Elon Musk is breaking the law, and doing things that are in his self-interest vs. the self-interest of the country. There is also credible evidence that he is aligning his actions to Russian propaganda and the interests of the CCP.
Yes, he is appealing to young people because he is selling a vision of the social contract that you can do whatever you want without any consequences as long as you’re ironic and cynical about it.
Our society would fall apart if everyone felt like the rule of law, norms, etc. were optional. Shaking things up is certainly something the government needs to do, and this is a wake up call that the electorate will allow it to happen if we’re not careful. It’s not a validation of its effectiveness. We’ll pay the consequences down the road when it’s too late.
Remember, George W. Bush and Kanye West both used to be inspiring and popular people.
1) When you are trying to do complicated things that require specialized expertise, *and you are trying to do them within the requirements of accountability and transparency that our government requires,* there are a lot of moving parts, documentation, checks and balances, training, testing, backups, etc. Government has to operate within its authorized limits; agencies can't just do whatever the heck they want, and chronic underfunding has been a long-term problem for most agencies. They can't exceed their authority or their budget, and they have to be able to produce the documentation that proves they did what they were supposed to, when and how they were supposed to.
2) Special interests lobby heavily against changes that will impact them.
My fear is that we are seeing the current admin attack #1, which can be disastrous if you are talking about funds for food, medicine, emergency response; if you are talking about weather forecasting, medical research, nuclear waste containment, aviation safety, new drug research, public health alerts, protection of the water supply, and so many other essential services the government supports. People think of all this as "boring" and so it doesn't get a lot of coverage, unless something goes wrong. And just taking a hatchet to this system in the name of disruption and change is dangerous. People will get seriously hurt. We take so many of these functions for granted.
You can certainly make a case for attacking #2, but I don't really see that going on. Instead, I kind of see the opposite, with many of the disruptors having financial ties where they will personally benefit from the changes they're making. It's the oddest thing, to see powerful billionaires manage to pass themselves off as underdogs who represent the little guy.
And so I have to say, I find this article incredibly depressing! Though I appreciate your research.
There's a corollary in culture known as "poptimism," that's been going on for some time, by which billionaire superstars get passed off as underdogs as well.
Elon Musk is breaking the law, and doing things that are in his self-interest vs. the self-interest of the country. There is also credible evidence that he is aligning his actions to Russian propaganda and the interests of the CCP.
Yes, he is appealing to young people because he is selling a vision of the social contract that you can do whatever you want without any consequences as long as you’re ironic and cynical about it.
Our society would fall apart if everyone felt like the rule of law, norms, etc. were optional. Shaking things up is certainly something the government needs to do, and this is a wake up call that the electorate will allow it to happen if we’re not careful. It’s not a validation of its effectiveness. We’ll pay the consequences down the road when it’s too late.
Remember, George W. Bush and Kanye West both used to be inspiring and popular people.
There are two reasons government moves slowly.
1) When you are trying to do complicated things that require specialized expertise, *and you are trying to do them within the requirements of accountability and transparency that our government requires,* there are a lot of moving parts, documentation, checks and balances, training, testing, backups, etc. Government has to operate within its authorized limits; agencies can't just do whatever the heck they want, and chronic underfunding has been a long-term problem for most agencies. They can't exceed their authority or their budget, and they have to be able to produce the documentation that proves they did what they were supposed to, when and how they were supposed to.
2) Special interests lobby heavily against changes that will impact them.
My fear is that we are seeing the current admin attack #1, which can be disastrous if you are talking about funds for food, medicine, emergency response; if you are talking about weather forecasting, medical research, nuclear waste containment, aviation safety, new drug research, public health alerts, protection of the water supply, and so many other essential services the government supports. People think of all this as "boring" and so it doesn't get a lot of coverage, unless something goes wrong. And just taking a hatchet to this system in the name of disruption and change is dangerous. People will get seriously hurt. We take so many of these functions for granted.
You can certainly make a case for attacking #2, but I don't really see that going on. Instead, I kind of see the opposite, with many of the disruptors having financial ties where they will personally benefit from the changes they're making. It's the oddest thing, to see powerful billionaires manage to pass themselves off as underdogs who represent the little guy.
And so I have to say, I find this article incredibly depressing! Though I appreciate your research.
There's a corollary in culture known as "poptimism," that's been going on for some time, by which billionaire superstars get passed off as underdogs as well.