America's (Lack Of) Customer Service in National (and Local) Governments
How America's Political Institutions Are Failing Their 'Customers' - And Why Both Parties Are to Blame For Swinging the Pendulum
W. Edwards Deming, namesake of Japan’s Deming Award for reasons I let you guess, had a simple (painfully so) insight about customer satisfaction: "It will not suffice to have customers that are merely satisfied." Even satisfied customers might switch, he warned, "on the theory that he could not lose much, and might gain."
This principle—that loyalty must be earned through exceptional service, not merely adequate (or frankly terrible but you have no choice) performance—offers a powerful lens for understanding why people keep on swinging between the two parties.
As polls show declining trust in government and institutions across the political spectrum, Deming's warning about customer loyalty feels less like business advice and more like political prophecy.
When political parties and public institutions take their constituents for granted, they invite defection and anger—playing out from Congress to town halls, with increasingly predictable results.
The Disney World Metaphor: A Case Study in Customer Abandonment
Before examining today's Disney World as a metaphor for why everything seems to get worse (at least with customer service), it's worth noting the company's troubling history with management consultants.
In 1996, Disney hired McKinsey & Company to evaluate park operations, resulting in what journalists Walt Bogdanich and Michael Forsythe describe as a “delightful” (by delightful I mean deadly) shift in safety protocols.
The consulting firm's recommendations included reducing ride maintenance after noticing that lap bars on roller coasters were inspected daily "when records show they never fail." As ride maintenance worker Bob Klostreich noted at the time, "The reason they don't fail is because we check them every night."
The results were tragic. In September 2000, four-year-old Brandon Zucker fell out of the Roger Rabbit ride and was crushed by the following car, suffering catastrophic brain injuries that led to his death at age 13.
This incident, along with other injuries and deaths, eventually forced the Californian government to intervene in 2003. While Disney paid millions in damages, McKinsey walked away with their consulting fees intact and repeat business from Disney.
This pattern—prioritizing extraction over quality—represents a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between provider and customer that extends far beyond theme parks.
The Three-Tiered Society
In his analysis "Our Mickey Mouse Economy," Oren Cass, executive director of American Compass and former domestic policy director for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, shows how today's Disney World has become a perfect microcosm of our parasitic service economy.
Cass describes three families at Disney World:
A management consultant who pays extra to game the system with carefully timed app reservations
A private equity executive who simply buys the premium pass to skip all lines
A teacher and nurse who pay base admission to spend their day watching others breeze past them through the "Lightning Lane"
The Wall Street Journal notes the model assumes the top 20% will buy the premium pass, making it "the single most expensive part of the vacation."
"This is gross," writes Cass, and "emblematic of our deformed socioeconomic structure." The system is designed to "best serve and satisfy professional-managerial class types," while adding "a money-solves-your-problems option for the rich who can't be bothered to figure things out for themselves."
This three-tiered system—with special accommodations for the wealthy, a complex bureaucracy navigable by the professional class, and long waits for everyone else—has become the template for everything from airport security to healthcare access.
The National Political Failure: Bipartisan Customer Abandonment
The Republican Betrayal
What makes Oren Cass's analysis particularly compelling is that it comes from within the Republican establishment while providing a framework that transcends partisan divides. As executive director of American Compass and former domestic policy director for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, Cass has developed a multi-faceted critique of how our institutions fail ordinary Americans.
His "Mickey Mouse Economy" analysis shows how Disney World has become a microcosm of America's stratified service model: the wealthy buy premium passes to skip lines, the professional-managerial class leverages technical knowledge to game reservation systems, and everyone else pays standard admission to wait in increasingly longer lines.
