One reason that transparency did not solve problems is that government employees don’t want code or data: they want solutions that work and fit into the constraints of their world. Government needs permanent internal tech capacity, not short termers who build some tools and walk away (as much of DOGE will in the coming months). It needs people who can build, integrate and manage these tools in response to feedback in a public setting.

Of course, this seems obvious. So why might DOGErs not get it? Why did the early versions of civic tech not get it? Some people I interviewed noted the hacker/libertarian aspect of this worldview: “For folks who are ideologically open-source aligned, the importance of having no gods and no masters is high.”

But I also think the emphasis on transparency reflects a self-serving worldview that government officials are not that bright, and that public sector work is beneath the really smart people, who should be able to just come in, fix shit, and then return to their more lucrative or meaningful opportunities in the private sector. That is a very appealing narrative that elevates the status of the individual holding it, and excuses them from public sector work that is often tedious, bureaucratic and difficult, demanding some skills that they simply don’t have, and investments in expertise that they do not want to make because it will not pay off in the private sector.

Ultimately, those in civic tech who committed to working towards change in government over the long haul, and worked with public officials, found that many were dedicated and knowledgable, and that making change in a democracy requires more patience and humility than building a start-up.