…much of what is commonly called “populist” politics can be more accurately described as part of an anti-managerial revolution attempting to roll back the expansion of overbearing bureaucratic control into more and more areas of life.
Though it has so far met with limited success amid stiff resistance, grasping the nature of this anti-managerialism is essential to understanding the Trump administration’s effort to transform America’s institutional landscape, from government to universities and major corporations.
The idea’s intellectual history begins with the political philosopher James Burnham, who argued in his seminal 1941 book, “The Managerial Revolution,” that the aristocratic capitalist class was in the process of being overthrown by a revolution — just not, as the Marxists predicted, by the working class…
Orwell was particularly struck by Burnham’s observation that the major political systems of the day — fascism, Communism and New Deal-era social democracy — were fundamentally similar in their turn toward the bureaucratic management of society. He observed that everywhere “laissez-faire capitalism gives way to planning and state interference” and “the mere owner loses power as against the technician and the bureaucrat.” Believing that accelerating managerial control risked dragging every society inexorably into totalitarianism, Orwell made Burnham’s ideas the basis of his novel “1984.”
While the Cold War persisted, the view that America’s government might share some traits with the Soviet Union unsurprisingly proved unpopular, especially among Washington’s conservative establishment.
Nonetheless, the managerial class continued to grow, regardless of which political party controlled the government. Cold War defense budgets drove a relentless expansion of security state bureaucracy and the military-industrial complex. The advent of Great Society welfare programs and the Civil Rights Act demanded a re-engineering of social relations, prompting a dramatic proliferation of lawyers, regulatory bureaucrats and corporate compliance officers throughout much of public and private life. An ever-greater proportion of Americans began funneling through the credentialing machinery of higher education, inflating demand for yet more upper-middle-class managerial jobs.
The New York Times article outlines a political movement, termed “anti-managerialism,” which seeks to dismantle the influence of a perceived permanent ruling class of bureaucrats and managers. This movement, central to the Trump administration’s agenda and the broader “new right,” challenges the dominance of a managerial elite that, according to thinkers like James Burnham and Samuel Francis, has usurped democratic control. The article suggests this elite, spanning government, corporations, and academia, perpetuates a system of bureaucratic control that resists change and prioritizes its own interests over those of the broader populace. Below, I explore alternatives to this “rule of managers” based on the article’s context and broader political thought, addressing how power might be restructured to counter this managerial dominance.
Alternatives to the Rule of Managers
Strengthening Democratic Accountability through Executive Authority
Description: One alternative, as pursued by the Trump administration, is to reassert elected executive control over the administrative state. This involves empowering the presidency to directly oversee or dismantle bureaucratic agencies, reducing their autonomy. The article notes the administration’s challenge to Humphrey’s Executor, a precedent that allows agencies to operate independently of executive control, as an example of this approach.
Mechanism: Policies could include expanding presidential authority to appoint and remove agency heads, streamlining or eliminating regulatory bodies, and prioritizing political appointees over career bureaucrats. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), despite its limited impact, exemplifies this push to curb bureaucratic power through executive-led reforms.
Pros: Enhances democratic accountability by aligning government actions with the elected executive’s mandate. Potentially reduces bureaucratic overreach and inefficiency.
Cons: Risks centralizing power in the executive branch, potentially undermining checks and balances. May lead to politicization of technical roles, reducing expertise in governance.
Decentralization and Localism
Description: Another alternative is to devolve power from centralized bureaucracies to state or local governments, or even to communities, reducing the scope of federal managerial control. This aligns with the article’s critique of a homogenized managerial elite and could empower “Middle America,” as Samuel Francis advocated.
Mechanism: Implement federalism-based reforms, such as block grants to states, deregulation to shift authority to local entities, or community-driven governance models. Encourage participatory democracy through town halls or citizen assemblies to counter top-down management.
Pros: Empowers local communities, potentially increasing responsiveness to diverse needs. Reduces reliance on a distant managerial class, fostering accountability.
Cons: May exacerbate regional inequalities, as not all localities have the resources or capacity for self-governance. Risks inconsistent standards in areas like healthcare or education.
Direct Democracy and Populist Mechanisms
Description: To bypass the managerial elite, power could be redistributed through mechanisms of direct democracy, such as referenda, ballot initiatives, or digital platforms for citizen input. This aligns with the article’s reference to a “Middle American Revolution” to disrupt elite control.