This same tiered approach appears in Republican tax policy, which Cass argues increasingly caters to donors and corporations at the expense of working-class voters. As Republicans passed a budget resolution with $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and spending increases, Cass sees his party abandoning its base. The resolution includes:
$4.5 trillion allocated to the Ways and Means Committee for tax cuts
At least $880 billion in cuts from Energy and Commerce (targeting Medicaid)
At least $230 billion in cuts from Agriculture (targeting SNAP)
"The tax cuts were made temporary so that they could be sold as less expensive in 2017. When are we supposed to count the cost of extending them or making them permanent? Not in 2017? Not in 2025? Just never?" — Oren Cass
While Republicans push for $4.5 trillion in tax cut extensions, only 1% of Americans say tax reform should be Trump's top priority. "If Republicans spend the next year fighting over a tax bill that is a low priority outside the Beltway," Cass warns, "they will expose themselves as badly disconnected from the interests of the working class that put them in power."
In a recent article for Unherd, Cass extends this analysis using the metaphor of a chainsaw to explain why so many government reform efforts fail:
Cass distinguishes between "easy problems" and "hard problems" in governance:
Easy problems can be solved by straightforward policy changes (stopping certain programs, redirecting funding)
Hard problems require reforming processes, developing expertise, and facing painful tradeoffs (reducing improper payments, making agencies more efficient)
When reformers fail to distinguish between these types of challenges, the results can be disastrous. As Cass notes regarding Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) efforts, they have been "haphazardly cutting expenditures without even knowing what they are," including canceling critical legal research tools at the SEC and firing staff with AI expertise.
"Many of the most intractable problems in government are hard problems. They aren't just a matter of choosing policy, but depend upon reforming process or grappling with painful tradeoffs." — Oren Cass
While Musk fetishized chainsaws and talked about how the “fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy” (ketamine is, apparently, a hell of a drug!), this approach to governance appears across (in a far less extreme but still obscene form) the political spectrum. Just as DOGE, lead by an addict who thinks using cheap glue to attach metal panels to a truck is a great way to save money, indiscriminately cuts federal employees regardless of their value, the more “measured” Clinton and Gore who loved Deming’s Total Quality Management, then spit on Deming’s body of work with the “National Performance Review” (based on a failed Texas cost-cutting program!) while hyping up Deming’s Total Quality Control, which sharply rejects the very idea of layoffs for mock “efficiency”.
What these approaches share is a fundamental disregard for actual service quality and user experience (my bias is that I prefer Lexus over Tesla, or sticking with EVs then it’s BYD over Tesla), people would argue that winning elections is what counts. Well, like Cass worried, the Republicans are losing special election after special election and their town halls have become something *delightful*.
The Democratic Collapse
While Cass critiques Republican abandonment of working-class interests, Stephen Semler, co-founder of the Security Policy Reform Institute, provides an equally devastating analysis of how Democrats lost their way.
The numbers tell the story: In 2020, 56% of voters with household incomes less than $100,000 voted for Biden, while only 43% chose Trump. By 2024, those numbers had dramatically shifted—Harris secured only 47% of these votes while Trump captured 51%.
Among voters making under $50,000, the shift was even more dramatic, marking the first time since the 1960s that Republicans won this income bracket.
But as Semler carefully documents, this wasn't a massive rightward shift in ideology. Rather, it represented a collapse in Democratic turnout. Overall voter participation fell from 65% in 2020 to 62% in 2024.
"If Harris had maintained Biden's share of the eligible vote," Semler notes, "she would have won the popular vote by 5.9 million. Instead, Harris lost by 2.3 million."
The roots of this collapse lie in the Biden administration's systematic dismantling of pandemic-era social programs despite ongoing need. Under Biden's watch:
Over 25 million people lost Medicaid coverage
SNAP benefits were cut by $90 per person monthly
Additional food assistance that kept 4.2 million out of poverty was eliminated
Student loan payments resumed despite 61% of borrowers reporting financial distress
Total student debt grew by $72 billion despite $189 billion in forgiveness
"While Republicans are leading the current attack on the social safety net," Semler writes, "the broader war on welfare is bipartisan."
This stuff translates into broader economic impacts, yes the unemployment rate was under 5%, but job searches stretch to six months before the end of Biden’s term, a month longer than in the post-2008 era. Not only that
51% of employed workers actively seeking new positions, creating intense competition
Recent graduates facing 5.3% unemployment, higher than the national average
The hiring rate remains at recession levels (3.3%) despite "good" unemployment numbers, which are made even worse by longer and longer job searches.
