News that Elon Musk has told Tesla investors he plans to cut back on his destructive service to Donald Trump and pay more attention to his troubled company felt like a victory to many Democrats. But at New York I warned that it might not matter as much as we had hoped:
This has been one of Washington’s favorite games lately: When will Elon leave? The planted axiom is that Elon Musk’s bizarre and wildly destructive adventures as head of the shambolically established Department of Government Efficiency can’t last long, for multiple reasons.
First, his far-flung corporate empire could use more of his attention, and his extracurricular activities haven’t exactly helped his bottom line (notably at Tesla, where public reaction to DOGE’s antics severely damaged the once-cool brand). Second, it’s assumed that infinitely large egos like Musk’s and Donald Trump’s (not to mention the other highly self-regarding MAGA veterans in the Trump Cabinet) cannot perpetually coexist in the same public and private space for very long, particularly since there are elements of the Trump 2.0 agenda, like his trade war, that may not enchant the chief bankroller of the 47th president’s 2024 campaign. Third, the incredible yet deliberately induced chaos that has been DOGE’s signature contribution to public administration must soon give way to some sort of sustainable operating model for delivering benefits and services. And fourth, Musk’s own lagging popularity (punctuated by the defeat of a Republican judicial candidate in Wisconsin whom Musk had bankrolled and personally campaigned for) isn’t helping the Boss’s own gradually eroding job-approval numbers.
But assuming Musk’s days at the helm of DOGE are numbered (his original appointment as a “special government employee” expires next month, and the entire DOGE operation is supposed to wrap up in July of next year), can his minions sojourn on without him?
They probably can. DOGE employees are now routinely “embedded” in federal agencies, typically at the very peak of the administrative pyramid and with top-shelf access to the all-important data. They are typically working hand-in-glove with Trump political appointees who share their deep hostility to agency missions and to career civil servants. In many parts of the federal bureaucracy, the mid-level managers that might push back against DOGE demolition efforts are already gone or are so terrified of losing their jobs that they do exactly what DOGE staffers tell them to do. They no longer need much adult supervision.
Perhaps just as importantly, there is a powerful permanent institution in the Trump administration that shares DOGE’s hatred of the “deep state” and is much better equipped to manage a gradual transition from slash-and-burn cuts in spending and personnel to a regularized if downsized bureaucracy devoted to the administration’s policy goals. That would be the Office of Management and Budget and its director, Project 2025 co-author and Christian nationalist zealot Russell Vought.
Vought formed an alliance with Musk shortly after the 2024 election, when DOGE was just an evil glimmer in the Tech Bro’s eye, based on their shared vision of a vast purge of the bureaucracy to root out non-MAGA influences and blow up programs and policies that did not serve the reactionary cultural and economic agenda of Trump 2.0. And the deeply experienced OMB director has almost certainly played a key role behind the scenes in coordinating DOGE’s raids on federal agencies with OMB’s plans and harmonizing both with what the administration is demanding from its congressional allies. Vought is the “glue guy,” to use a sports metaphor, who keeps the team together. And his authority will likely expand if Musk leaves Washington, as Bloomberg’s Max Chafkin explained earlier this week:
“A Trump administration official, who requested anonymity to share internal discussions, says Vought is widely perceived as preparing to pick up wherever Musk leaves off. Where Musk has shown a zeal for smash and grab, Vought has the institutional knowledge—and perhaps the patience—to make the DOGE cuts stick. Vought, this person says, ‘is waiting in the wings.’”
Unlike Musk, Vought knows the federal government’s many nooks and crannies like the back of his hand and is perfectly positioned to deploy Musk’s orphaned raiders in a much more coordinated campaign to take DOGE and its hollowed-out agency hosts to the next level (or, in the eyes of their victims, the next level of hell). They don’t need their turbulent creator around with his attention-grabbing habits and over-the-top cartoon-villain malevolence. Vought’s dull knife will cut even deeper than Musk’s chain saw, and a lot less noisily.
ditto on what DC in CA said. I am doing phonebanking to the swing states and planning to do GOTV during the days before the election. I am glad the numbers are looking good- but shouldn’t we be focused on making them even better?
Splendid news! Let’s just hope (and pray-) that the crucial third debate goes as well as the first two did.
—
BTW, what kind of “message” do you think Kerry should send to undecided voters in the debate? (I assume there will be some sort of closing statement again). Off the top of my head —
1) He should promise to be a “uniter” by solemnly pointing out the U.S. is at war and Congress likely will remain in Republican hands. He should hint that this might mean compromises on spending priorities, so that at least the deficits could be reduced. I think many fiscal conservatives and independents would like this.
2) He might touch the cultural issue (the red wine, fluent french, his windsurfing hobby etc.) and beg culturally conservative voters not to dismiss him out of hand if they agree with his economic policies.
3) He should point out that his opponent has expressed his unwavering determination to continue the same policies for another four years, if re-elected. In other words, the current policies in the Middle East will continue to be pursued and the handling of the federal economy won’t change. He should ask voters who think they were better off in 2000 to take a chance on him. I think it is a very powerful argument, since “Shrub” and his followers are strugging to portray 2001-04 in a positive light and mostly duck the issue altogether.
4) He should defuse the extremely silly “global test” smear/scare campaign by explaining that it is merely a common sense term for saving American lives and dollars before going to war. In 1991, the other Gulf states largely reimbursed the U.S. for the cost of Gulf War I. Not so this time.
5) Debate tactics. In the first debate, he was polite, well informed and surprisingly clear and succinct. More of the same, please! I would also like to see him damn the president with faint praise by first agreeing with the conventional wisdom that “Shrub” is a decent man who does what he thinks is best of the country. Having said that, he should then gently question whether “Shrub” really is qualified for the job, in the light of this Administration’s numerous screw-ups at home as well as abroad. “Grand vision” alone is not enough, he should say — the U.S. now needs competent management to turn Iraq and the federal economy around. It’s a very powerful argument. Saying “Shrub” is an immoral liar won’t work. Saying he simply isn’t up to the task of running the country just might work, since there is ample evidence for it.
MARCU$
These are all nothing more than a good start.
Yes, they are a very good and encouraging start, but let us all do what we can to keep those trend lines going.
A good start. Now let’s do what we can – canvassing, phone banking, and other GOTV activities – to make for a great finish.
Nice Cherrypicking, but here’s a few you forgot. Btw, ARG = Kerry’s Private Poll.
Marist: Bush 49, Kerry 46, Nader 1
Reuters/Zogby Tracking Poll: Bush 46, Kerry 44, Nader 2
Florida: Quinnipiac: Bush 51, Kerry 44
Rasmussen:
Pennsylvania: Bush 47% Kerry 47%
Colorado: Bush 48% Kerry 44%
Michigan: Bush 46% Kerry 46%
Virginia: Bush 50% Kerry 44%
I think tide is turning. After the debates, GW will finally be exposed as being way over his head as president. (if not already) I’m still one of those who think the race will be a route for Kerry, similar to Reagan over Carter in 1980