Its Everywhere, This Goodhart's Law
David Brooks recently wrote a great column discussing how Trumpism represents an alternative value system. That is putting it mildly. Trumpism is not just a different political approach, it’s an entirely new value system that explicitly, loudly, and sometimes rudely rejects the existing establishment. It thrives on the idea that the very institutions regarded as symbols of legitimacy are, in fact, unworthy. In this new value system, respect is earned by being scorned by the old guard. As Brooks aptly put it, if the establishment regards you as a sleazeball, you must be doing something right.
But while this can be an effective strategy to galvanize support, we should beware Goodhart’s Law—the idea that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. In Trumpism’s value system, the metric for “heroism” is flouting institutional authority. The more contempt the (current) establishment shows for you, the higher you rise within this new order. And at first glance, this might seem like a promising approach—a way to shake off the cobwebs of a stagnant and unresponsive establishment.
The problem, however, is that once the act of defying institutions itself becomes the target, it stops being a meaningful measure. Goodhart’s Law warns us of this pitfall. Rebellion against the status quo can be powerful when it is grounded in a specific reason or when it points towards a concrete alternative. But if defying institutional authority becomes the end in itself, rather than a means to achieve better outcomes, we risk descending into chaos.
The meaningfulness of defiance lies in answering two key questions: Which institutional norms did you challenge, and why? And how do you propose to make the norms better? Without serious and honest answers to these questions, the defiance becomes shallow—a mere spectacle, rather than a movement toward progress.
If these questions are left unanswered, we are left with the destruction of institutions, not the building of better ones. We create a society where the highest status is awarded not for constructing new systems or improving the old ones, but simply for tearing down what exists. The danger here is clear: a cultural equilibrium that rewards only the rejection of norms, without any emphasis on creating a constructive replacement, will ultimately lead to societal decay. The goal should not be to dismantle institutions for its own sake, but to build better ones in their place.
“Out with the old” is a great slogan, but it’s meaningful only if we usher in the new, and the new is definitively better. If status is only tied to demonstrating how flawed the old is, we quickly find ourselves in a world where everyone is eager to break down what exists. Or even worse, and this is happening right now, show that one is breaking down what exists. But alas, precious few of us are interested in the hard, often unglamorous work of building up something new.
This is not just an American phenomenon—it’s a mindset that can be seen in different forms around the world today. The cultural ethos of tearing down without rebuilding is not a solution; it’s an invitation to anarchy. We need to change the metric of success away from simply rejecting the status quo and instead reward those who do the difficult work of designing and constructing better systems.
Goodhart’s Law is a reminder of what happens when our focus shifts from genuine improvement to superficial signaling. The sooner we recognize the importance of building and improving institutions—not just tearing them down—the better off we’ll all be.