1.7 million and growing people have been searching for work for at least 27 weeks
That doesn’t come into the fact poverty, homelessness, and a number of other metrics have deteriorated! While a lot of people love to save it’s the vibes, remember that Musk and Trump’s popularity have dramatically declined over the last few months due to their own actions.
Especially as Semler’s notes how the Biden administration's 2023 budget, supported by all but one Democrat (Rep. Ocasio-Cortez), directed two-thirds of its $1.7 trillion toward military and law enforcement while triggering "historic reductions in food assistance and public health insurance coverage."
The progressive YIMBY governor of Minnesota and Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz, offers a remarkably candid assessment that aligns with Semler's analysis. In Walz's view, Democrats played it too safe and failed to present a bold vision that would inspire voters.
"We shouldn't have been playing this thing so safe," Walz told POLITICO. "I think we probably should have just rolled the dice and done the town halls, where [voters] may say, 'you're full of shit, I don't believe in you.' I think there could have been more of that." This risk-averse approach, Walz believes, put Democrats "in a prevent defense to not lose when we never had anything to lose because I don't think we were ever ahead."
Walz's critique goes beyond campaign tactics to the substance of Democratic policy offerings. Rather than incrementalism, he argues that when Democrats return to power, they need to deliver transformative policies that directly address voters' needs. His assessment perfectly aligns with Deming's principle that "merely satisfied" customers aren't enough – Democrats need to focus on delivering exceptional service through bold policy that tangibly improves people's lives.
Pointing to his experience in Minnesota, Walz demonstrates that political courage can succeed even with narrow margins: "We had a one-vote majority in Minnesota when we moved clean energy, we moved reproductive rights, we moved a whole slew of progressive, very popular, including things around guns and gun safety, very popular things." His governing philosophy – "You lead with good policy and good politics will follow" – represents a direct challenge to the risk-averse approach that has dominated Democratic politics.
Special Interest Capture: How Both Parties Abandoned Their Base
Cass and Semler identify how their respective parties have become captured by “niche” interests that no longer represent their nominal voter base.
On the Republican side, organizations like Americans for Tax Reform, Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity have made it "their mission to cut taxes continuously, regardless of what most voters prioritize or the federal budget can bear."
As Cass notes in The New York Times, "They preach tax cuts with the same desperate zeal as climate activists demanding a near-total elimination of carbon emissions." These groups, he argues, are "as toxic to the governing aspirations of conservatives as the Left's so-called 'groups' are to aspirations on the other side."
"Young voters do not look at our politics and see any good guys. They see a dying empire led by bad people." — Pollster quoted by Semler
The Harris campaign provides a perfect case study in ignoring Deming's wisdom about customer loyalty. As Semler documents, Harris faced a clear choice: embrace the successful social welfare agenda of 2021 that had dramatically improved economic well-being or continue Biden's rightward drift. The data was clear:
The cost-of-living crisis remained voters' top concern since July 2022
Majorities in both parties wanted to avoid foreign wars
All measures of economic well-being showed deterioration since 2019
Instead of addressing these concerns, Harris, like the Republican establishment Cass criticizes, chose to ignore them. Her economic platform was inadequate to the moment, and her foreign policy remained hawkish despite widespread opposition. “Look, I own this. We wouldn’t be in this mess if we had won the election, and we didn’t,” Walz said in an interview Wednesday on MSNBC’s “All In” with Chris Hayes. All those numbers have *gotten* worse under the Trump administration, and with those numbers, Trump’s own presidency is suffering from the “bad vibes”
The Service Failure Cascade: How National Neglect Affects Daily Life
The national crisis of political customer service isn't just an abstract phenomenon playing out in Washington—it cascades down to shape the daily experiences of Americans at every level. Just as Harris and Trump competed for voters while ignoring their needs, local institutions increasingly operate with a similar disconnect from their users.
