Efficiency as Justification for Authoritarian Power?
For centuries, America has been seen as a “new world”—not just geographically, but also sociologically and psychologically. Immigrants, who have often made their own personal new starts in America, tend to be the most insightful observers of its uniqueness. In many ways, America has become synonymous with hope—a hope that, for many, is unavailable elsewhere.
It’s not only the richest country in the world but also one of the most generous. It’s disheartening, then, to see the wealthiest on earth preparing to deny food and support to the poorest.
The Rise of Algorithmic Governance
A quiet transformation is taking place within the U.S. government. At the heart of this shift is the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where young tech professionals are gradually replacing democratic institutions with proprietary artificial intelligence systems. Civil servants who voice legal concerns are being pushed out, government databases are being moved to private servers, and decision-making authority is being transferred from elected officials and career bureaucrats to algorithms controlled by a small group of Silicon Valley elites.
The tension between being right and being effective has long shaped governance. While efficiency can be alluring, history warns us that autocracies often masquerade as solutions in moments of crisis. A recent poll suggests that many moderates now prioritize swift action over deliberative processes, favoring a model that “moves fast and breaks things” rather than one constrained by checks and balances. However, when truth becomes optional, tyranny becomes inevitable.
This is not an accidental upheaval, it’s the outcome of a dangerous ideology that has been taking shape since the 2008 financial crisis—an ideology that views democracy as an outdated system, ripe for “disruption.” The real challenge is not left versus right but power consolidating at the top, where decisions are dictated not by democratic institutions, but by those with financial and technological dominance.
To understand how we reached this perilous point—and why it threatens the very essence of democratic governance—we must examine the evolution of the belief that democracy is inefficient and at odds with technological progress.
The Human Cost of Optimization
Humans are not optimization problems, and society is not something to be solved. Technology is a tool, not an end.When we confuse technological capability with human destiny, we misunderstand both. Technology should serve human flourishing, not reshape humanity according to its own logic. Yet, increasingly, I see brilliant minds reversing this relationship, treating human experience as raw material to be optimized rather than the very thing we seek to enhance.
The truth, however, is that America’s competitive advantage has always rested on our ability to balance dynamic markets with democratic governance. Now, we’re watching this balance dissolve at precisely the moment when we need the deepest understanding of human values and meaning in technology. The same tech leaders who view democratic institutions as impediments to efficiency are making crucial decisions about AI alignment, often based on narrow conceptions of human nature.
“DOGE is not about efficiency. It is about erasure. Democracy is being deleted in slow motion, replaced by proprietary technology and AI models. It is a coup, executed not with guns, but with backend migrations and database wipes.” — Mike Brock
The belief that code can replace democratic institutions, that technical competence should override democratic negotiation, and that private power should supersede public authority—these ideas have moved from crypto theory to political practice.
Democracy by Terms of Service
Government functions that once belonged to democratically accountable institutions are now being transferred to proprietary AI systems, optimized not for justice or equality, but for efficiency and control. Decisions about financial regulation, law enforcement priorities, and political dissent are already being made by algorithms that no citizen can vote against and no court can oversee. Your rights are no longer determined by a legal framework you can challenge; they are dictated by terms of service that can be changed at the whim of those who control the network.
These notions—AI replacing workers, and the government functioning like a startup—are not meant to describe reality, they are meant to create a structure that allows those in power to gain more of it. In this scenario, AI could help powerful figures consolidate their influence, hollow out the administrative state, or degrade services once provided—outcomes that could favor specific political ideologies. The startup mentality, meanwhile, seeks to justify law-breaking in the name of progress, disruption, and building the future.
The Myth of Benevolent Technocrats
The Founding Fathers fought a revolution to free America from the grip of an unaccountable monarch. Today, that struggle is being replayed—not against a king, but against the wealthiest individual seeking to centralize power without oversight, backed by radical extremists. Unless Congress acts decisively, this parallel power structure will continue to entrench itself, sidelining the executive branch, eroding institutional checks, and undermining national security.
This consolidation of power is not merely theoretical—it is already unfolding. The recent capture of critical U.S. infrastructure by private actors, particularly in financial systems, personnel management, and digital governance, has revealed just how fragile democratic institutions can be when faced with individuals who wield both immense financial resources and technological dominance.
The Crossroads Ahead
The future may be efficient and optimized, but it won’t be in our hands. No previous generation has abandoned this country’s ideals. We shouldn’t either.
Democracy isn’t just about voting—it’s about collectively seeking truth. When truth is dictated by a small group of unelected elites, democracy loses its foundation. The choice before us is not about political affiliation—it is about whether we allow the fundamental principles of governance to be rewritten by those who prioritize efficiency over accountability.
The Constitution was designed to prevent any one individual from seizing control of government institutions for personal gain. Unless we act decisively, we may soon find ourselves governed not by laws, but by those who control the data, the algorithms, and the infrastructure of our daily lives.
The question now is not whether this future is possible—but whether we are willing to stop it.