Plenty of truth here, but now answer this: Why, in a world in which people (voters and legislators) vote by impression, not analysis, would the Republicans currently in power change the government to weaken their own power by reforming institutions to favor analysis and educated judgement? How, in a world in which those in power mis-perceive their "common sense" to be superior to accurate, real-world, expert analysis, would those currently in power be persuaded to alter the government so as to favor their opponents (who happen to be in their own disarray)?
The institutional problems of the United States are real and well described by this author, yet the fundamental problem is with the voters. In the words of Steve Bannon, too many wrongly see voting as, "(their) chance to 'stick it' to the elites." These are people who, religiously and politically, are against education unless it promotes obeying their preferred authorities and harming the elites.
There is real value in re-designing the institutes of government, but the project will fail unless it includes solutions to breaking the voters' resistance to favoring analysis over impression, obedience, and raw power.
P.S. — The fundamental problem is thus nearly impossible to solve.
After Trump's first term, the voters were so sick of him that they elected Biden to fix the troubles he had created. As was to be expected, Biden was not perfect, yet he largely succeeded... after which, the voters put Trump back in power! True, Trump did not so much win as Harris lost. Too many voters saw voting not as their say in the outcome of the election, but as their opportunity to "express themselves" by staying home and refusing to vote for Harris, the better if analytically imperfect choice.
Choices are always imperfect, a problem in a world where people favor false certainly over real complexity.
None of this denigrates the value in designing better institutions of government. It only means that doing so will not, in itself, fix our problems. First, the voters must accurately understand our problems, a shift they will resist.
I’d challenge the sequencing. “First, voters must accurately understand” puts understanding as a prerequisite for reform—but what if understanding is partly an output of institutional design?
Right now, voters navigate a system with opaque budgets, incomprehensible legislation, media optimized for outrage, and electoral structures that reward tribal loyalty over problem-solving. Under those conditions, voting by impression isn’t irrational—it’s adaptive.
I’m not arguing institutional reform alone fixes everything. But “voters must change first” can become its own trap—a reason nothing can start.
The question I’m sitting with: what institutional changes would make accurate understanding easier rather than requiring it upfront?
You’ve identified the exact chicken-and-egg problem I’m trying to address. Those in power won’t reform themselves out of power. So the question becomes: how do you build enough pressure that reform becomes unavoidable?
I’d gently push back on “the fundamental problem is with the voters.” That’s the villain trap with a different villain. Why do voters vote by impression? Partly because the system rewards it—gerrymandered districts, primary structures that favor extremes, media environments optimized for outrage. Voter behavior is downstream of institutional design, not independent of it.
I’m not naive about the difficulty. But I’m betting there’s a large, exhausted, disengaged group who’ve checked out—not because they don’t care, but because nothing seems to change regardless of who wins. 2024 wasn’t a MAGA mandate; it was a turnout collapse among people who gave up.
Those people are my audience. Not converting the committed—reaching the exhausted.
Your work is valuable, even if it may be misguided in its appraisal of how voters decide how to vote. Continue it. It is one important part of the potential solution to the collapse of our politics. In particular, you are smart to seek to attract swing voters.
Fixing institutions will not automatically fix way voters think, or become impassioned to moved by their impressions. The claim seems to be that, if only those voters who vote based upon their impressions were presented with institutions that were easier to understand, they would be transformed, and would suddenly vote analytically, and thus more wisely (regardless of their political party). This is complimentary and egalitarian, but also incorrect. Being turned off by analytical thinking and being untrained in it are cultural issues that are not addressed simply by improving institutions. One does not transform the patterns of one's mind just because the new institutions would be easier to understand.
We need better institutions and people who can present analyses to the masses of impressionistic voters in ways that would move them to vote for better real-world outcomes.l, but influencing a community that hates experts is a tough job. How do we explain to those who celebrate that concern for the climate is dead and who do not see the economic importance of electrifying American industry to current international standards, that handing China a preemptive victory on the technologies of this century was foolish, when — in their minds — they have already won by opening the libs?
Historically, the only thing that’s held governments accountable is citizens. And too often, that accountability came through pitchforks and guillotines. I believe we’ve evolved past that—that we can effect change without burning things down. We’ve seen it: when people create a clear message and say it loud enough, governments have to listen.
That’s my goal. Create that message. And yes, it means trying to change how people think—which might be the hardest thing a human can do.
But this work fills me with hope. Instead of sitting at home raging at the latest villain, I’m actively trying to build something. And I’ve found I’m not alone. There are others who want this too—people who are exhausted by the bickering and ready to say the same thing together:
We want a government that works for us. Not one that serves billionaires or corporations. One that actually listens and responds to the people it’s supposed to serve.
