Yes, our government is a deviant subculture. But no, we needn’t all be looking 0ut for the “common good.” In fact, it’s when we act out of self-interest that we tend to most productive, most happy, and create the most wealth — thereby reinforcing a system for common good, one that works because it promotes individual autonomy and relies on spontaneous order. Which is why we don’t need a better government, just a decidedly smaller and less powerful one.
Fortunately, the author, Philip K. Howard, seems to get all that:
Right and wrong no longer matter in this deviant subculture. Sealed off from personal responsibility by accumulated bureaucracy and thick walls of special interest money, our government is covered by a putrid mold of cynical gamesmanship and everyday hypocrisy. People scurry around its baseboards seeking short-term advantage, but big change is so inconceivable as to be laughable.
Even reformers have given up. What is politically feasible, they ask? The answer is clear: nothing.
Change will nonetheless happen, political scientists tell us. How? Through a crisis. (See my March essay “The U.S. Government Is Too Big to Succeed.”) The main challenge then will be not merely to reform Medicare and other unsustainable programs. The challenge will be to change the culture of government.
Fixing democracy certainly requires toppling the walls of the status quo: constitutional amendments to reform campaign finance and to require programs to sunset every 15 or 20 years; empowering spring cleaning commissions to turn the junk pile of regulatory law into coherent codes; scrapping civil service as we know it, to end the presumption of lifetime careers and to revive public accountability; and eliminating the revolving door between Congress and K Street by banning lobbying for at least five years after public service.
Even all these changes, possible only in the desperation of a crisis, might not be enough to change a culture that is terminally cynical. Somehow we have to change how people in government behave. I had a fantasy in my last book that America should move the national capital. It wouldn’t matter where, as long as government is run by new people not infected by the current culture. […]
[…]
If we can’t move the capital, the only way to change the culture is to put public employees on the spot. Today, with the exception of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, it’s almost impossible to identify a government official who actually has responsibility to make choices. Democracy can never work until we bulldoze the current bureaucratic model and replace it with individual responsibility and accountability.
American culture is still strong, but our democracy is broken. It cannot be fixed by this reform or that. Its failure is now embedded in a subculture that is devoid of individual responsibility. Government needs a complete makeover — not only new rules, but a transformation of how public choices get made. We’ll never have a responsible government until identifiable people have the responsibility to get things done and can be fired if they don’t.
It’s no accident — and not without some degree of real longing — that we talk here often of pitchforks and tar and feathers and stocks in the public square. And it’s no accident the TEA Party movement has sprung up in response to a permanent ruling class for whom Party affiliation is really but a convenient (and often lucrative) formality.
Yes, we must get rid of Obama. But that doesn’t mean we should be content or happy to have Mitt Romney move in and take over. Losing more slowly — us, we the people, never the politicians or the bureaucrats or their cronies and special constituencies — is still losing.
And so long as we agree that losing slowly is the best we can do — by allowing politicians to convince us that winning is completely off the table — we’ll find our liberties more and more taken from us, and our lives more and more managed by a permanent and structurally-enforced ruling class that manifests the trappings of a adversarial political party system without actually being one.
(h/t JHo, dicentra)
The only problem with moving the capital to, say, St. Louis, is that it would soon become as bad as the current District of Criminals.
This sounds a lot like Friedman’s statement to change the culture so that the wrong people do the right thing.
I think government workers should be considered the equivalent of furries. No one likes furries. Heck, I saw a German zombie movie and when they revealed that the main character was a furry I started rooting for the zombies.
Furries are liked by other furries, presumably. That, of course, does not negate your premise.
From what I’ve read, it has a head start.
How about Dodge City instead?
“American culture is still strong, but our democracy is broken.”
Seems to me that the very terms give the game away.
We ask:
Culture? Is this a term the framers used? Why not? Where did it come from, and for what purpose was it created?
Democracy? Is this the objective of the framing, rather than an intent to particularly avoid democracy in particular? That is, was it not the view of the framers that all democracies, by definition, are broken?
So what is actually broken, or with what have we in fact broken faith? Not in our stars —
Why do people keep referring to “democracy” as if it’s our form of government? It isn’t, never was supposed to be, and never should be.
People call it a democracy because they were not adequately educated by the state schools.
If our kids were taught that they live in a Republic, they might take Republican ideas seriously. Can’t have that.
Nebraska is better for a lot of reasons.
Obama is only a symptom of a much greater disease. Address the disease rather than just the symptoms.
What business requires a tremendous amount of trust to flourish? Auto service? Pizza place? Bank?
One of our Reps – Pat Tiberi, has an office in north Columbus; Taj Mahalish, high floor, limited access. He’s Republican, btw. But he’s not in the business of getting trust and business from people. He’s elected to sit on his ass and fly back to Ohio every now and then.
While current technology makes a representative republic obsolete, I realize that some fear pure democracy because of the, you know, idiots. But strangely enough, 90% of those idiots don’t pay taxes. First order of business for the new “Pure Online Democracy”: pay to vote. If you’re not paying at least 10% of your income, you will not be logged in to vote on any issues.
Gravy train is over. If you want to live off the teat, you will not get a vote. If you want to contribute, you will.
My not-so-modest suggestion is to not have a capital at all – instead push for radical desegregation of government by requiring the House, Senate, Supreme Court, Executive Offices, National Military Command Center, etc. each be located in a separate city at least 500 miles apart and 250 miles inland.
This way, not only do we clean out the old rot, we prevent excessive rot from setting in in any one place. Not to mention provide additional protection from any sort of zero-warning decapitation nuke strike.
“constitutional amendments to reform campaign finance ”
Translation: repeal the First Amendment; they’re easier to pick off when they can’t organize.
Yeah, he gets it.
The House and Senate could telecommute. Keeping those bastards from drinking together and keeping them among their constituents would do us a world of good.
FTFY. Damn auto-correct.
The House and Senate could telecommute. Keeping those bastards from drinking together and keeping them among their constituents would do us a world of good.
I’ve thought this was the answer for quite some time. Same deal with all those G-20 and other presidential summits. Why can’t they Skype like the rest of us? I know, because it keeps them away from boozing and hookers.
If there were fewer perks, maybe the job would attract some people who were actually interested in representing their constituents.
I’m down with the idea of telecommuting. Every congresscritter should maintain their office in their own district. Instead of being down in Washington surrounded and influenced by lobbyists and the rest of their den of thieves they’d be home surrounded and influenced by their constituents.
Of course that will do little good if 50+1% of their constituents are looters and mooches. I fear Alexis de Tocqueville was right: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Sadly, that day came many years ago and now pretty much everyone takes the bribe in one fashion or another. Every single nickel the federal government spends goes somewhere, try to cut a nickel and some constituency will scream bloody murder. I fear it may no longer be possible to turn back the clock.
He gets it in the abstract. There were some things in there I disagreed with him about. That would be one. Also, lobbying isn’t bad. The revolving door between lobbying and public service is worrisome. See, for instance, Frist, or Trent Lott.
Ugh.
The overwhelming majority of federal spending occurs in violation of both the Tenth Amendment and the Tenth Commandment.
This is not an accident.
Reduce the size and scope. That is the core. Reduce power drastically, then scatter it widely.
That will take care of lobbyists and all the other bullshit.
And reduce power of not just the Feds, but state and local also.
[…] not much more than ennui in most of us by now. In reference to the first piece linked above, Jeff reminds us: Yes, we must get rid of Obama. But that doesn’t mean we should be content or happy to have Mitt […]