Perhaps you could suggest some meaningful solutions. Americans are being bullied by health insurance providers because our “leaders” are too cowardly to make any effort to actually solve the problem. Why? Because the payoffs they are offered to continue a broken system are too important to them. Get money out of politics. That would be a good start.
You're right that Americans are bullied by health insurance companies who have a vested interest in keeping the system broken.
But here's what I think you're missing: whether lawmakers are "cowardly" or not doesn't actually matter. No matter who gets elected, the system presents them with the same pressures and incentives to maintain the status quo.
Even if you could "get money out of politics" - whatever that means to you - there are still other structural pressures. Legislative coercion through procedural votes that let party leaders force lawmakers to vote certain ways. No money involved. Industry capture through revolving doors. Career incentives that reward blocking over solving.
To fix this through personnel, you'd need a critical mass of elected politicians to simultaneously act against ALL those pressures and incentives. That's not happening.
This is what I mean when I talk about structural problems versus people problems. The system is too big. It routes around piecemeal changes.
The fundamental change I'm proposing: stop having lawmakers make their own rules and design institutional systems. Separate the democratic choice (what we want - expanded coverage, cost control) from the professional architecture (how we actually build systems that achieve it).
Congress locked rigid, brittle mechanisms into the ACA because that's what policy debates produce. Professional governance architecture would design adaptive systems instead.
You can't fix this by electing better people or getting money out of politics. You fix it by changing what Congress is ALLOWED to do.
OK. To clarify, when I say that our representatives are cowards I mean that they are unwilling to voluntarily speak up about the inequities in the systems that they themselves have put in place and change them. They do actually have the power to do this. It takes courage to admit that the structures they have put in place are corrupt and try to get rid of them.
When I suggest we get money out of politics what I am talking about is ending the revolving door of politicians leaving their political jobs only to become lobbyists. This should be outlawed. Insider trading should be disallowed and anyone that is found to be participating in these schemes should be subject to immediate expulsion from their position. Citizens United needs to be reversed and political contributions by individuals and corporations should be strictly limited with full disclosure of said contributions a requirement. Any official found to be violating this restriction should be subject to immediate expulsion from their position.
These changes would require courage and honesty from our lawmakers, two characteristics that are sorely lacking in our current crop of greedy opportunists.
This may require a complete revamp of the administrative structure of congress. And if that is the only way to achieve these changes so be it. This would be extraordinarily difficult to do.
You're identifying real structural problems - revolving door, insider trading, Citizens United, contribution limits. These are all governance architecture failures, not just ethics failures.
But notice the contradiction in your proposal:
You're listing structural reforms (ban revolving door, require disclosure, limit contributions, expulsion mechanisms) while simultaneously saying it requires "courage and honesty" from lawmakers to implement them.
That's the trap.
Lawmakers won't voluntarily give up their own advantages. Not because they lack courage - because the system rewards them for maintaining the status quo. Even "honest" lawmakers face career suicide for bucking leadership, industry pressure, party coercion.
This is why your final sentence is the most important one:
"This may require a complete revamp of the administrative structure of congress."
Exactly. You need institutional architecture that FORCES these changes regardless of who's in office or how "courageous" they are.
This is what the essay is arguing: we need professional governance design separate from the people it constrains. Congress can't be trusted to design its own ethics rules - just like they can't design healthcare systems without locking in industry loopholes.
The GDA approach: An independent body designs campaign finance systems, ethics rules, procedural reforms. Congress votes yes/no on the proposals, but can't insert the loopholes that break the engineering.
You want to end the revolving door and ban insider trading? So do I. But we won't get there by asking the people who benefit from those systems to voluntarily give them up.
We need architecture that makes corruption structurally impossible, not rules that require courage to enforce.
You said "near impossibility" - and I'll take nearly impossible any day over the dysfunction we've been witnessing.
I didn't say this would be easy. I didn't say it would be quick. Constitutional-level reform takes decades of sustained organizing - probably 15-20 years of building citizen demand, academic validation, and political will.
