Comment by coliveira
3 years ago
That might had make sense 200 years ago when Fed government was small. Nowadays it is a slow death sentence to the country.
3 years ago
That might had make sense 200 years ago when Fed government was small. Nowadays it is a slow death sentence to the country.
Quite the opposite! Scalia had a great speech[0] where he argued that our Constitution is weak compared to other nations of history but had outlived those nations because of its slow nature to act. The point being, it doesn't matter how great your constitution is if your country is dead.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0
> it doesn't matter how great your constitution is if your country is dead.
Why is the longevity of a nation more important than the values it stands for (as laid down in its constitution)? One could argue that it's better to have a great constitution that treats its citizens equally and fairly, even if the nation is short-lived and eventually disintegrates into smaller nations.
The interpersonal equivalent of this would be "It doesn't matter how great your relationship is if your marriage is dead". I'm not sure many would agree with keeping a marriage alive at any cost.
The long-term risk usually isn't disintegrating into smaller nations, it's being conquered by a larger nation. And that's exactly why it matters if your country is dead - you could have the greatest constitution in the world, but if everybody lives under the totalitarian dictatorship next door, it's not doing you much good. Realistic governance needs to be a balance between quality of life for citizens and the continued survival of the state and independence from conquering powers. Arguably many Native American tribes were a lot happier before the white man came, but that doesn't do you much good when you get genocided.
Relatedly, I'm not sure if the GP's Scalia speech actually gets the causality right. I think we could make a good case that the United State's dominance and longevity comes from two oceans, fertile cropland, and advanced technology, and form of governance is a mostly-irrelevant sideshow. You could plop a different government down in North America, and as long as it had adequate incentives for individual innovation, it'd still end up a superpower.
Several features of or accidents-resulting-from the US constitution amount to that. With the added "fun" that they also create a system in which fixing any of them is unlikely, from within the system.
There's a reason even we don't tend to push a US-style system on fledgling democracies, when setting them up. It's got well-known, grave, fundamental, and avoidable flaws.
The big problem is that neither party in power wants to change the system. After all, they're beneficiaries and creators of the status quo. This could only change if somehow a new party emerged, which is quite unlikely.
Right, that's why, despite its being about as close to a dull, settled fact in policy-wonk and poli-sci circles as anything is, that the US system sucks in about a dozen important ways that other modern democratic systems do not, we cannot fix it.
The system is broken in ways that prevent fixing that very brokenness. We know exactly what's wrong, but can't do anything about it. You'd have to get a whole bunch of people whose personal power is tied up with the status quo, to, all at the same time, vote to weaken that power and the power of the organizations that put them where they are. Or you'd have to get at least some of the states that benefit from the brokenness to agree to weaken themselves. Neither is likely to ever happen—short of some very risky and probably-bad-rather-than-good developments that are more likely to end in authoritarianism than an improved democracy.
1 reply →
"Weak government made sense when it was small but we made it bigger so we should make it stronger now too" is certainly a take, but not a particularly good one.
The vast majority of things the government touches turn to shit, including things with wide bipartisan support. How does making government able to do more, faster, fix that?
>The vast majority of things the government touches turn to shit
Overtime I've really begun to see this as propoganda that Reagan invented based on little to no empirical data. I'm not convinced that the government is anymore dysfunctional than any large corporation. The belief that the everything the government touches turns to shit does far more harm than good; and furthermore gets in the federal government's way of actually solving problems. The federal government may have a problem with incentives (like any corporation), but it's hard for me to believe they are inept. It ends up being a self fulfilling prophecy - the government tries to do something, a hundred road blocks are put up for fear of ineptitude, then when the government is slow due to said roadblocks, they are called inept. When those roadblocks are removed - for example in the vaccine distribution of 2020, it's clear that the government is capable of good outcomes. Millions of highly controlled and sensitive vaccines were deployed across the country in only a couple months under an administration that nearly became hostile to its deployment.
Large corporations are utterly dysfunctional too. The difference is that when a large corporation grows too dysfunctional, it's replaced by a small corporation. When a large government grows too dysfunctional, it's replaced by a small government too, but the process is significantly bloodier.
Robust systems are made up of interacting parts that tolerate partial failures. The reason the U.S. economy as a whole remains strong is because its least efficient businesses are continually failing, and their resources get reabsorbed by more competitive parts. When this ceases to happen (eg. the "too big to fail" banks in 2008, "what's good for GM is good for the country" in 1953), the economy as a whole becomes much weaker. There is no similar ablation process for the U.S. government - lately, there hasn't been an easy way to let parts of it fail while still preserving the government as a whole. This will likely lead to the collapse of the whole government, which is unfortunate. It can't avoid the dynamic common to all systems: the way to avoid total failure is to tolerate and adapt to partial failure.
4 replies →
Bootlicker
1 reply →