Ezra Klein, a journalist for The New York Times, has been a voice I look to in all of this noise. Klein’s nuanced and informed opinion has influenced the way I think about politics and policy.

Recently, on MSNBC, he spoke about the deepening political divide in the U.S. When asked about DOGE, he responded bluntly, “Efficient at what?” Efficiency, he explained, is not inherently good or bad – it depends on what it’s applied to. A government can be efficient at siting fossil fuel plants just as it can be efficient at building clean energy infrastructure.

These are two fundamentally different visions of the future, yet both can be pursued efficiently. Klein acknowledges that we all want an efficient government, but history shows that American governance has often been anything but effective.

The real question isn’t whether the government is efficient – it’s whether it’s focusing its efficiency in the right places. If we streamline all the wrong things, where does that leave us?

Government efficiency is a hot topic, but the conversation around it is often shallow. It’s framed as a matter of cutting costs and reducing bureaucracy, but that ignores the bigger picture. The current U.S. administration is a prime example, pushing for “efficiency” in ways that seem more about optics than actual governance.

Executive orders, for example, allow for rapid action but bypass the legislative process, raising questions about democratic accountability and long-term stability.

One of the biggest flaws in this approach is how efficiency is selectively applied. The administration touts the need to cut waste and streamline operations, yet these efforts almost always target social programs and consumer protections rather than the true drivers of inefficiency – bloated defense budgets, corporate subsidies, and tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy. That raises an important question: Is this really about making government work better, or is it about using the idea of efficiency to justify ideological goals?

A perfect example of performative governance is the administration’s use of “DOGE,” a term that started as an internet meme but has evolved into shorthand for vague, feel-good messaging. By relying on simple slogans and surface-level solutions, the administration creates the illusion of efficiency without delivering real improvements. Klein highlights this issue, arguing that these so-called efficiency measures are often about consolidating power rather than making government more effective. True efficiency isn’t just about cost-cutting–it’s about ensuring that government actually serves the people.

This isn’t a new problem. Historically, American politicians have used “streamlining government” as an excuse to gut regulatory agencies while allowing unchecked spending in areas that benefit the powerful. Corporate oversight agencies, for example, have been repeatedly stripped of funding in the name of efficiency, while military budgets continue to expand without question. The result? A government that is “efficient” in ways that serve the interests of the elite while leaving everyday people with fewer protections and services.

The growing reliance on executive orders only adds to this problem. While they allow for swift action, they also circumvent the legislative process, undermining the checks and balances that are supposed to keep power in check. Efficiency, in this case, becomes less about making government work better and more about making it easier for leaders to push through their agendas without debate.

If we’re going to talk seriously about government efficiency, we need to ask the right questions. Are we making government more effective, or are we just making it easier for those in power to do what they want?

Are we cutting unnecessary red tape, or are we dismantling the very institutions that keep corporations accountable? Mistaking efficiency for expediency is dangerous—it prioritizes speed over thoughtful policymaking, optics over real reform, and centralization over democratic balance.

A well-functioning government isn’t just fast or cost-effective—it serves its people in a sustainable, equitable way. Efficiency should be about improving transparency and accountability, not about using speed as a tool for ideological maneuvering. If executive orders and efficiency measures are being used to sidestep debate rather than improve governance, then what we’re seeing isn’t real progress—it’s just the performance of governance. And that’s a dangerous game to play with public trust.