Crawford's framework connects the political concern to his broader epistemological argument about submission to external standards. Democratic governance depends on the capacity of citizens to evaluate the claims of authority — to submit those claims to their own judgment and to demand an accounting when the claims prove false. The incorruptible standard of material reality provides a model for this evaluation: the engine runs or does not, and no authority can override the verdict. When governance is conducted through algorithms whose logic is opaque, citizens lose the capacity for this evaluation — not because they are stupid but because the standard against which they would evaluate has been placed beyond their reach.
The analogy Crawford draws to the administrative state is deliberate and consequential. In his Senate testimony, he observed: "All of the arguments that conservatives make about the administrative state apply as well to this new thing, call it algorithmic governance, that operates through artificial intelligence developed in the private sector. It too is a form of power that is not required to give an account of itself, and is therefore insulated from democratic pressures." The parallel is structural: both forms of authority claim expertise that resists democratic interrogation; both operate through mechanisms opaque to those affected by them; both produce outcomes that citizens must accept without the capacity to contest the reasoning that produced them.
The "new priesthood" Crawford describes in "Ownership of the Means of Thinking" sharpens the political-theological analogy. "With the inscrutable arcana of data science, a new priesthood peers into a hidden layer of reality that is revealed only by a self-taught AI program — the logic of which is beyond human knowing." The religious vocabulary is not merely rhetorical. Crawford is pointing to a structural parallel: pre-modern authority derived legitimacy from mediating access to a reality (the divine) that only the priestly class could interpret. Contemporary algorithmic authority derives legitimacy from mediating access to a reality (statistical patterns in massive data) that only the data-science class can interpret. In both cases, the laity is structurally dependent on a mediating class whose claims cannot be independently verified.
The populist politics Crawford associates with this structure — the "populist anger" he identifies as partly a response to algorithmic governance — is his most politically contested claim. Crawford suggests that the widespread sense of being governed by inscrutable processes one cannot interrogate is not a failure of civic education but a rational response to a genuine structural condition. The anger is legitimate even when its political expressions are pathological. The remedy is not better public relations from the new priesthood but the reconstruction of governance structures that can give an account of themselves in terms democratic citizens can evaluate.
Crawford's political writings on AI begin with the 2019 American Affairs essay "Algorithmic Governance and Political Legitimacy" and continue through his 2021 Senate testimony (published as "Defying the Data Priests" in First Things), his 2024 Heritage Foundation lecture "Big Tech and the Challenge of Self-Government," and his participation in the 2026 launch of the AEI AI Ethics Council.
The political tradition Crawford draws on includes the classical liberal concern with the accountability of power, the conservative critique of technocratic administration, and the republican tradition's attention to the civic capacities that democratic self-governance requires.
Opacity as structural problem. AI's irreducible opacity — the impossibility of reconstructing the logic by which it reaches conclusions — creates a new form of authority that cannot be held accountable in the terms democratic politics requires.
The administrative state analogy. Algorithmic governance reproduces at a new level the structural features of administrative authority — expertise-based decision-making, opacity to those affected, insulation from democratic pressure.
The new priesthood. The data-science class occupies a position structurally parallel to pre-modern priestly classes — mediating access to a reality (statistical patterns, AI outputs) that only they can interpret.
Populism as rational response. The widespread anger at being governed by inscrutable processes is not primarily a failure of civic education but a rational response to a genuine structural condition of accountability loss.
The reconstruction problem. Restoring democratic legitimacy in an AI-saturated governance environment requires not better algorithms but governance structures that can give an account of themselves to citizens in terms citizens can evaluate.