What if the U.S. abandoned democratic governance for a CEO-style dictator — someone running the country like a high-performing company? 

This idea is gaining momentum in some policy circles and is also embraced by high-profile Silicon Valley figures. Championed by Curtis Yarvin, a self-described monarchist and founder of the “Dark Enlightenment,” Yarvin is making headlines for his promotion of these beliefs and was even consulted recently by Elon Musk about the formation of his new political party.   

He argues that modern democracy has failed and is too slow to meet today’s challenges. He says American history provides examples of unfettered executive power at work. The Dictator CEO, he proposes, would cut through red tape, challenge existing institutions and deliver unprecedented efficiencies. 

But critics, like economist and democracy advocate E. Glen Weyl, ask, “At what cost?” Consolidating power under a single leader undermines the core values of democracy fundamental to America’s political system. History is also filled with examples of autocratic leadership leading to economic ruin and catastrophic decision-making. American democracy might be messy, but let’s focus on making it better, not abandoning it. 

Should the U.S. embrace the cutthroat efficiency of a dictator CEO, or safeguard its imperfect but resilient democratic system? 

With this background, we debate the question: Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator?

This debate was recorded in front of a sold-out, live audience at Racket NYC on September 4, 2025.