While many on the left-ish side of the political spectrum are aware of the radical nature of both the theocratic right and the white supremacist right, less attention has been to the radicalism of the Any Rand-following batshitloonitarian wing of the conservative movement (boldface mine):
The writer of the op-ed, published by conservative news site The Daily Caller, argues the partial government shutdown is an opportunity for Trump to greatly reduce the size of government.
“On an average day, roughly 15 percent of the employees around me are exceptional patriots serving their country. I wish I could give competitive salaries to them and no one else,” the op-ed reads. “But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results. If they don’t feel like doing what they are told, they don’t.”
Later in the op-ed, the author states that the first goal of the shutdown should be to win better security particularly at the southern border. Uniformed border officials should be paid, but nonessential employees should be let go, the author writes.
“Furloughed employees should find other work, never return and not be paid,” the op-ed states.
The second goal should be finding savings for taxpayers, according to the op-ed.
If the shutdown is just about “rhetorical bickering,” it is a loss, the author states. “But if it proves that government is better when smaller, focusing only on essential functions that serve Americans, then President Trump will achieve something great that Reagan was only bold enough to dream.”
…The op-ed’s argument that most federal workers should lose their jobs and that the shutdown should be a way to drive them out is at odds with the public comments of Republican lawmakers and even Trump, who have cast federal workers furloughed or working without pay as a result of the shutdown as victims.
The writer claims that a majority of federal workers “do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value.”
“That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands — administering, refining, following and collaborating on process,” the op-ed reads.
The con that they run is that this is simply an issue of good governance, something liberals have no problem pointing out (e.g., here’s an example at an institution that, overall, is important). But the writer gives away the game:
“Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them,” the op-ed states. “Until the shutdown.”
“Federal employees are starting to feel the strain of the shutdown. I am one of them. But for the sake of our nation, I hope it lasts a very long time, till the government is changed and can never return to its previous form,” the op-ed states.
This is the libertarian equivalent of saying the racist parts out loud. What the author means isn’t that there are a lot of people goofing off or working inefficiently. What he (?) means is that he doesn’t believe in the mission of the agency, and those employees who are trying to enforce or follow the law are the problem. In other words, EPA staff who don’t want kids to ingest mercury or inhale lead are the problem. Workers who want to enforce the tax code are the problem. And so on. Those who purport to lead these agencies fundamentally do not believe in those agencies’ missions.
This is not temperamental conservatism, or a skepticism about how things actually work; the left no more likes stupid, wasteful policy than the right (more so, as it undercuts the legitimacy of those policies). This is a radical ideology that simply believe that many of the things government does should not be done, that the market will magically take care of it.
These assholes are every bit as dangerous as the theocrats and the supremacists.