President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore introduce Gore’s National Performance Review in front of the White House. (Photo Credit: Cynthia Johnson—Getty Images)
Before the establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore spearheaded a movement to “reinvent government.” Critics are raising concerns over the initial actions taken by DOGE, including aggressive interventions into the U.S. government’s vast financial system, sudden budget cuts to USAID, reports of discriminatory remarks by young engineers, and the looming threat of widespread layoffs. Elon Musk has drawn parallels between DOGE’s current initiatives and the reform efforts led by Gore in the 1990s.
During the 1990s, a rising political wave combined America’s anti-bureaucracy sentiment with innovative ideas on how the “information superhighway” could reshape the nation’s political and economic landscape, offering new avenues for governmental transformation. However, DOGE’s recent flurry of activities represents a more radical departure from Gore’s original reform agenda. This historical context suggests that Musk may encounter challenges in achieving his objectives and that interference with the federal bureaucracy carries tangible political risks.
Antagonism towards government bureaucracy has long been a prevailing force in American politics, intensifying as the government expanded post-1930s, particularly with the ascent of conservative ideologies in the 1970s and 1980s. Beyond the Republican sphere, a group of “New Democrats” or “Atari Democrats” emerged, expressing concerns over the bloated government apparatus. Observing Ronald Reagan’s successful anti-bureaucracy rhetoric, these Democrats believed that diverging from blind defense of government programs and bureaucracy could yield both effective governance and electoral advantages.
By the late 1980s and 1990s, these Democrats recognized an opportunity to harness public anti-bureaucracy sentiments by embracing the vision of a more streamlined “New Economy.” They viewed advancements in technology and burgeoning sectors like finance and telecommunications as catalysts for shedding traditional bureaucratic structures. Notions of Silicon Valley’s innovative spirit, agile startup environments, and futuristic ventures, coupled with the allure of efficiency, began to shape Democratic policy discussions in the 1990s.
In 1992, Clinton and Gore, emblematic of this new generation of Democratic leaders, conducted a forward-looking campaign, underscored by Fleetwood Mac’s anthem “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.” Following their victory, Clinton pledged to pursue an ambitious agenda encompassing free trade, welfare reform, healthcare reform, technology policy, and deficit reduction, all while distancing himself from “big government.” He appointed Gore to spearhead the National Performance Review (NPR), aimed at revitalizing the federal bureaucracy.
Inspired by the 1992 book “Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector,” which advocated for bureaucratic overhaul, the NPR championed
In the late 1990s, Al Gore spearheaded a groundbreaking effort to turn the recommendations from a book into reality and revolutionize the functioning of the government. Six months after the initiative began, on September 7, 1993, Gore presented the first report from the National Performance Review (NPR) to President Clinton at a ceremony in the White House.
Clinton and Gore wasted no time in taking action, using presidential directives and executive orders to implement many of the recommendations outlined in the report. In cases where legislative support was needed, they urged Congress to pass necessary bills. For instance, agencies were directed to establish standards for customer service and utilize them to evaluate performance. Gore led the charge in reforming the federal procurement process, streamlining the purchasing of necessary items for increased efficiency and cost savings. He also established “reinvention laboratories” within agencies for managers to experiment with improved service delivery methods. Furthermore, an administration-supported “buyout bill” incentivized selected employees to leave government service in an effort to reduce the government’s size.
A subsequent initiative in 1995 encouraged agencies to reduce regulatory burdens, resulting in the elimination of over 100,000 regulations. Gore recognized federal employees who innovatively transformed government processes with “hammer awards.” Leaders and employees at various levels of government embraced the opportunity to enhance governance within their organizations, leading to notable reductions in federal job numbers by 12%.
While the Clinton administration celebrated its achievements in government reform, criticisms emerged regarding the reliance on market principles and the treatment of citizens as consumers. Despite the satisfaction reported in government functionality, doubts lingered about the true efficacy of Gore’s efforts in enhancing government efficiency versus merely reducing personnel. Critics cautioned that downsizing without a strategic plan could create long-term performance challenges.
Critiques aside, the initiative marked a significant success for the Clinton Administration. Although some questioned the depth of the reforms and the emphasis on downsizing, Gore’s efforts were recognized for generating positive outcomes in government operations. The program faced challenges and criticisms but ultimately contributed to a notable shift towards improved governance practices.
In the year 2000, Al Gore embarked on his presidential campaign. His rival, George W. Bush, humorously remarked that the government bureaucracy had not been reinvented, but merely rearranged. Bush also questioned the validity of the administration’s claimed cost savings, citing a report from the General Accounting Office.
After Bush narrowly won the election, it became evident that the reduction in government workforce achieved through Gore’s efforts was short-lived. The Bush administration quickly expanded the federal workforce by almost 2.5 million employees between 2002 and 2005, primarily due to wartime needs.
Gore’s attempts at reform produced some changes but mostly generated hype, failing to prevent the resurgence of bureaucracy. The downsizing resulted in the government relying heavily on contractors, creating a “shadow bureaucracy.” This shift left reformers vulnerable to criticism from both the left wing of the party and beneficiaries of government programs, fueling anti-government sentiments that favored conservative Republicans.
Fast forward to the present day, where a new movement led by DOGE aims to reinvent government once again. This coalition, composed of national conservatives and Silicon Valley innovators, echoes the anti-bureaucratic and techno-futurist ideals that influenced the New Democrats in the 1990s.
However, there are significant differences between these two initiatives. The New Democrats did not harbor deep hostility towards the government or its employees, emphasizing the renewal rather than the criticism of government. In contrast, DOGE’s focus has primarily been on reducing the size of government, with Musk openly discussing dismantling agencies such as the Department of Education.
While DOGE’s approach mirrors the New Democrats’ “Reinventing Government” strategy, past experiences suggest that true progress may be uncertain. The Trump administration’s efforts to rehire dismissed employees and reports of GOP lawmakers facing backlash signal potential challenges ahead. Musk’s ties to government contracts have raised concerns about conflicts of interest, and there are doubts about the extent of savings attributed to DOGE’s actions.
As history has shown with Clinton and Gore’s reform endeavors, the public’s demand for reform can shift unpredictably. It remains to be seen whether DOGE’s approach will bring about lasting improvements in government.
During his doctoral studies, Casey Eilbert successfully completed his dissertation titled “Securing the System: Phone Phreaks, Computer Hackers, and Political Order in Modern America, 1963-2013.” Currently serving as a postdoctoral fellow at the prestigious SNF Agora Institute situated at Johns Hopkins University, he brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to his work. Meanwhile, in 2024, Casey Eilbert, now a respected scholar, defended his dissertation entitled “Conceptualizing The ‘Iron Cage’: Bureaucracy in Modern America” within the history department at the esteemed Princeton University. For inquiries or collaborations, please reach out to Casey Eilbert at madebyhistory@time.com.
