You're absolutely right that these ideas have been around. And you're right that we should push candidates to commit to structural change.
Here's what's different about this approach:
Short-term is NOT about reform at all. It's about changing the conversation.
Right now, when 21 Democrats vote to end a shutdown, the conversation is: "They're sellouts" vs "They're pragmatists." Policy/results debate.
What we need: "Why are we bundling Coast Guard pay with ICE enforcement in one vote? Why does reconciliation let one party lock in multi-year funding outside oversight? Why are we still using the 2001 AUMF to authorize military action?"
This isn't advocating for reform legislation. This is consciousness-raising. Making invisible procedural manipulations visible. Fundamentally changing what we talk about—from blaming people to examining structures.
I've never heard anyone talking about changing the CONVERSATION itself. Everyone jumps straight to "we need reform" before people even understand what's broken.
Mid-term is where meta-reforms can start. But only after we've changed the conversation.
Once people see the mechanisms—once "bundling" and "reconciliation abuse" are part of the vocabulary—THEN you can demand specific commitments. Not "I support transparency." That's nothing. "I will vote NO on any bundled appropriations regardless of party pressure, and here's my co-sponsorship record to prove it."
The old approach: Push for generic "reform" through a system that absorbs it.
The new approach: Change how people think about the problem first. Create pattern recognition. Build electoral consequences. THEN push for specific structural changes.
Long-term is institutionalizing it through constitutional architecture—the GDA as an external institution that designs governance procedures, just like the Fed designs monetary policy.
The short-term work isn't trying to pass anything. It's teaching people to see what they've been missing. That's the foundation everything else builds on.
Great suggestion on a simple way that EVERY citizen can help affect change. Which of your articles would you recommend we use to link in a comment section to help bring more education and awareness?
When people are blaming villains ("It's all [party]'s fault!" / "They're evil/stupid/bought"): → "The Villain Trap" - Shows how focusing on villains prevents seeing structural problems
When people feel helpless ("Nothing ever changes" / "Both sides are the same" / "Why bother?" / “Government is fundamentally broken”): → "The Bridge Can Be Fixed" - Opens with hope/solutions before diagnosis
This essay can address a couple of situations, like “We need more than two parties!” / “[Party representatives] caved!”
Some of these suggestions have been around since I was a child. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push candidates to commit to structural change.
You're absolutely right that these ideas have been around. And you're right that we should push candidates to commit to structural change.
Here's what's different about this approach:
Short-term is NOT about reform at all. It's about changing the conversation.
Right now, when 21 Democrats vote to end a shutdown, the conversation is: "They're sellouts" vs "They're pragmatists." Policy/results debate.
What we need: "Why are we bundling Coast Guard pay with ICE enforcement in one vote? Why does reconciliation let one party lock in multi-year funding outside oversight? Why are we still using the 2001 AUMF to authorize military action?"
This isn't advocating for reform legislation. This is consciousness-raising. Making invisible procedural manipulations visible. Fundamentally changing what we talk about—from blaming people to examining structures.
I've never heard anyone talking about changing the CONVERSATION itself. Everyone jumps straight to "we need reform" before people even understand what's broken.
Mid-term is where meta-reforms can start. But only after we've changed the conversation.
Once people see the mechanisms—once "bundling" and "reconciliation abuse" are part of the vocabulary—THEN you can demand specific commitments. Not "I support transparency." That's nothing. "I will vote NO on any bundled appropriations regardless of party pressure, and here's my co-sponsorship record to prove it."
The old approach: Push for generic "reform" through a system that absorbs it.
The new approach: Change how people think about the problem first. Create pattern recognition. Build electoral consequences. THEN push for specific structural changes.
Long-term is institutionalizing it through constitutional architecture—the GDA as an external institution that designs governance procedures, just like the Fed designs monetary policy.
The short-term work isn't trying to pass anything. It's teaching people to see what they've been missing. That's the foundation everything else builds on.
Perfect, nice little "toolkit" for adding value to conversations. Thanks!
Great suggestion on a simple way that EVERY citizen can help affect change. Which of your articles would you recommend we use to link in a comment section to help bring more education and awareness?
Great question! It will be context dependent.
When people are blaming villains ("It's all [party]'s fault!" / "They're evil/stupid/bought"): → "The Villain Trap" - Shows how focusing on villains prevents seeing structural problems
When people feel helpless ("Nothing ever changes" / "Both sides are the same" / "Why bother?" / “Government is fundamentally broken”): → "The Bridge Can Be Fixed" - Opens with hope/solutions before diagnosis
This essay can address a couple of situations, like “We need more than two parties!” / “[Party representatives] caved!”