A Moment of Opportunity: Governance Beyond Partisan Lines
How principles of pragmatism can transform American politics
In the last TL;dr newsletter, I explored the potential of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to restore faith in government. While some remain skeptical of this initiative — and of Trump himself — there’s undeniable hunger across the country for governance that delivers real results.
Building on that discussion, I believe this moment presents not just a challenge but a profound opportunity.
Across the ideological spectrum, voices like Jonah Goldberg, Matthew Yglesias and Yuval Levin offer surprising alignment on what governance could — and should — look like in this unique political moment. Their insights point to a path forward: one that prioritizes competence, practical governance, and the shared interests of an “exhausted majority” over tribalism.
In today’s TL;dr, I want to explore this optimism. Borrowing from Goldberg’s call for competence, Yglesias’ practical principles, and Levin’s focus on voters’ call for control over chaos, let’s reframe this moment not as a crisis but as an inflection point. It’s time to look past the headlines and see what’s truly possible for governance in America.
Revisiting DOGE: A Framework for Efficiency
In the last TL;dr, Can This DOGE Hunt?, we looked at the promising (albeit fraught) potential for DOGE to tackle inefficiency in the federal government. Many of the hurdles to efficiency that bureaucrats face can be removed without waiting on Congress to pass new laws. Indeed, since that newsletter published, DOGE leaders Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal stating their intention to do just that.
DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings,” they wrote. “We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws.”
Further, they noted, “Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.” The rulings restrict federal agencies’ regulatory powers, requiring explicit Congressional authorization for major policies and ending judicial deference to agencies’ legal interpretations. These rulings imply that many existing federal regulations may exceed the authority granted by Congress.
Therefore, they write, “DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies. DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.”
To my readers working in local government, I’ll pose this question: What lessons from DOGE apply to where you work? Are there, for instance, requirements for purchasing that unnecessarily slow you down?
Goldberg’s Call for Competence Over Tribalism
Writing in The Dispatch, longtime center-right pundit Jonah Goldberg asks a great question: What if regular Americans really aren’t divided? He posits it’s the “elites across the ideological spectrum” who have the luxury of obsessing over red vs. blue cultural issues while the “exhausted majority” desire simple competence from their government.
He writes:
This is why we keep throwing incumbent parties out of power: They get elected promising competence but get derailed—or seduced—by fan service to, or trolling of, the elites who dominate the national conversation.
There’s a difference between competence and expertise. One of the most profound political changes in recent years has been the separation of notions of credentialed expertise from real world competence. This isn’t a new theme in American life, but the pandemic and the lurch toward identity politics amplified distrust of experts in unprecedented ways.
This is a particular problem for the left because it is far more invested in credentialism than the right. Indeed, some progressives are suddenly realizing they invested too much in the authority of experts and too little in the ability of experts to provide what people want from government: affordable housing, decent education, low crime, etc. The New York Times’ Ezra Klein says he’s tired of defending the authority of government institutions. Rather, “I want them to work.”
One of the reasons progressives find Trump so offensive is his absolute inability to speak the language of expertise—which is full of coded elite shibboleths. But Trump veritably shouts the language of competence.
I don’t mean he is actually competent at governing. But he is effectively blunt about calling leaders, experts, and elites—of both parties—stupid, ineffective, weak, and incompetent. He lost in 2020 because voters didn’t believe he was actually good at governing. He won in 2024 because the exhausted majority concluded the Biden administration was bad at it. Nostalgia for the low-inflation pre-pandemic economy was enough to convince voters that Trumpian drama is the tolerable price to pay for a good economy.
Goldberg concludes by noting, “If Trump can actually deliver competent government, he could make the Republican Party the majority party for a generation. For myriad reasons, that’s an if so big it’s visible from space. But the opportunity is there—and has been there all along.”
Yglesias’ Nine Principles: A Framework for Pragmatism
Just as Goldberg thinks the GOP can become a majority party through competent governance, progressive writer Matthew Yglesias thinks Democrats can do the same with a new approach with a broader public appeal.
This is a time for new blood and new leadership and a new round of frank argumentation. Do we want a sectarian party whose only chance of gaining power is for Trump to do something truly catastrophic? Or do we want a big-tent party that can compete across the country and contribute meaningfully to better governance everywhere? Do we want a party that delivers economic policies that generate prosperity and wins votes by reflecting voters’ actual moral and cultural values, or a party that insists on trying to impose fringe values on an unwilling populace, while flailing to buy votes with unsound fiscal policies?
In a post-election post in his Slow Boring newsletter, Yglesias looked at what Democrats should do next. He presented what he calls Nine Principals for Common Sense Democrats. Here they are:
Economic self-interest for the working class includes both robust economic growth and a robust social safety net.
The government should prioritize maintaining functional public systems and spaces over tolerating anti-social behavior.