But here's the comparison that matters. Which seems harder?:
* Building professional governance architecture over 15-20 years through sustained citizen pressure and constitutional amendment?
Or
* Getting a critical mass of elected leaders to voluntarily give up their own advantages - revolving door money, insider trading profits, industry support, party protection - all at the same time?
One is difficult but follows a proven path (like the 17th Amendment, the Federal Reserve, women's suffrage). The other requires simultaneous acts of self-sacrifice from people the system rewards for maintaining the status quo.
Your ethics reforms are correct. But they require institutional architecture to enforce them. We won't get there by hoping enough lawmakers willing to sacrifice everything. We get there by building systems where the right outcome happens regardless of individual virtue.
I'd rather spend 20 years building something that actually works than waste another 20 years repeating the same failed cycle.
The work starts with spreading the structural lens - helping people see that personnel solutions can't fix architecture problems. You just made that leap. That's how movements build.
Nearly impossible? Maybe. But compared to the alternative, I believe it's the more tractable path.
Right now: Build enough awareness of structural problems to get mainstream attention. This is very doable. By focusing on undeniable problems - government shutdowns, policy whiplash, gridlock everyone hates regardless of party - I can talk to people anywhere on the spectrum, left or right.
I've had productive conversations with MAGA people about structural dysfunction. That wasn't possible a few months ago. The learned helplessness is deep and wide across the entire political spectrum. But the idea of addressing fundamental problems we can all agree on means we can bridge the gaps that have formed between policy positions and identities.
When enough people are talking about underlying structural failures: That's when we can start electing politicians who want to address structural issues. Stop bill bundling. Fix the procedures and processes that cause gridlock and dysfunction. These aren't 20-year constitutional amendments - these are achievable reforms that make the system work better.
Once people see improvement from these changes: We build momentum for the long-term work. Professional governance architecture becomes politically viable because people have seen that structural thinking actually delivers results.
What's happening now: I'm building academic credibility through conference submissions and legal frameworks. Developing the language and institutional designs. Creating a central place for everyone who sees these structural problems to come together and organize.
You asked "how?" - that's how. Not waiting 20 years for a miracle. Building awareness now, electing people who'll fix processes, proving the approach works, then scaling to bigger reforms.
You just made the leap to structural thinking. That's step one. Now help others see it.
You make a lot of sense. It's much deeper than electoral and identity stuff. I agree. I will also discuss this with members of our orgs. I'll see how it lands. This will tell me a lot.
Also, are you familiar with Christopher Armitage here? Check him out. He is in Spokane. I'm in WA (9th Congressional District).
He focuses on actionable items to take to the elected officials now. I'll check my spelling of his name.
We should break away from the whip lash. That's what governance architecture is about - building systems where the right outcome happens regardless of who's in charge.
Both parties do little to help us with sensible policy. Just like immigration, both parties prefer constant adversity. Actually creating equity, equality or good governance actually would require intelligence and ETHICAL leadership. Sigh.
I get the frustration - and you're right that both parties seem to prefer the fight. But here's the pattern I think you're missing:
Even intelligent, ethical people can't fix this. The system SELECTS for the dysfunction you're seeing.
Take immigration: Congress has tried comprehensive reform multiple times with "intelligent, ethical leadership" on both sides. It fails every time. Why? Because the incentive structure rewards blocking over solving. The architecture makes dysfunction rational.
Same with healthcare. The ACA was designed by smart people with good intentions. It still produced the whiplash we're seeing. Why? Because we asked democratic policy debates to do engineering work - and that's not what they're built for.
The hard truth: We won't fix this by electing better people. We fix it by redesigning the system so that even normal, self-interested politicians can't break it.
That's what governance architecture is about - building systems where the right outcome happens regardless of who's in charge.
Thanks for engaging with the piece. If the structural lens clicks for you, you might want to check out "The Villain Trap" essay - it goes deeper into why blaming individuals keeps us stuck.
