The current American political system faces a profound structural issue: despite being built on the foundation of Separation of Powers (aimed at checks and balances and preventing arbitrary rule), it has fallen into a state of “no clear ownership,” which we term the Accountability Void. The principle of separating powers, by distributing authority among different entities or levels, is inherently designed to promote good governance and prevent abuse of power. Even in monarchies, principles like “the king under law” embody this spirit. However, in the American republican system, when this separation of powers isn’t accompanied by clear and effective ultimate accountability mechanisms, it leads to vague responsibilities. This means no single, powerful authority can oversee the whole or bear ultimate responsibility for the nation’s long-term well-being. This phenomenon is deeply rooted in the republican system: politics often devolves into the distribution and trading of benefits, and without a clear point of ultimate accountability, compromise becomes a necessary means to maintain political operation. This isn’t a problem of any single leader but a deep-seated dilemma within the system itself. America’s massive $35.5 trillion debt crisis is a concentrated manifestation of this issue, and it serves as a critical entry point for us to confront the problem of the accountability void.
The Unspoken Rules and Debt Crisis Under the Accountability Void
In a republican system, power is distributed according to the principle of separation among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, federal, state, and local governments, as well as various social institutions like churches, guilds, and associations. This structure’s original intent was to check power and prevent corruption. However, when this separation of powers isn’t accompanied by clear and effective ultimate accountability mechanisms, it often leads to buck-passing, with no one truly responsible for the public good. To win votes, politicians frequently use pork barrel projects to satisfy local interests, the consequences of which are borne by all citizens. For example, the Gravina Island Bridge (Bridge to Nowhere) in 2008 cost $398 million but served only 50 residents, becoming a prime example of wasteful spending. In the current legislative process, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, an important bill under review, could increase the deficit by $3.8 trillion. Yet, its complex political considerations make it an unavoidable trade-off for all parties under the accountability void, and under specific strategic goals, it might even be a supported option.
America’s debt crisis further highlights the flaws of the accountability void. As of February 2025, the total US debt has reached $35.5 trillion, meaning each citizen on average bears approximately $108,000 in debt. This massive accumulation of debt is precisely due to the lack of a strong ultimate accountability point to curb wasteful spending. Politicians know that through exchanging favors (splitting the spoils), they can gain support, while the consequences of the debt are passed on to future generations. This state of dispersed responsibility and no ultimate accountability leaves the public weary of politics—a 2023 Pew Research Center survey shows about two-thirds (65%) of Americans are tired of politics, while only a small minority (10%) express hope regarding it.
The Limitations of Patchwork Thinking: The Deep Roots of the Problem
Traditionally, faced with the accountability void, people often try to address it with system patches, such as establishing independent budget oversight bodies to curb wasteful spending. However, this approach often backfires because these newly created agencies, intended to increase accountability, are quickly assimilated and neutralized by the same systemic pressures. The problem isn’t just that the system itself has flaws; it’s that attempts to fix it from within often fail because these patches themselves become part of the problem.
New agencies require people to operate, and these individuals can quickly become new interest groups, turning into exploitable vulnerabilities, further eroding the public interest. For example, the US Federal Election Commission (FEC) often finds itself deadlocked due to partisan divisions, rendering it ineffective in regulation. This patch—corruption—problem escalation—cycle reveals the deep root of the problem: when the power structure itself fails to establish effective and binding ultimate accountability mechanisms, any newly established agency struggles to break free from the framework of interest bargaining and become a true solution.
This phenomenon indicates that simply relying on new agencies or mechanisms cannot fundamentally resolve the accountability void. In fact, these patches themselves contribute to the expansion of government size, increased taxation, and massive borrowing. Even attempts like Musk’s advocated establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.)—a temporary arrangement aimed at improving efficiency and fighting corruption—if it were to become a formal institution one day, would either fail to address the root of the accountability void or ironically lead to new resource consumption and bureaucratic bloat. This predicament forces us to re-examine the nature of the accountability void and how we can truly break this vicious cycle of constant patching and systemic assimilation.
The Tradition and Expansion of Pork Barrel Politics
Pork barrel politics is nothing new; its tradition in American politics dates back to the early 19th century, a deeply entrenched issue that didn’t appear overnight. As early as 1817, the Bonus Bill proposed by Democrat John C. Calhoun became an early example. The bill planned to use surplus funds from the Second Bank of the United States to build highways connecting the East, South, and Western frontiers but was ultimately vetoed by President James Madison on constitutional grounds. Although the bill didn’t pass, it already demonstrated the core characteristics of pork barrel politics: providing federal funds for local projects in exchange for political support or votes. In this stage, pork barrel projects, despite their political exchange nature, often still retained some public construction or welfare attributes, and could be seen as tools for buying off individual voters, maintaining a superficial public utility.