I don’t know if it’s possible. But I haven’t found a more promising path.
You are a fine thinker and you have chosen an important topic, whether or not my appraisal of how to change hearts and minds may be correct. I have subscribed. Hope is, indeed, in short supply. I could use a daily dose. If those on the fence were to become willing to re-enter civic life, better models of government institutions could only help.
Part of the trouble is that when a party in power wants to weaponize government, institutional flaws cease to be bugs and instead become features. Not to mention that, with Congress blatantly failing in its duties to check the executive, the structure of our institutions hardly matters, anyway. You and I, and your readers, hate what is happening, but those perpetrating it are celebrating a success forty years actively in the making.
Thank you—genuinely. The willingness to listen is all I can ask for. 🙏
And I hear you on the forty years in the making. I’ve worked at places like that—show up, things are broken, and everyone wants to explain who did what and when and why. “Management made us do this.” “So-and-so broke that.” I get it. People need to vent.
But at some point, it doesn’t matter how things got broken. They’re broken. And we need to fix them.
That’s where I’m trying to keep my focus. Not relitigating the past, but building something that works going forward. Glad to have you along for the attempt!
Over the past forty years, the Republicans have sold their loyalists a bill of goods, by creating impressions over emotional topics to win the votes that allowed them to push a separate, destructive agenda to push wealth upward to the rich. Their public fell for it, and believes it irrationally and passionately.
I do not doubt that you will succeed in designing better systems. However difficult that may be, it is nevertheless the easy part. It's getting people to think in wholly different terms that would be difficult, so that they could accept those institutions. You may someday go to your grave with workable solutions that would improved everyone's lives, but that people did not want.
Keep at it! As you say, there is hope. Another possibility is that, if people become as sick of Trump II as they did of Trump I, then they may vote (if there are future elections) to install a government that might adopt your solutions.
It's not about "relitigating." It's simply a matter of seeing whether anyone whose views you need to shift would want to hear you. As an example, people think that Sweden and Finland are "socialist" countries, and that that is bad, when in fact they operate capitalist economies coupled to solid social safety nets supported by the capitalist earnings. Go ahead; try! Almost no Trumpist would ever believe that!
Plenty of truth here, but now answer this: Why, in a world in which people (voters and legislators) vote by impression, not analysis, would the Republicans currently in power change the government to weaken their own power by reforming institutions to favor analysis and educated judgement? How, in a world in which those in power mis-perceive their "common sense" to be superior to accurate, real-world, expert analysis, would those currently in power be persuaded to alter the government so as to favor their opponents (who happen to be in their own disarray)?
The institutional problems of the United States are real and well described by this author, yet the fundamental problem is with the voters. In the words of Steve Bannon, too many wrongly see voting as, "(their) chance to 'stick it' to the elites." These are people who, religiously and politically, are against education unless it promotes obeying their preferred authorities and harming the elites.
There is real value in re-designing the institutes of government, but the project will fail unless it includes solutions to breaking the voters' resistance to favoring analysis over impression, obedience, and raw power.
P.S. — The fundamental problem is thus nearly impossible to solve.
After Trump's first term, the voters were so sick of him that they elected Biden to fix the troubles he had created. As was to be expected, Biden was not perfect, yet he largely succeeded... after which, the voters put Trump back in power! True, Trump did not so much win as Harris lost. Too many voters saw voting not as their say in the outcome of the election, but as their opportunity to "express themselves" by staying home and refusing to vote for Harris, the better if analytically imperfect choice.
Choices are always imperfect, a problem in a world where people favor false certainly over real complexity.
None of this denigrates the value in designing better institutions of government. It only means that doing so will not, in itself, fix our problems. First, the voters must accurately understand our problems, a shift they will resist.
I’d challenge the sequencing. “First, voters must accurately understand” puts understanding as a prerequisite for reform—but what if understanding is partly an output of institutional design?
Right now, voters navigate a system with opaque budgets, incomprehensible legislation, media optimized for outrage, and electoral structures that reward tribal loyalty over problem-solving. Under those conditions, voting by impression isn’t irrational—it’s adaptive.
I’m not arguing institutional reform alone fixes everything. But “voters must change first” can become its own trap—a reason nothing can start.
The question I’m sitting with: what institutional changes would make accurate understanding easier rather than requiring it upfront?
You’ve identified the exact chicken-and-egg problem I’m trying to address. Those in power won’t reform themselves out of power. So the question becomes: how do you build enough pressure that reform becomes unavoidable?