I appreciate your activism and engagement. But I want to point out something about the approach you're describing - and this applies regardless of whether it's coming from the left or right:
Political movements that win policy battles without changing the underlying architecture create temporary victories, not durable change.
Take the example from her article about Venezuela last month ("No War On Venzuela!"): organizing mass strikes to stop specific presidential actions on Venezuela. Even if successful, it doesn't address the structural mechanism - the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and other executive authorities - that let presidents take those actions in the first place.
Next president? Different party? They still have the same authorities. The cycle continues.
This is the pattern TSB focuses on: We fight over WHAT presidents should do (Venezuela policy, tariffs, immigration enforcement) instead of addressing the MECHANISMS that let any president act unilaterally without congressional approval.
Same with "taking oil companies into democratic public ownership." That's a policy goal. But HOW do you design institutions that prevent capture by the industries they're supposed to regulate? How do you build accountability structures that actually work? How do you prevent the next administration from reversing it?
Those are architecture questions. Political movements that ignore them win battles but lose wars.
I'm not saying don't organize. I'm saying: if you want durable change instead of temporary policy wins, you need to think about governance architecture, not just political pressure.
I understand. I still will support her campaign. I can vote for her as I live in this district.
If we had even 1 Socialist in this Congress, we can hopefully achieve something.
I will continue thinking about your ideas. You are right. It will be a huge job to disable and/or create new structures. It will take more than just 1 socialist. This system functions as designed.
Yeah, the problems our society has before us are non-trivial, and it will take a lot of working together to accomplish it. I'm still optimistic. Through this work I have talked to people on the extreme right, the extreme left, and everywhere in between. Focusing on the undeniable problems can cross the divides that have formed over the last few decades.
Perhaps you could suggest some meaningful solutions. Americans are being bullied by health insurance providers because our “leaders” are too cowardly to make any effort to actually solve the problem. Why? Because the payoffs they are offered to continue a broken system are too important to them. Get money out of politics. That would be a good start.
You're right that Americans are bullied by health insurance companies who have a vested interest in keeping the system broken.
But here's what I think you're missing: whether lawmakers are "cowardly" or not doesn't actually matter. No matter who gets elected, the system presents them with the same pressures and incentives to maintain the status quo.
Even if you could "get money out of politics" - whatever that means to you - there are still other structural pressures. Legislative coercion through procedural votes that let party leaders force lawmakers to vote certain ways. No money involved. Industry capture through revolving doors. Career incentives that reward blocking over solving.
To fix this through personnel, you'd need a critical mass of elected politicians to simultaneously act against ALL those pressures and incentives. That's not happening.
This is what I mean when I talk about structural problems versus people problems. The system is too big. It routes around piecemeal changes.
The fundamental change I'm proposing: stop having lawmakers make their own rules and design institutional systems. Separate the democratic choice (what we want - expanded coverage, cost control) from the professional architecture (how we actually build systems that achieve it).
Congress locked rigid, brittle mechanisms into the ACA because that's what policy debates produce. Professional governance architecture would design adaptive systems instead.
You can't fix this by electing better people or getting money out of politics. You fix it by changing what Congress is ALLOWED to do.
OK. To clarify, when I say that our representatives are cowards I mean that they are unwilling to voluntarily speak up about the inequities in the systems that they themselves have put in place and change them. They do actually have the power to do this. It takes courage to admit that the structures they have put in place are corrupt and try to get rid of them.
When I suggest we get money out of politics what I am talking about is ending the revolving door of politicians leaving their political jobs only to become lobbyists. This should be outlawed. Insider trading should be disallowed and anyone that is found to be participating in these schemes should be subject to immediate expulsion from their position. Citizens United needs to be reversed and political contributions by individuals and corporations should be strictly limited with full disclosure of said contributions a requirement. Any official found to be violating this restriction should be subject to immediate expulsion from their position.