Over time, the scale and impact of pork barrel politics continued to expand, becoming a chronic ailment in American politics. 19th-century pork barrel projects mostly focused on infrastructure development, such as canals and railroads. However, by the 20th century, with the expansion of federal government power, the scope and cost of these projects increased dramatically. For instance, Boston’s Big Dig project, initially budgeted at $2.7 billion, ultimately cost $14.6 billion, becoming a landmark case of wasteful spending. More alarmingly, according to data from Citizens Against Government Waste, the 2023 US federal budget included 8,222 pork barrel projects, totaling $22.7 billion. In 2005, this number was as high as 15,887, far exceeding 4,126 in 1994. This trend indicates that pork barrel politics has not only remained unchecked but has proliferated under the existing system due to the accountability void, becoming a significant driver of fiscal deficit expansion. This is, in fact, the deep root of why modern governments, even collecting a larger proportion of taxes, still constantly need to borrow heavily.
Contemporary pork barrel politics has evolved into a self-enrichment model, where projects not only serve local voters but also benefit related interest groups, and even directly decision-makers and their cronies, with their public utility sharply declining. The expansion of budget size and pork barrel projects form a vicious cycle, mutually reinforcing each other. In the early 20th century, the federal budget accounted for only 2-3% of US GDP, but by 2025, this proportion will approach 25%. The expansion of the budget, in turn, provides greater operational space for pork barrel projects, while the legislative process in Congress has also become increasingly complex. For example, modern pork barrel projects often appear as earmarks, embedded within thousands of pages of budget bills—such massive texts mean no one can thoroughly review all content, and people often only focus on whether their own proposals pass, rarely questioning the rationality of others’ bills. This structural flaw has allowed pork barrel politics to evolve from isolated acts in the early days into a systemic corruption mechanism, further exacerbating the debt crisis.
Piercing the Unspoken Rules: Strategic Compromise and Structural Reflection
Against this backdrop, Elon Musk’s public criticism became a crucial turning point. On June 4, 2025, Musk publicly criticized the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, calling it “a gigantic, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill,” and describing it as “a disgusting monster.” This outspoken criticism pierced through the unspoken rules in politics, drawing public attention to the harm of such wasteful spending. This critique not only exposed the unfairness in the bill (e.g., using public funds to buy votes) but, more importantly, sparked widespread discussion about the flaws of the accountability void system.
However, the stance on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act also reflects the deep dilemma under the accountability void. From a realistic political perspective, even if the bill is full of pork and exacerbates the fiscal burden, Trump himself might still have to choose to support its passage. This is because, in the current highly divided Congress, vetoing such a critical bill could lead to him losing fragile congressional majority support, preventing his core policies from advancing, and potentially causing his political agenda (MAGA) to be a fleeting four-year phenomenon, thus losing the long-term possibility of societal transformation. For those who, like this author, recognize the structural nature of the problem, supporting such a flawed bill is not an endorsement of its content but a necessary compromise given the political reality, a price required to uphold a broader goal. Therefore, supporting Trump in promoting such bills and supporting Musk in piercing the unspoken rules are not contradictory but responses to the same structural dilemma at different levels—tactical compromise and strategic critique. This piercing is not meant to change a single event but to bring the problem to the table and break the legitimacy of unspoken rules.
Avoiding Populism, Focusing on Rational Thought
It’s important to note that such criticism should lead to rational thought, not devolve into populist action. Populism might simplify the problem into “the people vs. the elite” dichotomy, inciting emotional confrontation without touching the core of the issue. Political science research indicates that populism often appeals to emotion rather than reason, which can exacerbate social division. In America’s current polarized political environment—a 2022 Pew Research Center report indicates that most liberals (about 62%) and conservatives (about 57%) hold very negative views of the opposing party, a polarization that exacerbates social division—populist actions could derail discussion and fail to address the root causes of unspoken rules.
Instead, this criticism should serve as a starting point for rational discussion. We need to focus on the structural flaws of the accountability void, considering why unspoken rules persist and the deeper reasons behind this phenomenon. We are by no means advocating for concentrated power, because concentrated power itself cannot guarantee accountability and, instead of solving corruption, might lead to even more severe authoritarianism. We should ask deeper questions: “Why does our system allow such waste in the current framework? Why is ultimate responsibility so ambiguous?” Such discussions can enable the public to move beyond emotional reactions and confront the fundamental systemic problems.
Conclusion
America’s debt crisis is not just an economic problem but a microcosm of its political challenges. It reveals the dilemma of the accountability void in the republican system: within a framework of separated powers, the absence of effective and binding ultimate accountability mechanisms allows vague responsibilities, interest bargaining, and unspoken rules to become the norm. The evolution of pork barrel politics, from its nascent stages in the 19th century to its current proliferation, reflects the long-term accumulation and exacerbation of this problem. We simultaneously support necessary compromises within political realities (such as advancing certain flawed bills to maintain stability and progress on major agendas) and support profound critiques that pierce their surface, as both are necessary responses to the accountability void at different levels. This reflection should not be limited to emotional reactions but should serve as a starting point for rational discussion, allowing us to more clearly understand the complexity and far-reaching impact of the accountability void. Only by squarely facing the nature of the problem can we find direction for future change and enable the American political system to better serve the public interest.
