Lmao, make a better case then!

everyone else has explained to you the rhetoric at work in these pieces, which ofc you do already understand

No everyone is just hallucinating that there is a secret message that is not actually in the text.

Which is maybe true but is a remarkably silly argument.

I always enjoy how this rendering of arguments of this type would have it that the arguments are really making no big point at all

No, they are making pretty explicit points in the actual text.

Yes but the piece has much less force if the argument really is only “Democrats should pay attention to, and convince the public they are paying attention to, government inefficiency”

If only Jen Pahlka had a broader argument that one could use to think about how she is thinking about these issues. Perhaps in a book that pre-dates DOGE.

Does that book justify this blatant lie?

I have no idea who she is and have never read the book. I’m talking about this piece and the uses to which it puts the book. Are you saying this piece had glosses on the book that are inaccurate or oversimplified?