Mechanism: Expand use of referenda for major policy decisions, create digital platforms for real-time public feedback on legislation, or establish citizen review boards for bureaucratic agencies. These could ensure policies reflect popular will rather than managerial priorities.
Pros: Directly engages citizens, reducing the influence of unelected bureaucrats. Can harness populist energy to challenge entrenched elites.
Cons: Risks oversimplification of complex issues, as public opinion may lack nuance or expertise. Susceptible to manipulation through misinformation or populist rhetoric.
Market-Based Governance and Privatization
Description: Replacing bureaucratic control with market-driven solutions could diminish the managerial class’s dominance. The article mentions Elon Musk’s tech-right support, suggesting an entrepreneurial approach to governance that prioritizes efficiency over regulation.
Mechanism: Privatize certain government functions (e.g., education, healthcare delivery), reduce regulatory burdens to encourage competition, or adopt public-private partnerships. Encourage innovation-driven governance models, like charter cities or special economic zones, where managerial oversight is minimized.
Pros: Potentially increases efficiency and innovation by leveraging market incentives. Reduces size and scope of bureaucratic institutions.
Cons: Risks prioritizing profit over public welfare, potentially neglecting marginalized groups. May create new forms of unaccountable private power, replacing one elite with another.
Institutional Reform and Merit-Based Systems
Description: Rather than dismantling bureaucracy, reform it to prioritize merit, transparency, and accountability, addressing the article’s critique of a self-perpetuating managerial elite. This could involve restructuring institutions to limit ideological conformity and careerism.
Mechanism: Implement merit-based hiring and promotion in bureaucracies, reduce credentialism by valuing practical experience, and establish independent oversight bodies to monitor agency performance. Encourage ideological diversity within institutions to prevent groupthink.
Pros: Preserves expertise and institutional knowledge while addressing inefficiencies. Balances reform with stability, avoiding radical disruption.
Cons: Difficult to implement without entrenched resistance from existing elites. May require long-term cultural shifts to change institutional norms.
Cultural and Educational Counter-Movements
Description: The article highlights universities as key managerial institutions. An alternative is to challenge their role in credentialing and socializing the managerial class through alternative educational and cultural frameworks.
Mechanism: Support alternative education models (e.g., trade schools, online platforms, or classical liberal arts colleges) that prioritize practical skills or independent thought over managerial ideologies like DEI. Foster cultural movements that celebrate entrepreneurship, localism, or traditional values to counter elite cultural dominance.
Pros: Undermines the pipeline that produces the managerial class. Encourages diverse pathways to success, reducing elite gatekeeping.
Cons: Faces resistance from established academic institutions. May struggle to scale without significant funding or cultural buy-in.
Analysis and Considerations
Each alternative addresses the “tyranny of the bureaucracy” differently, reflecting varied assumptions about power, governance, and society. The Trump administration’s approach (Option 1) emphasizes executive-led disruption, but its struggles, as noted in the article, highlight bureaucratic resilience and the risk of managerial logic co-opting even anti-managerial efforts. Decentralization (Option 2) and direct democracy (Option 3) align with populist sentiments but face practical challenges in implementation and scalability. Market-based solutions (Option 4) appeal to the tech-right but risk creating new unaccountable elites, as Burnham’s critique of managerialism applied to corporations as well. Institutional reform (Option 5) offers a middle path but requires overcoming entrenched interests, while cultural counter-movements (Option 6) are long-term and diffuse.
The article suggests the managerial regime’s strength lies in its interconnectedness across public and private sectors, making comprehensive change difficult. Any alternative must grapple with this structural unity, as Samuel Francis noted, where elites in government, corporations, and academia reinforce each other. A hybrid approach—combining executive action, decentralization, and cultural reform—might balance immediate impact with long-term transformation, though it risks diluting focus.
Conclusion
Alternatives to the rule of managers range from reasserting democratic control through executive power to decentralizing authority, expanding direct democracy, leveraging markets, reforming institutions, or fostering cultural shifts. Each has trade-offs, and their success depends on navigating the managerial elite’s entrenched power. The Trump administration’s anti-managerial push, via DOGE and broader reforms, represents one model, but its limited success underscores the challenge. For a lasting shift, any approach must address both the institutional and cultural roots of managerial dominance, as outlined by Burnham and Francis, while avoiding new forms of unaccountable power.
