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.
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.
In analyzing a public scandal, Scott Galloway notes that the greatest damage in a crisis typically isn't the initial event but the subsequent "shrapnel": the attempts to cover up, excuse, or avoid accountability. An effective response requires acknowledging the problem, taking responsibility, and overcorrecting.
Leaders often conflate seeing a risk with understanding it. In 2020, officials saw COVID-19 but didn't understand its airborne spread. Conversely, society understands the risk of drunk driving but fails to see it most of the time. Truly managing risk requires addressing both visibility and comprehension.
In a crisis, the public knows no one has all the answers. Attempting to project absolute certainty backfires. A more effective strategy is "confident humility": transparently sharing information gaps and explaining that plans will evolve as new data emerges, which builds credibility.
In politics, the perception of strength and decisiveness can be more electorally powerful than being correct but appearing weak or compromising. This principle explains why a political party might maintain a hardline stance that is unpopular, as the image of strength itself resonates more with voters than the nuance of being “right.”
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 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.
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.
Anne Applebaum highlights a disturbing shift where high-stakes foreign policy, like the Ukraine peace plan, is conducted by businesspeople seeking personal financial gain. This mirrors the kleptocratic systems of autocratic states, prioritizing private profit over national or allied interests, and raises questions about who American foreign policy truly serves.
Geopolitical adversaries with long-term leadership, like Iran, view the U.S.'s frequent changes in administration as a temporary inconvenience rather than a fundamental policy shift. They see the U.S. as an "obnoxious guy on the bus" whom they can simply ignore and outlast by staying their course.