These changes would require courage and honesty from our lawmakers, two characteristics that are sorely lacking in our current crop of greedy opportunists.
This may require a complete revamp of the administrative structure of congress. And if that is the only way to achieve these changes so be it. This would be extraordinarily difficult to do.
You're identifying real structural problems - revolving door, insider trading, Citizens United, contribution limits. These are all governance architecture failures, not just ethics failures.
But notice the contradiction in your proposal:
You're listing structural reforms (ban revolving door, require disclosure, limit contributions, expulsion mechanisms) while simultaneously saying it requires "courage and honesty" from lawmakers to implement them.
That's the trap.
Lawmakers won't voluntarily give up their own advantages. Not because they lack courage - because the system rewards them for maintaining the status quo. Even "honest" lawmakers face career suicide for bucking leadership, industry pressure, party coercion.
This is why your final sentence is the most important one:
"This may require a complete revamp of the administrative structure of congress."
Exactly. You need institutional architecture that FORCES these changes regardless of who's in office or how "courageous" they are.
This is what the essay is arguing: we need professional governance design separate from the people it constrains. Congress can't be trusted to design its own ethics rules - just like they can't design healthcare systems without locking in industry loopholes.
The GDA approach: An independent body designs campaign finance systems, ethics rules, procedural reforms. Congress votes yes/no on the proposals, but can't insert the loopholes that break the engineering.
You want to end the revolving door and ban insider trading? So do I. But we won't get there by asking the people who benefit from those systems to voluntarily give them up.
We need architecture that makes corruption structurally impossible, not rules that require courage to enforce.
That's governance architecture.
Great ideas. I see implementation as a near impossibility.
You said "near impossibility" - and I'll take nearly impossible any day over the dysfunction we've been witnessing.
I didn't say this would be easy. I didn't say it would be quick. Constitutional-level reform takes decades of sustained organizing - probably 15-20 years of building citizen demand, academic validation, and political will.
But here's the comparison that matters. Which seems harder?:
* Building professional governance architecture over 15-20 years through sustained citizen pressure and constitutional amendment?
Or
* Getting a critical mass of elected leaders to voluntarily give up their own advantages - revolving door money, insider trading profits, industry support, party protection - all at the same time?
One is difficult but follows a proven path (like the 17th Amendment, the Federal Reserve, women's suffrage). The other requires simultaneous acts of self-sacrifice from people the system rewards for maintaining the status quo.
Your ethics reforms are correct. But they require institutional architecture to enforce them. We won't get there by hoping enough lawmakers willing to sacrifice everything. We get there by building systems where the right outcome happens regardless of individual virtue.
I'd rather spend 20 years building something that actually works than waste another 20 years repeating the same failed cycle.
The work starts with spreading the structural lens - helping people see that personnel solutions can't fix architecture problems. You just made that leap. That's how movements build.
Nearly impossible? Maybe. But compared to the alternative, I believe it's the more tractable path.
How?
Here's the realistic path:
Right now: Build enough awareness of structural problems to get mainstream attention. This is very doable. By focusing on undeniable problems - government shutdowns, policy whiplash, gridlock everyone hates regardless of party - I can talk to people anywhere on the spectrum, left or right.
I've had productive conversations with MAGA people about structural dysfunction. That wasn't possible a few months ago. The learned helplessness is deep and wide across the entire political spectrum. But the idea of addressing fundamental problems we can all agree on means we can bridge the gaps that have formed between policy positions and identities.
When enough people are talking about underlying structural failures: That's when we can start electing politicians who want to address structural issues. Stop bill bundling. Fix the procedures and processes that cause gridlock and dysfunction. These aren't 20-year constitutional amendments - these are achievable reforms that make the system work better.
Once people see improvement from these changes: We build momentum for the long-term work. Professional governance architecture becomes politically viable because people have seen that structural thinking actually delivers results.
What's happening now: I'm building academic credibility through conference submissions and legal frameworks. Developing the language and institutional designs. Creating a central place for everyone who sees these structural problems to come together and organize.
