When I published "Democracy’s Tech Debt," I was trying to make a principled argument: that we don’t need to scrap our constitutional system and start over. We need to debug it—to diagnose where it's failing, patch what's broken, and strengthen the system for all citizens.
Based on the feedback, I clearly hit a nerve for some people, and I’m grateful. Your comments are helping me sharpen my language, clarify distinctions, and deepen the argument I’m trying to make.
Acknowledging Bipartisan Executive Overreach
Some asked why I didn’t acknowledge the long-standing, bipartisan pattern of executive overreach. Fair point. I should have, and the post would’ve been stronger for it. That’s why I am going to write a 4 part follow up and will address this in detail.
The Fiscal Sustainability Critique
Several people asked about other systemic structural concerns. For example, one reader pointed to our $36 trillion national debt, $3 billion per day in interest, and $140 trillion in unfunded liabilities tied to Social Security and Medicare. They invoked Tytler’s 18th-century warning that democracies collapse when voters discover they can vote themselves benefits and Ray Dalio’s framework on debt cycles and sovereign decline. This led me to start exploring these thinkers, so thank you. Net/net: I agree these are serious concerns. But, to be honest, I am just starting to build out this POV and need to spend more time exploring, learning and developing a more thoughtful response over time.
Still, I want to separate two different issues: the system’s structural logic versus how we’ve been managing it. I.e., I think there’s an important distinction between governance architecture (how we allocate and constrain power) and government operations (how we budget, spend, and account). I 100% agree that poor fiscal stewardship erodes trust in the entire system. We need leaders who take long-term solvency seriously. That used to be a Republican principle—remember that? But that wasn’t the primary argument I was trying to tackle in this piece. I may return to it later.
Democracy vs. Republic
Another reader reminded me that the word “democracy” doesn’t appear in the Constitution—and they’re right. The United States was founded as a republic, not a direct democracy. But I was using “democracy” in the broader, civic sense: a system of self-governance rooted in representation, consent of the governed, and the rule of law. In that sense, a healthy republic depends on democratic values—and falters without them. I acknowledge I was conflating the two ideas and will be more precise going forward.
Is This Really a Constitutional Crisis?
Some folks pushed back on the idea that we’re in a constitutional crisis. I think this is an important question—and one that depends on how Trump and his administration respond to the courts.
Here’s what I mean: we’ve had other presidents who overreached. But they generally pulled back—or were pulled back—when the courts intervened. The difference now is that we’re seeing a pattern of behavior that suggests Trump may ignore or override judicial constraints.
We’re watching this play out right now. A federal judge recently commented—rather ominously—that he “hoped” the Trump administration would respect a court order. That is not something judges say lightly. I would suggest it’s also why the Supreme Court, a conservative-majority court, felt compelled to intervene. They needed to slow things down.
That’s the inflection point: if a president or administration refuses to comply with court rulings, we are in uncharted territory. That’s not just overreach—that’s a constitutional breakdown.
So yes, it may not be a full-blown constitutional crisis yet. But we’re dangerously close—and history teaches us that by the time you realize you’re in a crisis, it’s often too late to contain it.
My Core Concern: Structural Power Drift
What I’m really concerned with—and what drove the original post—is the growing imbalance in our constitutional design. We don’t just have a Trump problem. We have an executive power problem. And it’s been building for decades. It’s the result of presidents of both parties expanding executive authority AND Congress failing to assert its constitutional role. Trump is a symptom of the disease, yes. But he’s also something new. A different kind of bug in the system. We’re now seeing the convergence of two dangers:
A long arc of bipartisan executive overreach
A singular actor—and his Project 2025 allies—willing to exploit every vulnerability without regard for democratic norms
Put simply, and this will be the last time I use the software metaphor as I recognize I am on the cusp of beating this poor horse to death. We’re not just dealing with technical debt. We’re facing a live exploit. And that means we need to do two things at once:
Respond to the immediate threat
Rebalance our system for the long term
Where This Is Going: A 4-Part Series
This is why I am going to spend some time in the coming weeks thinking more about 4 topics, which I think will help me at least better define the core problem (imperial presidency), why we got here and what we can do about it.
Part 1: We Don’t Need a Better Emperor — We Need a Republic
Why the imperial presidency is a constitutional error, not a partisan solution.Part 2: Executive Overreach Is a Bipartisan Bug
A historical walk-through of how we got here.Part 3: Why Do We Keep Wanting a King?
The cultural psychology of the strongman impulse in American Society and culturePart 4: How to Debug the Presidency Without Crashing the System
Practical steps Congress, courts, and citizens can take to fix the imbalance.
Thank you again to those of you who provided your feedback. One of my favorite quotes is from Proverbs 27:17—"As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." That’s what I am hoping to foster over time: constructive tension and dialogue. Friction with purpose. Your feedback didn’t dull the argument—it honed it.
Finally, while I don’t intend to engage in social media rant fests, I will try to periodically address feedback through longer-form responses. It is the only way I can stay focused on one argument at a time. I want to go deep and, over time, broad. Your choice, obviously, is to read and respond. I hope you do!