Climate change — and pollution more broadly — is a reality to manage, not a hard limit to obey.
We should, in fact, judge people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin, rejecting discrimination and racial profiling without embracing views that elevate anyone’s identity groups over their individuality.
Race is a social construct, but biological sex is not. Policy must acknowledge that reality and uphold people’s basic freedom to live as they choose.
Academic and nonprofit work does not occupy a unique position of virtue relative to private business or any other jobs.
Politeness is a virtue, but obsessive language policing alienates most people and degrades the quality of thinking.
Public services and institutions like schools deserve adequate funding, and they must prioritize the interests of their users, not their workforce or abstract ideological projects.
All people have equal moral worth, but democratic self-government requires the American government to prioritize the interests of American citizens.
Frankly, I think this commonsense approach would be embraced by voters of both parties.
Levin: Voters are saying no more than they’re saying yes
Conservative author Yuval Levin was on Goldberg’s podcast to offer his thoughtful take on what the election means for those doing the governing. He noted we’re about to have our third consecutive one-term presidency, something that hasn’t happened since the 19th century.
“I think the question is still, though, what is it that people are asking for that they aren’t getting?” Levin asks. “Republicans and Democrats have their very different theories about this that seem to both be wrong because the public just keeps saying the same thing, which is essentially, ‘No thank you.’ And the no thank you is interpreted by the winning party, the challenger, as wanting what he’s offering. He then produces that. And the public again says, ‘No thank you.’”
So, what Americans are looking for?
“I increasingly think that what Americans are looking for is some sense of control over chaotic forces,” he said. “What they’re tired of is the sense that they’re just subject to forces that no one is in control of.”
Whether it’s the economy or foreign policy or immigration or education, people simply want to see real-world results from those in charge. To Levin, that means effective governance at all levels — federal, state and local — because of the complex nature of the problems we face.
“What it would take for government to be more effective at delivering for people would require some decentralization of decision making, some market forces in allocating resources, traditional kinds of conservative ideas that aren’t even popular on the right anymore, and that I think are actually essential to solving the kinds of problems they describe. But that this market failure is happening, I think is undeniable.”
Chart of the Week
While there certainly has been lots of pointed criticism of bias in legacy media coverage of the last election cycle, this chart shows another kind of, ahem, unhealthy media bias.
I came across this chart in a Substack Note from Gurwinder. He wrote, “Homicide & terrorism comprise <1% of US deaths, but >50% of deaths the media cover. Most journalism is storytelling, so it focuses on threats from villains, inflating them in people’s minds. To increase your survival odds, worry less about evil and more about your blood pressure.”
GovOvertime: Hits & Misses
Pfirst, Some Good News! In a move that would make even reality TV producers jealous, my neighbors in Pflugerville, Texas, snagged a 2024 Municipal Excellence Award for their Pflip and Serve series, where city council members and staff swapped roles for a front-row seat to each other’s challenges. Council members cleaned kennels, tackled lift stations, and even scrubbed park restrooms — gaining hands-on experience usually reserved for undercover bosses. The program wasn’t just about getting dirty; it was about fostering collaboration and empathy. From staff sitting on the dais as “Pfaux Mayor” to council members learning the ins and outs of daily operations, Pflip and Serve shattered silos and strengthened teamwork across the city. GGF gives a hearty High Pfive to Pflugerville for proving that a little role reversal can lead to a big win for city governance — and maybe some extra appreciation for the people who keep the city running every day.
Shank You Very Much. Two police sergeants from Burnet, Texas, recently represented their department at the United Kingdom Police Memorial Week in Scotland. While the intent to honor the fallen is commendable, I have questions about the necessity of a taxpayer-funded outing across the Atlantic Ocean to the birthplace of golf to do so. Burnet is a charming community — coincidentally, I play golf at its lovely Delaware Springs course — but this type of spending undermines government credibility and lands it squarely in the rough.
Eighth Time’s the Charm? The Pentagon just failed its seventh consecutive financial audit, proving once again that it’s better at losing receipts than tackling waste. Despite managing a staggering $4.1 trillion in assets, the Department of Defense hasn’t quite figured out how to balance the books — or even locate them. Officials insist they’re “making progress” and plan to pass an audit by 2028 — a timeline that would be less laughable if this wasn’t the same agency that took 28 years to even start complying with a 1990 law. I say sic the DOGE on the DOD.
In Other’s Words
A five-step program for creative productivity from author James Clear.
Discover - Read a lot. Observe the world. Notice.
Collect - Immediately record anything that strikes you.
Generate - Build on your notes to brainstorm lots of ideas.
Combine - Connect previously unconnected ideas.
Refine - Edit, edit, edit. Select the best.
South African theologian and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu on hope.
Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness.
Apple founder Steve Jobs on innovation.
Innovation is the ability to see change as an opportunity — not a threat.
Onward and Upward.