Author of the Right of Way, Angie Schmitt in her analysis of public services "Stop Gaslighting People Who Complain about Public Services" makes a provocative observation: "I am suspicious of people that are constantly loudly praising public services. Whether it's transit, or libraries, or public schools."
As a library user working on her second book, she encounters constant friction with inflexible systems. Despite requesting extensions for academic books that haven't been checked out in 25 years, she faces rigid return policies that seem to prioritize rules over service.
"Here's my suspicion about all these people who are always memeing about how ideal and magical libraries are: I think they don't use them," she writes. "When I go to the library, a lot of times it's sorta deserted. Everyone's at home on their computer talking about how they love libraries, presumably."
Transit Troubles
The disconnect between institutional priorities and user needs becomes even more stark in public transit. Just as the Biden-Harris administration dismantled effective pandemic-era programs despite clear public need, local transit authorities often make decisions that seem to deliberately ignore user experiences.
"You can tell who really rides transit and tries to rely on it. I know these people! They are pissed off all the time! They have stories!"
Schmitt describes her own station's unexplained entrance closure, which forces a detour with no timeline for resolution. The station has become "sort of a homeless shelter and marijuana smoking hot box for high school kids, to the point where if you show up these days and you're just like a normal person who came there to ride the train, everyone does a double take."
The Education Predicament
The public education system perhaps best exemplifies how national political failures manifest at the local level. Just as Cass identifies Republicans' fixation on tax cuts while ignoring working-class priorities, and Semler documents Democrats' abandonment of effective social programs, Schmitt observes how education debates have become consumed by ideological battles while basic service delivery deteriorates.
As a parent, she observes how schools have become increasingly unreliable services: "My kids rarely have a five day week anymore. For some reason, we only have school during the height of cold and flu season and even then only on random days when the 'wind chill' isn't something the weather people are trying to use to boost ratings."
While conservatives focus on curriculum battles and liberals critique parental involvement, Schmitt argues that most parents simply want reliable, quality education: "I could care less about curriculum... As long as they come back reading and mathing with passable competence, I am happy."
I recognize I'm taking a very “scenic” route to my point here—as you might be kindly thinking, 'GET TO THE POINT YOU CHEESE OBSESSED DWEEB.' Fair critique. My “verbose” style might (I swear this is coincidental) mirrors how our political leaders approach problems: circling the core issues while citizens just want basic services fixed. So directly to the point: let's talk about why city services keep declining regardless of whether 'combative centrist' or 'progressive' leaders are in charge.
The Pendulum Swings, Even in Inter-party Factions
Few political figures embody this dynamic better than former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (well maybe Andrew Cuomo, but then pundits say he brings LEADERSHIP! Those same pundits are worried about the cost of Social Security and Medicare, not to mention the cost of keeping grandma alive in a nursing home), who left office in 2019 after two terms marked by significant failures hidden beneath polished messaging.
Emanuel, who served as President Obama's first chief of staff, positioned himself as a pragmatic leader who could transcend ideological battles and deliver results.
After leaving Chicago's City Hall, he quickly secured media platforms in The Atlantic and on cable news, where he dispensed advice about how Democrats should focus on winning over Trump voters and warned against "21st Century progressivism."
But the reality of Emanuel's mayoral tenure reveals how failing to improve actual services creates a vacuum that only hastens political backlash:
He presided over devastating cuts to neighborhood schools while expanding charter schools. With parents forced to go into a 34 day hunger strike to save one of their schools.
What’s worse, it turns out that graduation rates were constantly and consistently wrong.
He fought police reform at every step, resisting federal oversight. This was before the lunatic madness of “Defund The Police” by the way.
Not to mention Rahm’s corruption scandals
Emanuel's governing approach perfectly illustrates the fundamental problem with much of American politics today—it prioritizes messaging and positioning over solving actual problems. The result is governance that frustrates citizens across the political spectrum while improving nothing.
"The political pendulum swings ever more wildly when each administration fails to apply basic continuous improvement principles to governance."
