America Inc., Trumpland, America Corporation...these are false equivalencies: equating a nation with a business, or worse, a brand. They are category errors: applying the logic of private enterprise to a public institution. They are authoritarian euphemisms: cloaking undemocratic control in the language of management, branding, or efficiency.
Back in the 1990s I decided I needed to really start paying attention and learn about politics. I touched on several political theories. Thought Libertarianism was cool for a few weeks, until I listened and met some of those people, so into juvenile political theory as many in the GOP are still addicted to as adults.
"A lot had to happen for Donald Trump to win. The entire Republican establishment, & I would say the entire democratic establishment, would have to blow it big time for about 20 years." Peggy Noonan, Journalist.
I thought we needed a businessperson to run the country like a business. for a few months until someone pointed out to me how stupid that would be because a country is NOT a business and was asked: "Would you want your company's CEO to run America?" Thinking about that I was horrified, so I dropped that dumb idea. So perhaps we should look at that more closely.
Why shouldn't the government be run like a business? Simply put as I said, because it's NOT one and to run it AS one, would break it from the outset.
Because government is not a business. Run it like one, and you break it immediately—and by DESIGN.
A business exists to generate profit for owners or shareholders. A government exists to serve the public good. Those are fundamentally different goals—and they often conflict.
Try to run government like a business, and:
You underfund or privatize services that aren’t profitable—like elder care, education, or rural infrastructure.
- You “cut losses” by abandoning the poor, disabled, or vulnerable.
- You treat citizens like customers—when they’re owners, not buyers.
- You turn democracy into an investment portfolio: whoever pays most, gets most.
What we have with Trump and Elon trying to fun it like a business?
Corruption, inequality, and a state that doesn't even serve the markets and certainly NOT the People, our citizens, who ARE the core of our, or any, country.
Who benefits when we say “government should be run like a business”?
Short answer:
Corporations, the wealthy, and political elites who want fewer rules, more profit, and less accountability.
Longer answer:
1. Corporations & CEOs
-
They benefit from privatization: public services (prisons, schools, water, even the military) become revenue streams.
-
"Running like a business" often means outsourcing government work to private contractors—with less transparency and oversight.
-
Regulations seen as "inefficient" for government are the same ones that protect workers, consumers, and the environment—so weakening them boosts profit.
2. Wealthy elites / donors
-
A “business-minded” government often means lower taxes for the rich, justified as cost-cutting.
-
Social programs (Medicare, food aid, housing) get labeled “unprofitable,” and so defunded—shifting the burden back to struggling communities.
-
Billionaires often fund think tanks that promote the idea (like the Heritage Foundation), because it helps undermine public expectations of government.
3. Authoritarians & anti-democratic actors
-
Efficiency can be a mask for control. Business isn't democratic; it’s hierarchical.
-
Apply that logic to government, and you get top-down rule, fewer public checks, and power consolidated in executive hands.
-
-
“The CEO knows best” becomes a pretext for dismantling democratic debate and civic participation.
Who loses?
-
Ordinary people who rely on public goods.
-
Democracy itself.
The idea that “government should be run like a business” is a long-standing trope, with roots going back to the 19th century, and it gained major traction during the Progressive Era and again in the Reagan-Thatcher era of the late 20th century.
Brief historical overview:
-
19th century (Industrial Age):
-
As corporations grew in size and efficiency, reformers and business leaders began to argue that governments—seen as bloated or corrupt—should emulate business practices.
-
The idea of the “efficient manager” running city governments (especially in the U.S.) emerged with the rise of municipal reform. Think: “city managers” replacing elected mayors to reduce “inefficiency.”
-
-
Early 20th century (Progressive Era):
-
Progressive reformers (some well-intentioned, some elitist) pushed for government to be more “scientific” and “efficient,” mirroring business management techniques.
-
Frederick Taylor’s “scientific management” influenced thinking across business and government.
-
-
1980s onward (Neoliberal wave):
-
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher pushed the idea hard: government should be smaller, more efficient, and “run like a business.”
-
This translated into privatization, deregulation, and the rise of public-private partnerships.
-
The idea got a major boost in corporate-style language entering politics: “customers” instead of “citizens,” “lean government,” “performance metrics,” etc.
-
The problem:
This model collapses when you realize that democracy is not efficient on purpose. It’s supposed to be deliberative, inclusive, and accountable—not optimized for speed or profit.
is central to the Trump/Musk/MaGA worldview: the belief that government should be stripped down, monetized, and ruled like a personal empire—not a democracy.
Here's how it breaks down:
Trump: CEO-of-America mentality
-
Bragged he’d “run America like a business”—but in practice, that meant:
-
Nepotism, crony contracts, and gutting oversight.
-
Using the presidency for self-enrichment (hotels, golf clubs, etc.).
-
Treating allies like investments and enemies like liabilities (e.g., "What do we get out of NATO?").
-
Trying to fire democratic checks—courts, inspectors, watchdogs—as if they were disloyal employees.
-
Elon Musk: Tech Baron Anti-Government Chic
-
Champions the idea that billionaires know better than elected officials.
-
Uses public infrastructure (NASA contracts, subsidies) while railing against taxes and regulation.
-
Treats platforms like Twitter/X as personal kingdoms—undermining institutions, spreading conspiracies, and platforming authoritarian voices.
-
Aligns with MaGA ideologues not because he’s political, but because chaos weakens government—and he profits in chaos.
MaGA: Corporate Populism in Fascist Drag
-
Pushes anti-government rhetoric, but not against all government—just the kind that protects you.
-
Wants a government strong enough to enforce culture wars and crush dissent, but weak enough to serve billionaires and corporations.
-
Wraps it all in flags, Jesus, and rage to distract people from the fact they’re being sold out.
In short:
MaGA doesn’t want to run government like a business.
It wants to run it like a hostile corporate takeover—strip it for parts, fire the regulators, crush the unions, and leave with the cash.
As for Donald Trump?
Peggy Noonan on Firing Line, said that in 2016 said what I’ve said from the start: Trump’s topics tap real grievances, but the man himself is a hollow, reckless grifter unfit for any leadership role. No depth, no character, no conscience. Just a megaphone for fury, not a mind for solutions.
There’s a reason Trump supporters feel conflicted: the issues he raises are real — but the man himself is a con, Trump speaks to real grievances — then exploits them. His supporters aren’t wrong to feel abandoned by the system. They’re just wrong about the man they handed their hopes to.
Her 2016 thoughts on Trump sum it all up very well:
"I've known him for 40 years as a figure in New York. He's not a serious man. This is not a man of substance, thoughtfulness, depth. He says things that no American president should ever say. I think he's nuts. So I'm not going to support him. But yeah, his issues, yeah, they're my issues. Especially about the Republican Party when we talk about them committing Hari Kari, refusing to control the American border for 20 years. That's a form of Hari Kari. Donald Trump looked at it and thought, 'Are you insane?' My own feeling for me are mixed and poignant."
Compiled with aid of ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment