their core actually
they were the Pioneers the Explorers the
unafraid right they were the inventors
the creators people forget this about
Benjamin Franklin who signed the
Declaration of Independence one of the
great inventors that we have in the
United States as well he invented the
lightning rod he invented the Franklin
stove which was actually one of the
great Innovations of the in the field of
thermodynamics he even invented a number
of musical instruments that Mozart and
Beethoven went on to use that's just
Benjamin Franklin so you think oh he's a
one-off everybody think okay he was the
one zany founder who was also a creative
scientific innovator who happened to be
one of the founders of the country wrong
it wasn't unique to him you have Thomas
Jefferson what what are you sitting in
right now you're sitting in a on a
swivel chair mhm okay who invented the
swivel chair Thomas Jefferson yes Thomas
Jefferson funny enough he invented the
swivel chair while he was writing the
Declaration of Independence you you're
the one that reminded me that he drafted
he wrote the Declaration of Independence
when he was 33 and he was 33 when he did
it while inventing the swivel chair I
like how you're focus on the swivel
chair can we just pause on the de
aration of Independence it makes me but
the Declaration of the Declaration of
Independence part everybody knows what
people don't know he was an architect so
he worked in Virginia but the Virginia
state capital Dome so the building
that's in Virginia today where the state
capital is that Dome was actually
designed by Thomas Jefferson as well so
these people weren't people who sat on
professional committees they weren't
bureaucrats they hated
bureaucracy part of Old World England is
Old World England was committed to the
idea of bureaucracy bureaucracy and
monarchy go hand inand a monarch can't
actually administer or govern directly
requires a bureaucracy a machine to
actually technocratic govern for him so
the United States of America was founded
on the idea that we reject that old
world view right the Old World Vision
was that we the people cannot be trusted
to self-govern or make decisions for
ourselves we would burn ourselves off
the planet is the modern version of this
with existential risks like global
climate change if we just leave it to
the people and their Democratic will
that's why you need professional
technocrats educated Elites enlightened
bureaucrats to be able to set the limits
that actually protect people from their
own worst impulses that's the old world
view in most nations in human history
have operated this way but what made the
United States of America
itself to know what made America great
we have to know what made America itself
what made America itself is we said hell
no to that Vision that we the people for
better wor are going to self-govern
without the committee class restraining
what we do and the likes of Jefferson
and Benjamin Franklin and I could give
you examples of John Adams or Robert
Livingston you could go straight down
the list of founding fathers who are
inventors creators Pioneers explorers
who also were the very people who came
together to sign the Declaration of
Independence and so yeah this rise of
bureaucracy in America in every sphere
of life I view it as anti-American
actually and and I hope that you know
conservatives and liberals alike can can
get behind my crusade certainly to get
in there and and shut most of it
down yeah speaking of shutting most of
it down how do you propose we do that
how do we make government more efficient
how do make it smaller what the diff
What are the different ideas of how to
do that well the first thing I will say
is you're always taking a risk okay
there's there's no Freel lunch here
mostly at least you're always taking a
risk one risk is that you say I want to
reform it grad ually I want to have a
grand master plan and get to exactly
what the Right End state is and then
carefully cut with a chisel like a work
of art to get there I don't believe that
approach works I think that's an
approach that conservatives have taken
for many years I think it hasn't gotten
us very far and the reason is if you
have like an eight-headed Hydra and you
cut off one of the heads it grows right
back the other risk you could take so
that's the risk of not cutting enough
the other risk you could take is the
risk of cutting too much
to say that I'm going to cut so much
that I'm going to take the risk of not
just cutting the fat but also cutting
some muscle along the way that I'm going
to take that
risk I can't give you option C which is
to say that I'm going to cut exactly the
right amount I'm going to do it
perfectly okay you don't know X anti you
don't know beforehand that it's exactly
how it's going to go so that's a
meaningless claim it's only a question
of which risk you're going to take I
believe in the moment we live in right
now the second risk is the risk we have
to be willing to take and we haven't had
we haven't had a class of
politician I Donald Trump in 2016 was I
think the closest we've gotten and I
think the second term will be even even
closer to what we need but short of that
I don't think we've really had a class
of politician who has gotten very
serious about cutting so much that
you're also going to cut some fat but
not only some fat but also some muscle
that's the risk we have to take so what
would I the way I would do it 75%
headcount reduction across the board in
the federal bureaucracy send them home
packing shut down agencies that
shouldn't exist resend every
unconstitutional regulation that
Congress never passed in a true
self-governing democracy it should be
our elected representatives that make
the laws and the rules not unelected
bureaucrats and that is the single
greatest form of economic stimulus we
could have in this country but it is
also the single most effective way to
restore self-governance in our country
as well and it is the blueprint for I
