I called my senators - progressive powerhouses who Dems listen to - and asked them to read this, and asked specifically for a Federal Governance Agency.
First, for each change, we institute a "mandatory" two-year review period. Then, "Recommendation takes effect UNLESS Congress explicitly rejects it." While I admire the references to other changes that were once deemed impossible, once again, this fails to address the problems inherent in the voters, that pesky people-problem.
Americans have a bad habit of not understanding government and of foolishly believing bullshit myths. In 250 years — with much of the damage inflicted deliberately, in the past 40 — we have gone from the founders seeing government as the protector of inalienable rights, to government as a petty infringement against the self-reliance of Real Americans who want nothing from their government, other than to destroy and disable it, to get it out of the way. Granted, that is not a majority opinion, but in our electrical system that so heavily favors small states with low populations, that is where we are at, with Trumpipoo and his regime as its highest expression.
Suppose I waved my magic wand so that this new system appeared some years ago. Finally, today we could look forward to its bringing real changes to our lives. Piece o' cake! Congress needs only to "explicitly reject" all of its recommendations to preserve the current disorder that is so beloved by the ruling minority plurality.
The design that Mr. Edwards recommends is superior to what we have and extraordinarily wise. He should continue to develop it, and we should continue to study it. Concurrent with that, we need to accept and somehow resolve the problem that the regime's transition toward authoritarianism is remarkably fast, so that unless we solve the people-problem quickly, the ruling minority plurality will continue to change the structure of government to entrench Trumpipooism and render changes that would actually help the people all the more impossible to enact.
Deal with it: Collectively, and indeed as a direct result of bad design of government, we are struggling against the rule of people who hate government, expertise, education, and fairness, but who love the products of their own ignorant, loyal minds. Ah, the joy of groupthink and belonging! Helping them along are the many voters who do not see that the United States is not a stable monolith, but an entity that is re-created at each election. Sure, it's fun for some to vote to "stick it" to the elites or to relish the superiority of refusing to vote for imperfect candidates (the only kind we will ever have). They are the ones we need to reach. If there are elections in November (another, interrelated problem), they and their fellows of the minority plurality will decide the fate of the country, not necessarily to their own liking once they are forced to live with it.
Good people could run an imperfect system by agreeing to be fair with each other, but power-players easily defeat any system.
Good to hear from you! Thank you for taking the time to right this up. I feel you on all this, and I don't disagree with most of what you say, but I want to push back a bit...
You're absolutely right that there's a people problem. I spent months trying to engage directly with it and learned exactly how bad it is [I wish I could do links in comments; see my Course Correction essay]. I have plans to tackle that - but it's a related, separate project from TSB.
The structural work isn't all-or-nothing. The GDA is the fundamental long-term shift, yes. But I've also outlined things Congress could do RIGHT NOW to curb executive overreach (The Authoritarian Toolkit) and improve how Congress functions (Legislative Servitude Redux). Multiple timeframes, multiple interventions.
The challenge you're identifying is the one I wrote about in "Building While Treading Water" - getting people's System 2 engaged when System 1 wants outrage and villains. That's real. It's hard. And it's exactly why the structural lens matters.
The actual bottleneck isn't the design. It's what you said: getting enough people on board. I've learned that influencers like Christopher Armitage are trapped in the tactical trap. Academia is stuck in their own trap. So I'm building directly to citizens - the exhausted majority who can see dysfunction but don't know there's an alternative.
It's cathedral work, not a quick fix. But the authoritarians have been building their cathedral too [see The Authoritarian Toolkit], but they've got a 25-year head start. The question is whether we build ours fast enough.
I called my senators - progressive powerhouses who Dems listen to - and asked them to read this, and asked specifically for a Federal Governance Agency.
Dude! That’s amazing! Thank you. I hope it will resonate with them. I have had a lot of people struggle to understand this stuff the way you do!
This is amazing.
You have a gift for stripping away the noise and showing the skeleton.
Of course it's warped if the basketball players are making the rules mid-game!
Professional governance architects makes so much sense.
First, for each change, we institute a "mandatory" two-year review period. Then, "Recommendation takes effect UNLESS Congress explicitly rejects it." While I admire the references to other changes that were once deemed impossible, once again, this fails to address the problems inherent in the voters, that pesky people-problem.
Americans have a bad habit of not understanding government and of foolishly believing bullshit myths. In 250 years — with much of the damage inflicted deliberately, in the past 40 — we have gone from the founders seeing government as the protector of inalienable rights, to government as a petty infringement against the self-reliance of Real Americans who want nothing from their government, other than to destroy and disable it, to get it out of the way. Granted, that is not a majority opinion, but in our electrical system that so heavily favors small states with low populations, that is where we are at, with Trumpipoo and his regime as its highest expression.
Suppose I waved my magic wand so that this new system appeared some years ago. Finally, today we could look forward to its bringing real changes to our lives. Piece o' cake! Congress needs only to "explicitly reject" all of its recommendations to preserve the current disorder that is so beloved by the ruling minority plurality.
The design that Mr. Edwards recommends is superior to what we have and extraordinarily wise. He should continue to develop it, and we should continue to study it. Concurrent with that, we need to accept and somehow resolve the problem that the regime's transition toward authoritarianism is remarkably fast, so that unless we solve the people-problem quickly, the ruling minority plurality will continue to change the structure of government to entrench Trumpipooism and render changes that would actually help the people all the more impossible to enact.
Deal with it: Collectively, and indeed as a direct result of bad design of government, we are struggling against the rule of people who hate government, expertise, education, and fairness, but who love the products of their own ignorant, loyal minds. Ah, the joy of groupthink and belonging! Helping them along are the many voters who do not see that the United States is not a stable monolith, but an entity that is re-created at each election. Sure, it's fun for some to vote to "stick it" to the elites or to relish the superiority of refusing to vote for imperfect candidates (the only kind we will ever have). They are the ones we need to reach. If there are elections in November (another, interrelated problem), they and their fellows of the minority plurality will decide the fate of the country, not necessarily to their own liking once they are forced to live with it.
Good people could run an imperfect system by agreeing to be fair with each other, but power-players easily defeat any system.
Good to hear from you! Thank you for taking the time to right this up. I feel you on all this, and I don't disagree with most of what you say, but I want to push back a bit...
You're absolutely right that there's a people problem. I spent months trying to engage directly with it and learned exactly how bad it is [I wish I could do links in comments; see my Course Correction essay]. I have plans to tackle that - but it's a related, separate project from TSB.
The structural work isn't all-or-nothing. The GDA is the fundamental long-term shift, yes. But I've also outlined things Congress could do RIGHT NOW to curb executive overreach (The Authoritarian Toolkit) and improve how Congress functions (Legislative Servitude Redux). Multiple timeframes, multiple interventions.
The challenge you're identifying is the one I wrote about in "Building While Treading Water" - getting people's System 2 engaged when System 1 wants outrage and villains. That's real. It's hard. And it's exactly why the structural lens matters.
The actual bottleneck isn't the design. It's what you said: getting enough people on board. I've learned that influencers like Christopher Armitage are trapped in the tactical trap. Academia is stuck in their own trap. So I'm building directly to citizens - the exhausted majority who can see dysfunction but don't know there's an alternative.
It's cathedral work, not a quick fix. But the authoritarians have been building their cathedral too [see The Authoritarian Toolkit], but they've got a 25-year head start. The question is whether we build ours fast enough.
Keep pushing. This is how the work gets stronger.