You asked "how?" - that's how. Not waiting 20 years for a miracle. Building awareness now, electing people who'll fix processes, proving the approach works, then scaling to bigger reforms.
You just made the leap to structural thinking. That's step one. Now help others see it.
You make a lot of sense. It's much deeper than electoral and identity stuff. I agree. I will also discuss this with members of our orgs. I'll see how it lands. This will tell me a lot.
Also, are you familiar with Christopher Armitage here? Check him out. He is in Spokane. I'm in WA (9th Congressional District).
He focuses on actionable items to take to the elected officials now. I'll check my spelling of his name.
Finding the common ground is important.
We should break away from the whip lash. That's what governance architecture is about - building systems where the right outcome happens regardless of who's in charge.
BTW: If interested, out You Tube channel is called, On Strike. We al acknowledge some disagreements on policy.
Our other organization is here:
www.workersstrikeback.org
Both parties do little to help us with sensible policy. Just like immigration, both parties prefer constant adversity. Actually creating equity, equality or good governance actually would require intelligence and ETHICAL leadership. Sigh.
Thanks you.
I get the frustration - and you're right that both parties seem to prefer the fight. But here's the pattern I think you're missing:
Even intelligent, ethical people can't fix this. The system SELECTS for the dysfunction you're seeing.
Take immigration: Congress has tried comprehensive reform multiple times with "intelligent, ethical leadership" on both sides. It fails every time. Why? Because the incentive structure rewards blocking over solving. The architecture makes dysfunction rational.
Same with healthcare. The ACA was designed by smart people with good intentions. It still produced the whiplash we're seeing. Why? Because we asked democratic policy debates to do engineering work - and that's not what they're built for.
The hard truth: We won't fix this by electing better people. We fix it by redesigning the system so that even normal, self-interested politicians can't break it.
That's what governance architecture is about - building systems where the right outcome happens regardless of who's in charge.
Thanks for engaging with the piece. If the structural lens clicks for you, you might want to check out "The Villain Trap" essay - it goes deeper into why blaming individuals keeps us stuck.
I'm a supporter of this campaign anyway. I will read it.
www.kshamasawant.org
I appreciate your activism and engagement. But I want to point out something about the approach you're describing - and this applies regardless of whether it's coming from the left or right:
Political movements that win policy battles without changing the underlying architecture create temporary victories, not durable change.
Take the example from her article about Venezuela last month ("No War On Venzuela!"): organizing mass strikes to stop specific presidential actions on Venezuela. Even if successful, it doesn't address the structural mechanism - the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and other executive authorities - that let presidents take those actions in the first place.
Next president? Different party? They still have the same authorities. The cycle continues.
This is the pattern TSB focuses on: We fight over WHAT presidents should do (Venezuela policy, tariffs, immigration enforcement) instead of addressing the MECHANISMS that let any president act unilaterally without congressional approval.
Same with "taking oil companies into democratic public ownership." That's a policy goal. But HOW do you design institutions that prevent capture by the industries they're supposed to regulate? How do you build accountability structures that actually work? How do you prevent the next administration from reversing it?
Those are architecture questions. Political movements that ignore them win battles but lose wars.
I'm not saying don't organize. I'm saying: if you want durable change instead of temporary policy wins, you need to think about governance architecture, not just political pressure.
That's what TSB is about.
I understand. I still will support her campaign. I can vote for her as I live in this district.
If we had even 1 Socialist in this Congress, we can hopefully achieve something.
I will continue thinking about your ideas. You are right. It will be a huge job to disable and/or create new structures. It will take more than just 1 socialist. This system functions as designed.
People can't even agree on what's for dinner.
Yeah, the problems our society has before us are non-trivial, and it will take a lot of working together to accomplish it. I'm still optimistic. Through this work I have talked to people on the extreme right, the extreme left, and everywhere in between. Focusing on the undeniable problems can cross the divides that have formed over the last few decades.