think how we save this country that's
pretty gangsters
75% uh there's this kind of almost meme
like video of uh Argentinian president
Harry
MLA we're on a whiteboard he has all the
I think 18 Ministries lined up and he's
like he's ripping like dep Department of
Education gone and he's just gone like
this uh now the situation in Argentina
is pretty dire mhm and and the situation
in United un States is not despite
everybody saying oh the Empire is
falling this is still in my opinion the
greatest nation on Earth still the
econom is doing very well still there's
this is the Hub of culture The Hub of uh
Innovation The Hub of so many amazing
things um do you think it's possible to
do something like firing
75% of people in government when things
are going relatively well
yes in fact I think it's necessary and
essential I think things are depends on
depends on what your level of well
really is what your benchmarking against
America's not built on complacency right
we're built on the pursuit of excellence
and are we still the greatest nation on
planet Earth I believe we are I agree
with you on that but are we great as we
could possibly be or even as we have
been in the past measured against our
own standards of excellence no we're not
I think the nation is in a trajectory of
decline that doesn't mean it's the end
the Empire yet but we are a nation in
Decline right now I don't think we have
to be but part of that decline is driven
by the rise of this managerial class the
bureaucracy sucking the lifeblood out of
the country sucking the lifeblood out of
our Innovative culture a culture of
self-governance so is it possible yeah
it's really possible I mean I'll tell
you one easy way to do it this is a
little bit I'm being a little bit glib
here but I think it's not crazy at least
as a thought experiment getting there on
day one say that anybody in the federal
bureaucracy Who Was Not Elected elected
representatives obviously are elected by
the people but if the people who were
not
elected if your social security number
ends in an odd number you're out if it
ends in an even number you're in there's
a 50% cut right there of those who
remain if your social security number
starts in an even number you're in and
if it starts with an odd number you're
out boom that's a 75% reduction then
literally stastically okay one of the
virtu of that it's a thought experiment
not a policy prescription but one of the
virtues of that thought experiment is
that you don't have a bunch of lawsuits
you're dealing with about gender
discrimination or racial discrimination
or political Viewpoint discrimination
actually the reality is you've at Mass
you didn't bring the Chisel you brought
a chainsaw I guarantee you do that on
day one and do number step two on day
two on day
three not a thing will have changed for
the ordinary American other than the
size of their government being a lot
smaller and more restrained spending a
lot less money to operate it and most
people have run a company especially
larger companies know this it's 25% of
the people who do 80 to 90% of the
useful work these government agencies
are no different so now imagine you
could do that same thought experiment
but not just doing it at random but do
it still at large scale while having
some Metric of screening for those who
actually had both the greatest
competence as well as the greatest
commitment and knowledge of the
Constitution that I think would
immediately raise not only the Civic
character of the United States now we
feel okay the people we elect to run the
government they've got the power back
they're running the government again as
opposed to the unelected bureaucrats who
wield the power today it would also
stimulate the economy I mean the
regulatory state is like a wet blanket
on the American economy most of it's
unconstitutional all we require is
leadership with a spine to get in there
and actually do what conservative
presidents have maybe gestured towards
and talked about but have not really
effectuated ever in modern history and
by the way that kind of thing would
attract the ultra component to actually
want to work in government exactly which
you're missing today because right now
the government would swallow them up
most competent people feel like that
Bure bureaucratic machine will swallow
them whole you clear the decks of 75% of
them real innovators can then show up
yeah you know there's kind of this
cynical view of capitalism where people
think that the only reason you do
anything is to earn more money but I
think a lot of people want to work in
government to build something that's
helpful to a huge number of people yeah
well look I think
um there's there's opportunities for the
very best to have large scale
impact in all kinds of different
institutions in our universities sure to
K through 12 education through
entrepreneurship I'm obviously very
biased in that regard I think there's a
lot you're able to create that you
couldn't create through government but I
do think in the moment that we live in
where our government is as broken as it
isn't is as responsible for the
declining nature of our country yeah I
think bringing in people who are
unafraid talented and able to have an
impact could make all of the difference
and and I agree with you I don't think
actually most people even most people
who say they're motivated by money I
don't think they're actually motivated
by money I think most people are driven
by a belief that they can do more than
they're being permitted to do right now
with their skill sets see I've never
I'll tell you that so I've run I've run
a number of companies and one of the
things that I used to ask when I was you
know I'm not day-to-day involved in them
anymore but as a CEO I would ask when I
did interviews and the first company I
started at royan like for four years in
I we you know company was pretty big by
that point I would still intent on
interviewing every candidate before they
joined screening for the culture of that
