## Notes from 24 February 2026 [[2026-02-23|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-02-25|Next note →]] [[2026-01-31|Recently I wrote]] about the debate over what a “progressive DOGE” could even mean and then I stumbled on an essay I hadn’t seen before that is basically grappling with the same underlying question from a more institutional angle. It’s “[The Next Progressive State](https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/78/the-next-progressive-state/)”, by [[K. Sabeel Rahman]]. Rahman’s starting point is that, in the US, the current moment isn’t just about policy fights; it’s also a fight over the _shape_ of the state itself - where some capacities are being hollowed out (regulatory agencies, safety net programs) while other (coercive capacities) are being supercharged (immigration enforcement, surveillance, carceral power). The core move of the piece is to reject a simple “restore the old normal” as a response. Rahman argues that a progressive alternative has to be **bigger and smaller at the same time**: _more_ state capacity where it protects people from harm and private power, delivers basic goods, and actually makes programs work without punitive administrative burdens; but _less_ state power where it enables domination, especially in surveillance, immigration enforcement, and the broader coercive apparatus. He organizes this into four design needs: institutions for **protection**, for **provision**, for **empowerment** (more participatory, community-rooted governance), and for **restraint** (real checks on executive and coercive power).