Three Historical Forces Clashing Over the Future of American Government
—A Follow-Up to “What’s Happening to FDA Employees: An Analogy Can Help”—
This past Friday’s column--“What’s Happening to FDA Employees: An Analogy Can Help” (here)—was one of my most widely-read articles[1]. While the analogy helped many readers, the most important thought was in the last paragraph:
The key learning from the 1990’s [government downsizing] is that most, if not all, federal employees would support downsizing if it is planned, reasonably paced, and predictable. The current effort is just the opposite in all three regards.
Over the last few days, I have been asked if I could explain how the political dynamics of 2025 differ from the 1990’s. My answer turned out to be much broader than the question. Here is my take:
In general terms, there are three forces:
those who believe government is a positive force much of the time (pro-government)
those who think government is needed but should be narrower in its scope than it is today (restrained government)
those whose goal is to marginalize government in order to elevate personal and economic liberty (anti-government).
Note that FDA’s status as a core government function is likely to be viewed differently by each.
To be clear, these are generalizations, and any individual might reflect more than one view, depending on the issue and circumstance.
The first and second group (pro-government and restrained government) had common cause in the successful Clinton “reinventing government” downsizing effort in the 1990's. The goal was for government to be more efficient, and each group could see how it served their purposes[2][3]. My recollection is that anti-government forces had no traction in that process, but a more careful reading of the history might come to a different conclusion.
In 2025, the third group (anti-government) is in charge and the second group (restrained government) is being co-opted by them. The first group (pro-government) is in total disarray.
Reflecting the origins of the US as thirteen individual states breaking away from a tyrannical world super-power, the first 150 years of our government’s history can be seen as a clash of anti-government and restrained government forces. The observation “that government is best which governs least” was written by Henry Thoreau, but often mis-attributed to Thomas Jefferson because the sentiment so nearly reflects Jefferson’s (and the Founding Fathers’) views.
It is only since the end of the Gilded Age[4], that a series of Presidents (starting with Teddy Roosevelt) and reformers (like Upton Sinclair, whose exposes created the impetus for what became the FDA) have massively shifted power from private hands to government.
The rationale for this shift in power has become so embedded in our thinking that many of us find it near-impossible to imagine the world of the Gilded Age with no FDA and only occasional and tepid state laws against adulteration of food and drug products
Despite that, a modern anti-government movement exists. As has been pointed out to me, it started with Barry Goldwater and was made legitimate by Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s 1981 Reconciliation package was as far-reaching as any that has come since.
The DOGE purges are Reagan’s dramatic, “first year in office” firing of air traffic controllers, albeit taken to a level beyond anything I think Reagan would have considered. He tended to make his point and move on.
In sum, the Clinton effort and the current Trump effort can be understood together, but only in the context of greater historical forces that have been active in the US since the time of King George III. If history serves as a guide, reactions and counter-reactions are still to come.
The most widely read, by far, was https://www.fdamatters.com/fdamatters/special-edition-fda-rifs-and-user-fees-explained, in which I helped readers and reporters understand why “user fee employees” could be laid-off.
It has been suggested that three trends made the process easier: the efficiencies possible from incorporating the then-new Internet into government work; a declining annual federal deficit; and the “peace bonus” from the end of the Cold War.
FWIW: it may be a total coincidence that the decade of Clinton’s reinventing government ended with four years of budget surpluses. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306