person I can talk a lot more about
things we did to build that culture but
one the questions I would always ask
them naturally just to start a
conversation it's a pretty basic
question is why did you leave your last
job or why are you leaving your last
job I'll tell you what I didn't hear
very often is that I wasn't paid enough
right and maybe they'd be shy to tell
you that during an interview but there's
indirect ways to signal that that really
wasn't at all like even a top 10 reason
why people were leaving their job I'll
give you what the number one reason was
is that they felt like they were unable
to do the true maximum of what their
potential was in their prior role that's
the number one reason people leave their
job and you know I think by the way
that's I would say that I'm saying that
in a self- boastful way that we would
attract these people I think it's also
true for most of the people who left the
company as well Roy vent right and and
and it's and that was true at royin true
at other companies I've I've started I
think the number one reason people join
companies number one people leave
companies whether they've been to join
mine or to leave mine in the past have
been that they feel like they're able to
do more than they're able to with their
skill set than that environment permits
them to actually achieve and so I think
that's what people hung for when we
think about capitalism and true free
market capitalism and we used words
earlier like
meritocracy it's about building a system
whether it's in a nation or whether it's
even within an organization that allows
every individual to flourish and achieve
the maximum of their potential and
sometimes it just doesn't match for an
organization where let's say the mission
is here and somebody's skill sets could
be really well aligned to a different
mission
then the right answer is it's not a
negative thing it's just that that
person needs to leave and find their
mission somewhere else but to bring that
back to government I think part of
what's happened right now is that the
rise of that bureaucracy in so many of
these government agencies has actually
obfuscated the mission of these agencies
I I I think if you went to most federal
bureaucracies and just asked him like
what's the mission I'm just making one
up off the top of my head right now the
Department of Health and Human Services
what is the mission of HHS in the United
States of
America I doubt somebody who works there
even the person who leads it could give
you a coherent answer to that question I
I just I just heavily doubt it and you
could fill in the blank for you know any
range of the Department of Commerce I
mean it could go straight down the list
of each of these other ones what is the
mission of this organization you can
even say for the US military what's the
purpose of the US military the
Department of Defense I can give you one
I think it is to win Wars and more
importantly through its strength to
avoid Wars that's it well okay if that's
the mission then you know okay it's not
tinkering around and messing around in
some foreign conflict where we kind of
feel like it sometimes and other ones
where we don't and who decides that I
don't really know but whoever the people
are that decide that we follow those
orders no our mission is to protect the
United States of America to win Wars and
to avoid Wars boom those three things
what does protecting the United States
of America mean number one the homeland
of the United States of America and the
people who reside there okay that's a
clear Mission I mean the Department of
Health and Human Services maybe could be
a reasonable mission to say that I want
to make America the healthiest country
on planet Earth and we will develop the
metrics and meet those metrics and
that's the goal of the Department of HHS
to set policies or at least to implement
policies that best achieve that goal but
you can't and maybe that's the right
statement of the mission maybe it's not
but what one of the things that happens
is when you're governed by the committee
class it dilutes the sense of mission
out of any organization whether it's a
company or government agency or
bureaucracy and once you've done that
then you lose the ability to attract the
best and the brightest because in order
for somebody to achieve the maximum of
their potential they have to know what
it's towards there has to be a mission
in the first place then you're not
getting the best and brightest you get
more from the committee class and that
becomes a self-perpetuating downward
spiral and that is what the blob of the
federal bureaucracy really looks like
today yeah you said something really
profound at the individual scale of the
individual contributor doer Creator what
happens is you have a certain capacity
to do awesome and then there's
barriers that come up where you have to
wait a little bit this happens there's
friction always in when humans together
are working on something there's
friction and so the the goal of a great
company is to minimize that friction
minimize the number of
barriers and what happens is the
managerial class the incentive is is for
to create barriers that's what it does I
mean that's just by the nature of a
bureaucracy it creates sand in the gears
to slow down whatever the other process
was is there some room for that
somewhere in certain context sure it's
like a defensive mechanism that designed
to reduce dynamism but I think when you
when that becomes cancerous in its scope
it then actually kills the host itself
whether that's a school whether that's a
company whether that's a government and
so the way I think about it leex is
there's a there sort of a balance of
distributed power um I don't mean power
in the in the Fuko sense of social power
but I mean just sort of power in sense
of the ability to affect relevant change
and any organization between what you
could call the founder class the Creator
class the everyday citizen the
stakeholder class and then the
managerial class and there's a role for
all three of them right you could have
the constituents of an organization
saying a constitutional republic that's
the citizen you could have the the
equivalent of the Creator class the
people who create things in that that
poity and then you have the bureaucratic
class that's designed to administer and
serve as a liaison between the two I'm
not denying that there's some role
somewhere for people who are in that
managerial class but right now in this
moment in American history and I think
it's been more or less true for the last
century but it's grown starting with
woodro Wilson's Advent of the modern
administrative State metastasizing
through FDR's New Deal and what was
required to administer it blown over and
and metastasizing further through lbj's
Great Society and and everything that's
happened since even aided and embedded
by Republican presidents along the way
like Richard Nixon has created a United
States of America where that committee
class both in and outside the government
in our culture wields far too much
influence and power relative to the
everyday citizen stakeholder and to the
creators who are in many ways
constrained hamstr strong Shackled In a
straight jacket from achieving the
maximum of their own potential
contributions and um you know I I I
certainly feel that myself I you know I
probably identify as being a member of
that Creator class most closely this is
what I've done I create things and I
think we live in an environment in the
United States of America where we're
still probably the best country on Earth
where that creator has that shot so
that's the positive side of it but one
where we are far more constrictive to
the Creator class than we have been when
we've been at our best and that's what I
want to see change can you sort of Steal
man the perspective of somebody that
looks at a particular Department
Department of
Education and are saying that the amount
of pain that would be caused by closing
it and firing 75% of people will be too
much yeah so I go back to this question
of mission right A lot of people who
make Arguments for the Department of
Education aren't aware why the
Department of Education was created in
the first place actually so that might
be a useful place to start is that this
thing was created it had a purpose
presumably what was that purpose might
be at least a relevant question to ask
before we decide what are we doing with
it or not what was the purpose of this
thing that we created it's not
a it to me seems to like a highly
relevant question yet in this discussion
about government reform it's interesting
how eager people are to skip over that
question and just to talk about okay but
we got the status quo and it's just
going to be disruptive versus asking the
question of okay this institution was
created it had an original purpose is
that purpose still relevant is this
organization at all fulfilling that
purpose today to me those are some
relevant questions to ask so let's talk
about that for the Department of
Education its purpose was relevant at
that time which was to make sure that
localities in particularly states were
not siphoning dollars taxpayer dollars
away from predominantly black school
districts to predominantly white ones
and that was not a theoretical concern
at the time it was happening or there
was at least some evidence that that was
happening in certain states in the South
and so you may say you don't like the
federal solution you may say you like
the federal solution but like it or not
that was the original purpose of the US
Department of Education to make sure
that from a federal perspective states
were not systematically disadvantaging
black school districts over
predominantly white ones however Noble
and relevant that purpose may have been
six decades ago it's not a relevant
purpose today there's no evidence today
of States intentionally mapping out
which are the black versus white school
districts and siphoning money in One
Direction versus another to the contrary
one of the things we've learned is that
the school districts in the inner city
many of which are predominantly black
actually spend more money per student
than other school districts for a worse
result as measured by test scores and
other performance on a per student basis
suggesting that there are other factors
than the dollar expenditures per School
determining Student Success and actually
suggesting that even the overfunding of
some of those already poorly run schools
rewards them for their actual
bureaucratic
failures so against that backdrop the
Department of Education has instead
extra lated that original purpose of
what was a racial equality purpose to
instead Implement a different vision of
racial Equity through the ideologies
that they demand in the content of the
curriculum that these public schools
actually teach so Department of
Education funding so Federal funding
accounts for about you know giving you
round numbers here but around 10% of the
funding of most public schools across
the country but that comes with strings
attached so in today's Department of
Education this didn't happen Back in
1970 but it's happening today ironically
it's funny how these things change with
the bureaucracies that fail they blow
Oak smoke to cover up for their own
failures what happens with today's
Department of Education they effectively
say you don't get that funding unless
you adopt certain goals deemed at
achieving racial or gender Equity goals
and in fact they also intervene in the
curriculum where there's evidence of
schools in the midwest or in the Great
Plains that have been denied funding
because Department of Education funding
so long as they have certain subjects
like archery there was one instance of a
school that had archery in its
curriculum I I find that to be pretty
interesting actually I think that I
think you have different kinds of
physical education this is one that
combines mental focus with physical
