The US has historically benefited from a baseline level of high competence in its government officials, regardless of party. This tradition is now eroding, being replaced by a focus on loyalty over expertise. This degradation from competence to acolytes poses a significant, underrecognized threat to national stability and global standing.

Related Insights

History’s most shocking atrocities are defined less by their authoritarian leaders and more by the 'giant blob of enablers' who facilitate them. The current political climate demonstrates this, where professionals and politicians abdicate their expertise and principles to avoid conflict, becoming complicit in the process and allowing destructive ideologies to gain power.

As traditional economic-based antitrust enforcement weakens, a new gatekeeper for M&A has emerged: political cronyism. A deal's approval may now hinge less on market concentration analysis and more on a political leader’s personal sentiment towards the acquiring CEO, fundamentally changing the risk calculus for corporate strategists.

Instead of incremental shifts around a moderate center (e.g., between 4 and 6 on a dial), US policy now swings violently between ideological extremes (3 and 9). This dynamic makes stable, consensus-based governance on issues like immigration nearly impossible.

Critical media narratives targeting experienced tech leaders in government aim to intimidate future experts from public service. By framing deep industry experience as an inherent conflict of interest, these stories create a vacuum filled by less-qualified academics and career politicians, ultimately harming the quality of policymaking.

Western education systems have spent decades teaching students that nationalism is dangerous and universal humanity is the true political community. This creates a strategic weakness, as states cannot expect these same generations to instantly adopt a strong national identity and be willing to fight for their country when a geopolitical crisis demands it.

A nation's leadership class shapes its priorities. China's government, heavily populated by engineers, excels at long-term, systematic infrastructure and technology projects. The US, dominated by lawyers, often gets mired in litigation and short-term cycles, hindering large-scale execution.

Beyond headline-grabbing scandals, the most insidious impact of a kleptocratic administration is its refusal to enforce existing laws, from financial regulations to anti-corruption acts. This quiet dismantling of the legal framework fosters a culture of impunity where bad actors thrive, ultimately harming ordinary people and destabilizing the entire system.

The inability to execute basic administrative functions, like correctly appointing a prosecutor, is more than just embarrassing—it's a national security risk. It projects weakness and incompetence on the world stage, eroding the 'brand' of American capability and emboldening adversaries who see a clown car instead of a superpower.

To improve federal efficiency beyond partisan politics, Oliver Libby proposes creating a Chief Operating Officer for the U.S. government. Modeled after the long-term, cross-administration tenure of the Fed Chair, this role would focus on making government work better for citizens regardless of who is in power.

An effective governance model involves successful private sector leaders doing a "tour of duty" in government. This brings valuable, real-world expertise to policymaking. While critics cite conflicts of interest, the benefit is having qualified individuals shape regulations for national benefit, rather than career bureaucrats.