Why Has 'Efficiency' Become Politically Offensive?
05/09/25
Embedded Files
BURNING THROUGH DOLLARS, IMAGE: JP VALERY
As is innate to his character, President Trump thrives in the headlines. He is intimately entangled in raw controversy, a dynamic that has underscored his entire political existence. He has ascended to the peak of mount populism, maintaining an enduring relevance that will doubtless persist beyond the end of his presidential term. To some, he is almost messianic; to others, he is practically satanic. One of Trump’s most contentious second term initiatives is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has sent political discourse into a vexed tailspin.
DOGE, which was formerly headed by Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has, to some, blurred the lines between corporate leadership and public service. To others, it offers hope for a coveted liberation from bureaucracy. Musk’s involvement with the program often played out like a poorly drawn-out comedy sketch. A prime example is his hoisting of a Javier Milei-gifted chainsaw in the air at CPAC 2025, which drew significant media coverage; however, such Trump-esque mannerisms failed to produce widespread popular favour.
Against this present backdrop, it’s easy to associate governmental ‘efficiency’ with Trump, DOGE, and all the baggage with which this comes. This phenomenon extends across the Atlantic, too, where efficiency is similarly laden with connotations. Several British leaders with debated, if not overtly controversial, economic legacies, have associated themselves with the utterance. David Cameron, for example, said in a 2012 speech that, “what you call austerity… I might call efficiency” in an attempt to shift the public conceptualisation of his austerity run. New Labour similarly utilised the term, instead attempting to change the perception of its fiscal conception by adopting a modern lexicon which linked back to the neoliberals of the 1980s. Even today, the word retains frequent usage, with Prime Minister Starmer deploying the term to appear economically competent while streamlining his own state machine and Reform UK setting up its own DOGE outfit.
Hence, the term ‘efficiency’ has become heavily loaded and detached from its definition: making something (in this context, the state) achieve maximum productivity with minimal wasted effort and expenditure. Despite this, let’s separate efficiency from its political baggage. Operating within the remit of common sense, efficiency is clearly the right approach; after all, who wants to waste taxpayers' money or resources that could be better allocated to fund essential services? There is a reason why, even in times of deep polarisation, agreement can be found on the maxim of efficiency.
MILEI LOOKS ON AS MUSK HOISTS HIS NEW "CHAINSAW FOR BUREAUCRACY" IN THE AIR, IMAGE: GAGE SKIDMORE
In an age grappling with the power of spin and social media-induced post-truth, it can be challenging to separate subjective emotions to achieve a strong sense of objectivity. Thus, the concept of efficiency has become entangled in an alienating Western political web. Whether it's Trump, Starmer, Cameron, or Blair, there is always a link that fosters scepticism, if not disdain, towards the drive for an efficient state. Yet, only those who subscribe to the most extreme of economic orthodoxies would side against the concept in principle.
Deconstructing the ideological labels of ‘efficiency’ highlights the utility of internal government reflection. Efficiency offers material benefits that are beneficial across the political spectrum; it not only frees resources for reallocation across society but also reduces the state’s inherent size and improves the line of democratic accountability. Dismissing the pursuit of bureaucratic minimalism as solely a partisan concern overlooks these practical benefits. Often, these criticisms are based on personal associations with particular figures; however, the policies of these individuals, enacted at a specific time in a specific context, ought not to unreasonably taint a well-reasoned governmental pursuit.
The idea that needs to be incorporated into debate is that we shouldn’t focus on whether to pursue efficiency, but rather on what it truly constitutes. There is great value in debating whether penny-wise decisions are pound-foolish, as considering the implementation of a common sense agenda offers far more utility than debating common sense itself. Questioning the idea of efficiency itself often constitutes little more than a tribalistic attack on established political behaviour, simply because it is established, the fiscal equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To answer the question the headline of this article poses: efficiency in politics offends because politics is perpetually tribal, and thus, partisan reflexes elicit judgment based not on practical merit, but on those who champion the efficiency itself.
Returning to the man who kick-started this article, Trump is a deeply divisive figure, and by extension, DOGE is too. Controversy often centres around principles, as is the case with the broader MAGA movement, but instead, debate should be directed to the specific cuts DOGE enacts. Disliking Trump, Starmer, or any other leader possessing an anti-bureaucracy position shouldn’t incite an unquestioning disdain for the sensible desire of efficient governance. The implementation of reasoned principles should be constructively criticised through a policy-driven lens, not dismissed out of ideological instinct. Efficiency is not the problem; our inability to judge the merits of efficiency amidst partisan politics is.
Google Sites
Report abuse