aptitude but hey maybe I'm biased
doesn't matter whether you like archery
or not I don't think it's the federal
government's job to withhold funding
from a school because they include
something in their curriculum that the
federal government deems inappropriate
where that locality found that to be a
relevant locus of
education so what you see then is an
abandonment of the original purpose
that's long passed you don't have this
problem that the Department of Education
was originally formed to solve of
siphoning money from black school
districts to white school districts and
laundering that effectively in public
funds that doesn't exist anymore so they
find new purposes instead creating a lot
more damage along the way so you asked
me to steal man it and can I say
something constructive rather than just
you know pounding down on the other side
one way to think about this is for a lot
of these
agencies were many of them formed with a
positive intention at the outset
yes where that positive intention
existed I'm still a skeptic of creating
bureaucracies but if you're going to
create one at least make
it what should we call it uh a task
force make it a task force a task force
versus an agency means after it's done
you celebrate you've done your work pat
yourself on the back and then move on
rather than creating a standing
bureaucracy which actually finds things
to do after it has already solved or
addressed the first reason it was born
in the first place and I think we don't
have enough of that in our culture right
I mean even if you have a company that's
generated tons of cash flow and it's
solved a problem let's say it's a let's
say it's a biopharmaceutical company
that developed a cure to some disease
and the only thing people knew at that
company was how to develop a cur to that
disease and they generated a boatload of
cash from doing it at a certain point
you could just give it to your
shareholders and closeup shop and that's
actually a beautiful thing to do you
don't see that happen enough in the
American Consciousness and the American
culture of when an institution has
achieved its purpose celebrate it and
then move on and I think that that
culture in our government would result
in a vastly restrained scope of
government rather than today it's a
one-way ratchet once you cause it to
come into existence you cause new things
to come into existence but the old one
that came into existence continues to
persist and exist as well and that's
where you get this metastasis over the
last century so what kind of things do
you think government should do that the
private sector the forces of capitalism
would would create drastic inequalities
or create the kind of pain we don't want
to have in government so if the question
is what should government do that the
private sector cannot I'll give you on
protect our
border I mean capitalism it's never
going to be the job of capitalists or
never going to be the capability or
inclination of capitalists to preserve a
national border and I think a nation
it's literally uh I think one of the
chapters of this book okay a nation
Without Borders is not a nation it's
almost a tipology an open border is not
a border capitalism is not going to
solve that what's going to solve that a
nation part of the job of the federal
government is to protect the homeland of
its nation in this case the United
States of America that's an example of a
proper function of the federal
government to provide physical security
to its citizens another proper role of
that federal government is to look after
or or in this case could be state
government to make sure that private
parties cannot externalize their costs
onto somebody else without their consent
it's a fancy way economist would use to
describe it what does that mean means if
you go dump your chemicals in somebody
else's River then you're liable for that
it's not that okay I'm a capitalist and
so I want to create things and I'm going
to do hell or high water whether or not
that harms people around me the job of a
proper government is to make sure that
you protect the rights of those who may
be harmed by those who are pursuing
their own rights through a system of
capitalism in seeking Prosperity you're
free to do it but if you're hurting
somebody else without their consent in
the process the government is there to
enforce what is really just a different
form of enforcing a private property
right so I would say that those are two
Central functions of government is to
preserve National boundaries and the
National Security of a Homeland and
number two is to protect and preserve
private property rights and the
enforcement of those private property
rights and I think at that point you've
described about 80 to 90% of the proper
role of a government what about
infrastructure look I think that most
infrastructure can be dealt with through
the private sector I mean you can get
into specifics you could infrastructure
that's specific to National Security no
I do think that military-industrial base
is essential to provide National
Security that's a form of infrastructure
I don't think you could rely exclusively
on the private sector to provide the
optimal level of that protection to a
nation but you know interstate highways
you know I think you could think about
whether or not that's a common good that
everybody benefits from but nobody has
the incentive to create I think you
could make an argument for the existence
of of interstate highways I think you
could also make powerful Arguments for
the fact that actually you could have
have enough private sector co-ops that
could cause that to come into existence
as well but you know I'm not going to be
I'm not I'm not U dogmatic about this
but broadly speaking 80 to 90% of the
goal of the federal government I'm not
going to say 100 80 to 90% of the goal
of the existence of a federal government
should be to of government period should
be to protect National boundaries and
provide securit