This cycle of political whiplash—from Emanuel's administration to Lightfoot's failed reform promises to Brandon Johnson's struggling (and matching Rahm in levels of incompetence) progressive administration—perfectly illustrates how the pendulum swings ever more wildly when each coalition fails to apply basic service improvement principles to governance.
Chicago residents have experienced progressively worse service delivery through each swing while politicians of all stripes focus on winning rhetorical battles rather than implementing the methodical improvements to education, public safety, and infrastructure that communities desperately need (my goodness, this is a mouthful).
Deming's Continuous Improvement Over Political Posturing
The convergence of these critiques—from a conservative policy expert, a progressive analyst, and a transit journalist—suggests a deeper crisis in American governance. At all levels, our political and public service systems have created structures that:
Prioritize donor satisfaction over constituent needs
Build complex bureaucracies that benefit the professional class
Maintain special carve-outs for the wealthy
Take working and middle-class users for granted
The solution transcends (as much of a cliche as the word is) traditional political divides. It's not about conservatism, progressivism, or the technocratic (but not really) centrism championed by pundits. Rather, it lies in continuous improvement applied to governance.
Schmitt's advocacy for public services, despite their current failures, underscores this approach: "I genuinely like public services, in theory anyway! I want a nice park where I can run into neighbors."
She argues that maintaining effective services "takes a lot of difficult civic work... Hyping them is not enough. We need to roll up our sleeves and do the difficult work of reforming them."
This insight applies equally to our national politics. Continuous improvement requires taking user complaints seriously as feedback mechanisms rather than dismissing them as ideological resistance.
The fundamental flaw in consultant-driven and pundit-approved governance is assuming systems work well by accident rather than through consistent attention to service quality.
“Shut Up About Egg Prices”
America faces a choice between two visions: political positioning and service delivery. The first, exemplified by figures like Emanuel and the technocratic pundit class, seeks the perfect ideological triangulation while neglecting user experience. This produces Cass's "Mickey Mouse Economy," in which most citizens wait in line while elites access express lanes.
The alternative, rooted in Deming's principles, focuses on continuous improvement in service quality. It measures success not by ideological purity or finding the perfect midpoint between competing positions but by tangible improvements in citizens' lives.
When Emanuel closed mental health clinics or Democrats dismantled effective pandemic-era programs, they prioritized abstract fiscal values over service outcomes. A Deming approach would instead ask: How can we maintain or improve services while addressing constraints? Which programs deliver the most value? How can we preserve what works?
The political movement that embraces Deming's wisdom—treating citizens as valued customers deserving of excellent service rather than ideological abstractions—will discover a competitive advantage that transcends traditional political categories.
Before you start talking about the “vibes”, remember this. People still kept talking about the egg prices, so much so, that Donald Trump said “SHUT UP ABOUT EGG PRICES”.
As Deming knew, even satisfied customers might switch if they believe they have nothing to lose—and increasingly, that's how American voters feel about institutions meant to serve them. The party that embraces continuous improvement rather than ideological positioning could reshape American politics for a generation to come.
Questions For The Audience
What's your most frustrating "customer service" experience with government or public institutions?
Do you see evidence of the three-tiered service model (special access for the wealthy, complex systems for professionals, and long waits for everyone else) in your community?
What's one change you would make to improve public service in your community?
So, I was on a half empty flight last week. There were 7 exit row seats open and some passengers asked the flight cops (formerly known as flight attendants) if they could move up to a more comfotable seat. "Nope, you'd have to pay. This would have resulted in a small riot 20 years ago. Not so, now. We're all being broken to the reins.
So, its not just, not even mostly, about government (I am getting so tired of people focusing on slow-moving targets). Its about a society in which invidious distinctions have somehow become necessary (I won't dive into why here), in which even marginal temporary comfort has to be monetized. An airline that valued its customers would make all seats equally comfortable and seat passengers by layover time, so that the family who has only 50 minutes to get from one concourse to another would be first off the plane.
To the extent they exist, (my town has good customer service, but I iunderstand that is not always the case) the failures of our political institutions are mirrors of our increasingly desperate clinging to an economic model that cannot, by definition, put people first.