I’d gently push back on “the fundamental problem is with the voters.” That’s the villain trap with a different villain. Why do voters vote by impression? Partly because the system rewards it—gerrymandered districts, primary structures that favor extremes, media environments optimized for outrage. Voter behavior is downstream of institutional design, not independent of it.
I’m not naive about the difficulty. But I’m betting there’s a large, exhausted, disengaged group who’ve checked out—not because they don’t care, but because nothing seems to change regardless of who wins. 2024 wasn’t a MAGA mandate; it was a turnout collapse among people who gave up.
Those people are my audience. Not converting the committed—reaching the exhausted.
Your work is valuable, even if it may be misguided in its appraisal of how voters decide how to vote. Continue it. It is one important part of the potential solution to the collapse of our politics. In particular, you are smart to seek to attract swing voters.
Fixing institutions will not automatically fix way voters think, or become impassioned to moved by their impressions. The claim seems to be that, if only those voters who vote based upon their impressions were presented with institutions that were easier to understand, they would be transformed, and would suddenly vote analytically, and thus more wisely (regardless of their political party). This is complimentary and egalitarian, but also incorrect. Being turned off by analytical thinking and being untrained in it are cultural issues that are not addressed simply by improving institutions. One does not transform the patterns of one's mind just because the new institutions would be easier to understand.
We need better institutions and people who can present analyses to the masses of impressionistic voters in ways that would move them to vote for better real-world outcomes.l, but influencing a community that hates experts is a tough job. How do we explain to those who celebrate that concern for the climate is dead and who do not see the economic importance of electrifying American industry to current international standards, that handing China a preemptive victory on the technologies of this century was foolish, when — in their minds — they have already won by opening the libs?
I’ll be honest—I recognize this is a long shot.
Historically, the only thing that’s held governments accountable is citizens. And too often, that accountability came through pitchforks and guillotines. I believe we’ve evolved past that—that we can effect change without burning things down. We’ve seen it: when people create a clear message and say it loud enough, governments have to listen.
That’s my goal. Create that message. And yes, it means trying to change how people think—which might be the hardest thing a human can do.
But this work fills me with hope. Instead of sitting at home raging at the latest villain, I’m actively trying to build something. And I’ve found I’m not alone. There are others who want this too—people who are exhausted by the bickering and ready to say the same thing together:
We want a government that works for us. Not one that serves billionaires or corporations. One that actually listens and responds to the people it’s supposed to serve.
I don’t know if it’s possible. But I haven’t found a more promising path.
You are a fine thinker and you have chosen an important topic, whether or not my appraisal of how to change hearts and minds may be correct. I have subscribed. Hope is, indeed, in short supply. I could use a daily dose. If those on the fence were to become willing to re-enter civic life, better models of government institutions could only help.
Part of the trouble is that when a party in power wants to weaponize government, institutional flaws cease to be bugs and instead become features. Not to mention that, with Congress blatantly failing in its duties to check the executive, the structure of our institutions hardly matters, anyway. You and I, and your readers, hate what is happening, but those perpetrating it are celebrating a success forty years actively in the making.
Thank you—genuinely. The willingness to listen is all I can ask for. 🙏
And I hear you on the forty years in the making. I’ve worked at places like that—show up, things are broken, and everyone wants to explain who did what and when and why. “Management made us do this.” “So-and-so broke that.” I get it. People need to vent.
But at some point, it doesn’t matter how things got broken. They’re broken. And we need to fix them.
That’s where I’m trying to keep my focus. Not relitigating the past, but building something that works going forward. Glad to have you along for the attempt!
Over the past forty years, the Republicans have sold their loyalists a bill of goods, by creating impressions over emotional topics to win the votes that allowed them to push a separate, destructive agenda to push wealth upward to the rich. Their public fell for it, and believes it irrationally and passionately.
I do not doubt that you will succeed in designing better systems. However difficult that may be, it is nevertheless the easy part. It's getting people to think in wholly different terms that would be difficult, so that they could accept those institutions. You may someday go to your grave with workable solutions that would improved everyone's lives, but that people did not want.
Keep at it! As you say, there is hope. Another possibility is that, if people become as sick of Trump II as they did of Trump I, then they may vote (if there are future elections) to install a government that might adopt your solutions.
It's not about "relitigating." It's simply a matter of seeing whether anyone whose views you need to shift would want to hear you. As an example, people think that Sweden and Finland are "socialist" countries, and that that is bad, when in fact they operate capitalist economies coupled to solid social safety nets supported by the capitalist earnings. Go ahead; try! Almost no Trumpist would ever believe that!