The Perils of Disruption
Trump and Musk Promise Disruption but It’s Revolution They Seek
Welcome to the Civic Way journal, our quick take on the relevance of current events to America’s future governance. The author, Bob Melville, is the founder of Civic Way, a nonprofit dedicated to good government, and a management consultant with over 45 years of experience improving public agencies.
If this is not revolution [referring to the end of Reconstruction], which … will destroy the government, [then] I am wholly wrong in my conception of both the word and the thing.” – James Garfield
Introduction
Our language is constantly changing. New words arrive on the scene seemingly from thin air. We hear or read someone we admire brandish a new word and then make it ours. Before we know it, the word appears on cable TV, on podcasts, in the street or at the mall. Today’s word is “disruption.”
Bret Stephens, the New York Times columnist, wrote, “Trump may be a very blunt instrument, but we’re a country in need of disruption. The important conversation we should have now is how to disrupt wisely, not how to defend norms for norms’ sake in the face of Trump’s norm bending.”
In other words, according to Stephens (and many others), the question is not whether the federal government needs disruption, but rather what that disruption should entail. Not disruption for disruption’s sake but disruption that spurs innovation in business and cost-effectiveness in government. Simply put, disruption that makes our nation better.
Disruption and the Private Sector
Read most business books, and you will find raving reviews of disruption. It has become a mystical word in business circles, especially among the princes of Silicon Valley and private equity. To them, disruption is the magic carpet ride to innovation, profits and wealth. For many, disruption is the driving force of capitalism. Move fast and break things.
To most Americans, disruption is something that happens somewhere else. Most of us, familiar with success stories like AirBnB, Amazon, iPhones, Netflix, Spotify and Wikipedia, sense that disruption spurs innovation which, in turn, increases private sector productivity. We may be a little wary of disruption in our personal lives, but we admire the disruptors and their triumphs from afar.
So many of us share the conceit that what seems to have worked so well in the private sector will work in government. The wishful thinking that spawns such vapid slogans as “let’s run government like a business.” If disruption spurs innovation in the private sector, why not in the public sector? The answer, of course, depends on how it is done.
Disruption and the Federal Government
Many Americans voted for Trump because they saw a federal government in need of disruption. They may not have seen the risks of disruption, but it is undeniable that on election day public trust in the federal government was low. Enough voters wanted change to reelect Trump. They may have thought that a second Trump term would bring disruption, but they are getting something entirely different.
Federal government does need reform, and perhaps some healthy disruption. However, we should agree on a few goals and principles before we bring disruption to the federal government:
We should seek innovation and cost-effectiveness, not disruption for the sake of disruption.
We should realize the profound risks of disruption in government (most Americans can overcome the loss of one business or industry, but they cannot survive without government).
If we can achieve innovation and cost-effectiveness without disruption, we should do so.
Healthy disruption—the kind that spurs innovation and improves the cost-effectiveness of an organization or program—does not happen overnight (or within 18 months).
Government differs from business in many ways (for example, it is more complicated, transparent, and vulnerable to public opinion than most businesses).
The federal government is not a business. As the New York Times editorial board recently opined, “Americans can’t afford for the basic functions of government to fail. If Twitter stops working, people can’t tweet. When government services break down, people can die.” It is one thing to risk one’s own life or financial well-being, it is another thing altogether to risk the lives or futures of others.
One more thing. You wouldn’t know it from Trump’s wild utterings or Musk’s rancid rhetoric, but the federal government has a rich history of healthy disruption. It just does it differently than the private sector. In fact, it is more collaborative, often helping businesses find and monetize innovations.
As a buyer, investor and regulator, the federal government has helped jumpstart many important innovations, including the Internet, Doppler radar, MRI devices, microchips, barcodes, smartphones, satellite communications, global positioning systems and vaccines[i]. Deloitte, the global business consulting firm, wrote “government has often played an important role in driving major innovations, the effects of which often extend far beyond the public sector.”
The Trump/Musk Disruption Charade
There have been successful disruption initiatives in the private and public sectors. The Trump-blessed Elon Musk chain saw program (DOGE), coupled with Trump’s deluge of oft-illegal, ill-conceived executive orders, is not one of them. The results so far include the following:
Destroy the post-1945 global order (e.g., forsake, bully or alienate allies, embrace adversaries, slash foreign aid, start trade wars, threaten takeovers and encourage nuclear proliferation).
Destabilize economies (e.g., impose illegal tariffs, ignore inflation, shake confidence in US currency, deport hard-working immigrants, and gut regulations upon which many business sectors rely).
Weaken the nation’s finances (e.g., extend the 2017 tax cuts, cut IRS audit capacity, increase costs, and inflate the ten-year debt by at least $5 trillion).
Amass unconstitutional presidential powers (e.g., act without Congressional authorization, end birthright citizenship, and fire civil service employees without due process).
Illegally unleash a wealthy donor (Musk) to gut federal agencies, fire employees, cancel contracts and grants, and infiltrate federal databases and payment systems.
Endanger Social Security (e.g., eliminate Social Security Administration offices and staff and hazard the potential collapse of what Musk calls “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time”).
Jeopardize public health (e.g., reduce cancer research, emasculate food safety monitoring, dilute infectious-disease capabilities and suspend H5N1 crisis communications).
Devastate federal services (e.g., vilify federal employees[ii], replace civil servants with political lackeys, and terminate employees performing vital functions like national security, nuclear defense, border security, veteran mental healthcare, water pollution, rural electricity, and natural disaster aid).
Sabotage state and local governments (e.g., eliminate previously approved grants, terminate critical programs, renege on authorized funds for approved local initiatives and undermine state and local finances).
Punish political foes (e.g., threaten to jail Congress members who investigated the January 6th insurrection, purge military leaders[iii], restrict media access and punish Democratic lawyers).
Weaken presidential accountability (e.g., illegally fire inspectors general at most agencies, purge the Justice Department of independent lawyers and drop bribery cases for political reasons).
Erode democracy (e.g., cut federal funding for election security, fire cybersecurity experts, suspend campaign finance enforcement, and pardon the January 6th insurrectionists).
These actions bear little resemblance to the kind of disruption many voters sought. Instead, in the aggregate, they look more like a plot to overturn—or at least dismantle—the federal government. More about breaking things than fixing them. More about revolution than disruption.
Conclusion
President Trump’s recent 100-minute speech to Congress covered a lot of ground—especially his all too familiar campaign tropes—but failed to make a rational case for his erratic policies. That is because his second term is not about breaking norms or disrupting federal agencies. It is clearly about the dismantling or destruction of the federal government. It is about revolution.
When disruption fails in the private sector, a business fails. Investors lose their money and employees lose their jobs. When disruption fails in the federal government, employees also lose their jobs, but the disruption casts a much larger shadow. Global order and national security are jeopardized. The economy shudders. The debt explodes. Benefit checks stop. Vital services wither. People suffer and some die.
Ironically, the havoc we are witnessing—a campaign fueled by rage not analysis—will kill the very innovation that healthy disruption can stimulate. To illustrate, the foolish effort to terminate research grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) endangers one of our most vital innovation engines[iv]. If this mindless assault continues, it will do irrevocable damage to the nation’s innovative capacity and economic standing. China will be more than happy to fill the void.
America is a great empire with the potential—and heart—to make the world a better place. However, history teaches us that powerful empires usually perish, often due to economic or military defeat. The US is on the precipice of taking another path. Led by extremists obsessed with destroying the federal government, America could be the first empire to fall through sheer stupidity and arrogance.