Nick Shirley: America’s Newest “Muckraker”

The Enemy of the Machine by Robert M. Levy

YouTube Star Nick Shirley is credited with “discovering” the Minnesota, and later the California theft of welfare funds. The scheme he uncovered was simple: 1) Find some tear-jerking cause that cries for attention like autism or feeding hungry children; 2) Fund it for an irrational amount of money; 3) Use the money to create “cushy” and well-paid jobs for loyal followers; and, 4) Put a low priority on solving the problem, thus making possible, as the highest priority, to perpetuate the problem along with the funding.

America thinks Nick discovered something new. In reality, he discovered something as old as New York’s Boss Tweed in the 19th Century and Chicago’s Richard J. Daley in the 20th. He re-discovered Democrat “machine” politics. Inadvertently, he also revealed why Democrats ought never be called “progressives.

From the end of the American Civil War until just before World War II, it was very hard to find good paying, safe jobs in an urban environment. Factory work was dangerous and physically demanding. People who owned businesses often made a lot of money; but, people who worked for the people who owned businesses made very little. Yet, there were certain jobs that created a good living and were neither strenuous nor dangerous. These were government jobs.

Democrats developed the discipline early. They knew that cities had more struggling workers than well-healed businessmen. The workers needed work and the party needed a majority of votes. So, government jobs were offered to those who supported the Democrat Party. It was a profitable bargain for both.

The book “Boss,” by Chicago’s Mike Royko illustrates well how such “patronage politics” institutionalized corruption. The welfare fraud discovered by Nick Shirley is just a modern version of the old Democrat political machine.

In those “old days,” the government directly hired the workers.

Today, like so many other government programs, the entire project is outsourced. Key government functions like providing homeless care are contracted out to political supporters often called “non-governmental organizations ” or “NGO’s.” Politicians are rewarded for placement of the contracts with “kickbacks” in the form of political contributions and so-called “educational” projects like voter registration drives in Democrat areas of the city.

In those “old days,” the party ward boss would offer a job only to loyal Democrats. Voting the “right way” was a prerequisite to keeping the job.

Today, a “contract” is offered to loyal party contributors who are expected to register and advise those who receive the state services they administrate that loyalty to the party is expected in return.

For elected officials, it’s better than government directly providing services. The method gives politicians “plausible deniability” when “busybodies” like Nick Shirley start snooping. “To paraphrase the chatter at Rick’s Cafe in Casablanca, “I’m shocked,” the politician will exclaim … “that there’s gambling… er… welfare fraud going on here.”

There was a movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century to fight this kind of corruption. It was mostly led by Republicans who called themselves “progressives.” Their leaders and “patron saints” were the unlikely combination of Germany’s 18th Century Otto von Bismarck and America’s President Theodore Roosevelt. Both believed that government projects ought to be run by professional government technocrats who were hired for their skill instead of their political worth. It was actually an early revolt against a political-type DEI.

During these times there were early Nick Shirleys. People like Thomas Nast, the muckraking cartoonist in the (yes, then Republican) New York Times became famous for exposing corruption. Add to Nast the mid-20th Century Mike Royko and now Nick Shirley. The names of the “muckrakers” often change. Democrats never do.

Unfortunately, there are only two ways to run a government: 1) Use political appointees for which Democrat “machines” are famous or 2) Use “experts” which Bismarck and Roosevelt championed. Modern Republicans have always been critical of government “expert” bureaucracies. And this criticism is well taken. Bureaucracies create environments where hammers can cost hundreds of dollars and toilet seats can cost even more. But, the alternative is outsourcing projects to political cronies who never finish the project and amass fortunes based on failure. California’s millions of dollars spent on non-existent hospice and homeless care are recent examples.

For the most part, government functions should rarely be outsourced. Sometimes the initial cost of outsourcing is cheaper, but the cost of effective oversight makes the real cost much higher even if there is the will to create an effective oversight mechanism in the first place. Where there is a need for a hospice or a need for autism therapy, families of the people in need ought to come to a government office run by government workers who thoroughly qualify recipients. The recipients ought to then be given vouchers for the provider of their choice. The middleman, the contractor, the political donor who gets a lump sum, ought to be eliminated.

Professionals hired by government based solely on merit are a better choice than political contractors and appointees. As the 19th Century rolled into the 20th, Otto von Bismarck and good government “progressives” like Theodore Roosevelt knew that. Clearly, today there are valid criticisms of bureaucracies. But,a small, efficient and well-trained bureaucracy can eliminate much of the corruption found in “machine” politics. A government built on the patronage practiced by Democrats is the opposite of the movement started by “progressives” like Bismarck and Roosevelt. It is not “progressive” to outsource the government treasury to political benefactors. It is re-gressive.

“Progress” is a term of optimism. And optimism is not the picture painted by the Democrat defenders of welfare fraud. Clean government was the goal of the Republican Party from its founding. It coined the term “progressive” as synonymous with that principle. Today, the term “progressivism” has been “bastardized by a donkey.” It needs to be recovered. Perhaps Nick Shirley can take a leading role in that effort.

Robert M. Levy PsyschodadRobert@gmail.com

Subscribe Free at RLevy.Substack.com

Robert M. Levy grew up in Moore County and graduated from Pinecrest High School. He earned a BA in history and sociology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where his honors thesis on the Wilmington Rebellion of 1898 became part of the university’s library collection.

Admitted to the California State Bar in 1978, Levy practiced law for 40 years in California and Maryland, focusing on family and criminal law, including work with juvenile offenders and abused children. His writing on affirmative action appeared in the San Fernando Valley Law Review, and he authored Divorce: A Cynical Experience. He later earned a North Carolina teaching certificate from UNC Charlotte and taught high school social studies across Moore County.

Levy has served as chairman of the Moore County School Board, president of the North Carolina Electoral College, chairman of the Moore County Republican Party, and a columnist for The Pilot in Southern Pines. He lives in Pinehurst with his wife, Linda, and they have three children and four grandchildren.

March 22, 2026

Republished with permission.

Want to submit an editorial for consideration? If you level up with Robert Levy’s quality, send your bio and proposal to editor@sandhills.news.

Submit news tips, events and interview requests to editor@sandhills.news.

Sandhills News is plain-English local government reporting that explains how decisions affect your land, taxes, schools and rights.