Course Correction
Returning to Structural Work
Last week I published “Democracy Can’t Learn” and stepped back from The Statecraft Blueprint.
The essay identified a real structural problem: when policy dictates implementation in U.S. democracy, the system can’t learn. The insight was sound.
But the tone—of that essay, and of my recent work—drifted from what TSB is supposed to be.
This is why, and what changes now.
What Happened
For months, I engaged heavily in Substack comment sections. The strategy was to plant seeds of structural thinking in spaces where people were trapped in outrage cycles—to leave breadcrumbs toward better frameworks.
It worked. Many of you found TSB through one of those comments. When I engaged thoughtfully, I’d get 5+ new subscribers a day.
But it came with a cost I didn’t account for: to reach people in those spaces, you have to immerse yourself in their mode of thinking. You read the outrage content. You engage with the emotional intensity. You adapt your message to meet people where they are.
And slowly, your own work shifts.
The Neoconservative Architecture essays were darker—more focused on authoritarian threats, written with an edge earlier TSB work didn’t carry. “Democracy Can’t Learn” used language about disengagement “letting them win”—urgency meant to counter learned helplessness, but it ended up echoing the very cycle I was trying to help people escape.
That’s not TSB. The work is structural analysis—calm, solutions-first—not outrage in a different key.
The Lesson
You can’t do structural work from inside outrage cycles.
Not because you can’t reach anyone—you can. Some people do start to see the patterns. But when you’re constantly engaging with people in System 1 mode, the environment changes you, whether you notice it or not.
I went in believing I could maintain boundaries. I was wrong.
So here’s the takeaway for anyone doing reform work: build the frameworks, do the analysis, create the solutions—but don’t evangelize inside spaces optimized for emotional reaction. Your work waits for people when they’re ready. It can’t chase them.
What Changes
I’m stepping back from active social media engagement. Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Bluesky—those profiles stay up, but I won’t be posting or debating there.
I’m also staying out of the Substack feed and comment sections on other people’s work.
TSB continues here, focused on what it was built for: structural analysis of governance systems. Concrete institutional design. Solutions-focused work for people ready to think carefully about complex problems.
No more trying to convert people in active outrage. No more adapting the message to reach audiences that aren’t ready for it. Just the work, for the people who want it.
What’s Next
The outrage-engagement work sidelined the education essay series. That resumes this week—back to examining how systems shape learning and opportunity.
I’m also continuing to design the Governance Design Agency’s architecture. Next up: something the tech world solved decades ago that government still hasn’t—rollback processes for bad policy.
Right now, reversing a failed policy is often nearly impossible even when evidence is clear. In tech, every serious deployment ships with rollback procedures. Government needs the same: clean mechanisms for repeal, revision, and deprecation when implementations fail or consequences diverge from intent.
That’s the kind of structural work TSB exists to do.
Going Forward
If you subscribed for calm structural analysis and solutions-focused institutional design, that’s what TSB will be again—the place where we can examine governance systems rigorously, acknowledge trade-offs honestly, and design solutions that actually work.
The structural lens is still here. The GDA proposal is still here. The frameworks still stand. I’m just done trying to force these ideas into spaces where they can’t take root.
The work waits. It’s here for people when they’re ready.
Onward.