Freddie, Mark, and I got together on Skype tonight to grapple with the following question offered by reader/commenter BC Chase,
As an optimist and a cynic, I hold out hope the government can get better without any real evidence it can. I would like to see more conversations about how the institutional problems of our democracy can realistically be changed, or how we’re all boned.
Thanks for keeping it small, BC. Sheesh! But, as Mark recently said in the comments, this is the League, we loves us some big questions.
Check out the conversation after the jump…
Will Truman 
Patrick Cahalan 
Cornelius 
wardsmith 
Tod Kelly 
Tom Van Dyke 
Murali 
James Hanley 
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I’m just listening with sadness…a little sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt,
{ 13 comments }
Not working – for me.
Dang it. It seems to work on a Mac, but not on a PC. Thanks for pointing that out. Will fix right now.
Try now. Will take a bit to download, but should work for you.
A-OK
Wow, thanks for taking this on so directly. I haven’t had a chance to sit down and listen to it yet, but once I do I will have follow-up.
Scott, a number of thoughts on the conversation:
1. Freddie is reading far more anti-government feelings into me than I actually have, probably because the question as written contains a bit of hyperbole. I wanted the emphasis of the question placed on “better” rather than “boned.” I fully acknowledge there are a lot of government programs that work well (heck, my funding comes from NIH, and I think that works pretty well). My question comes from a place of frustration that a lot of what the government does does not work well, and I’d like to hear ideas on how to improve it. To that extent, I really enjoyed the rest of the conversation. But I’m not as short-sighted as Freddie thinks.
2. There are a lot of points made I agree with. It frustrates me to no end that important bodies like the EPA can be gutted so regularly depending on who’s in office. I wish that once important regulation was established, its enforcement procedures (not the laws to be enforced) were more insulated from political forces. I would also love to have a government that could go through its laws and cull them of what is outdated and ineffective without totally removing necessary regulatory framework. But are there any realistic chances of these kind of reforms actually happening? That’s an answer I’d like to have. I suspect the answer is “no way.”
As Freddie said, there’s no real evidence government can shrink barring something catastrophic. So the trend is to bigger government, and more political appointees, and less ability for a common citizen (or many congresspeople!) to understand the laws on the books and fight or push for more fairness or responsiveness. If we could police our government more as it grows, and ensure new and old programs remain well-run, I would worry less. But we can’t do that either. Hence, my statement that “I don’t see a reason it can [get better].” If Freddie or anyone else thinks the kind of changes that will really improve government efficiency can happen I am willing to be persuaded.
more coming . . .
3. Mark needs a better microphone.
4. Freddie has the concern that “we’re so rich, why can’t we do X?” I appreciate the desire, and many times I agree with it. I am willing to have my taxes raised so we can have health insurance for nearly all of our citizens, so the current health plans do not really frighten me. But I sometimes think that we could do better to innovate new ways to work outside of both government and big corporations, or if not do better, at least inform a better government effort with our attempts. Microfinance is a good example of an innovative alternative to government subsidies to the poor, and it is interesting to me that it has been implemented with much more success overseas than here. I wonder if the institutionalized responses to the state of the poor on both sides of the political divide prevents this kind of thinking from us. What other issues involving government action or lack thereof are we in pitched battles over, such that we might overlook other solutions?
5. One more big concern I have is the “Glenn Greenwald Question.” Namely, can we ever get to a place where our political leaders (especially the president) can be held to the rule of law at a level at least approximating the rest of us? Can we limit executive power anymore? Or is congress and the media too self-serving and complacent for that?
6. The F-22 vote is a small mark against my cynicism. Here’s hoping it is the start of a trend.
So, is BC asking a structural question, or is the comment after changes in day to day operational matters? it makes a huge difference in how you answer the question.
I would welcome suggestions from either sphere, really. Mainly I was after changes that can be realistically made to the government as it is now that improves efficiency, responsiveness, or intelligence. Hell, any way to help the government ruin a little less of our lives each day.
Okay, that was too strong. I’m really not that anti-government, just frustrated with it sometimes.
Aw, man. You were just getting warmed up.
You miss the the point…..THIS government is an order of magnitude better than the LAST government we had.
“It’s a vector, not a destination” is a line I stole, by the way. I don’t recall from whom… but it’s not close to being mine.
That said, “good writers borrow, great writers steal.” I did happen to come up with that one.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }