Osler's Razor

I agree that not much problem-solving goes on in Washington these days. Of course, "these days" implies there might have been a golden age of problem-solving back there somewhere. Remember that time we solved the problem of the Great Depression. Remember when we defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Remember when we created Social Security, Medicare, and passed ADA. Remember when we put a man on the moon (man on the moon).

All true but also somewhat misleading, I think. We created a system of national government back in the beginning that was intentionally hamstrung with lots of divisions of power: three so-called co-equal branches within the national government and then real questions of sovereignty between national power and state power. Those internecine institutional battles continue to rage.

For more than a hundred years dysfunctional Washington did not matter much because we did not ask our national government to do all that much--and, when we did, we generally paid the price for it (the Civil War is one example that springs to mind). One way of reading American history is that Congress has always equaled the keystone cops, but historically they just had a lot less responsibility. The presidency has always employed flawed and weak men (some more flawed and weaker than others--especially the ones in between GW, AJ, AL, TR, FDR, and RR). We just paid less attention. The Courts were a mess of human foibles and cloistered ideas--but that was okay because it could not do much damage most of the time (with a few famous and egregious exceptions that we all can enumerate).

By the turn of the century, Woodrow Wilson believed the Constitution had aged out. He advocated a more efficient national government with an administrative state peopled by experts and activists and a Congress that would defer to vigorous and wise presidential leadership. This worldview was not without its virtues--but it was also a bit Utopian. And Wilson's early version of sanguine Progressivism ran aground. Progressivism 2.0 and 3.0 scored great victories and dominated the next 100 years--but it never could quite overcome the c. 18 liberalism inherent in the founding document and controlling legal authority.

I am a nationalist (that is, I believe in an American national government). I am also a constitutionalist, an institutionalist, and a federalist. I believe in as much localism as practicable. I believe a healthcare solution for my family and my community will likely be found much closer to home than in the think tanks and halls of power in Washington. But I could be wrong. I agree we have big problems getting bigger every day. I would add the national debt to your list--like climate change it is not something that is NOT going to kill us tomorrow--but it is a looming crisis of unsustainable assumptions and policies.

I fear we ask too much of Washington and our politicians and our experts and our activists. I continue to believe we can stave off national disaster--but we will need to save ourselves first. And I think that probably means personal and local responsibility and personal and local solutions.

Having said so much and so little all in one long nearly incoherent rant, let me close with this:

"We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."


 

Should read:

I agree we have big problems getting bigger every day. I would add the national debt to your list--like climate change it is NOT something that is going to kill us tomorrow--but it is a looming crisis of unsustainable assumptions and policies
 

I’m glad this administration is “all show, no go.”

Can you imagine if they were actually able to affect coherent policy change to achieve the (ever changing and/or illogical) goals the President seems to advocate for?

What a much graver situation that would be.

Given the choice between inaction and self-destructive action, I’ll take inaction every time.
 

I wouldn't say we as a country have paid less attention in the last several decades to what government has done, Waco Farmer -- witness the Civil Rights movement, for example -- but that our country's challenges have become even more varied and complex as more people gained the right to vote in the 20C, and gained more rights in general.

I can see Wilson's point about the Constitution having aged out, at least in terms of representation (i.e. two senators per state, no matter the population), although I don't know what the remedy for that is. We as citizens have enormous responsibility at the ballot box which we should take more seriously, for sure.

And we pay federal taxes, so I fully expect things from the federal government, especially the ability to stay healthy and have freedom of speech and assembly, and be free from state-endorsed religion. I have an expectation that I won't be crushed financially if I screw up, and that's an area where law-making is very important and where I see effects on daily life: consumer protections and workers' rights. Consumer protections, workers' rights, the right to baseline health care: I shouldn't have to worry about which county or state I live in so that I can stay healthy, and health care should not be tied to having a job (talk about a concept that has aged out . . .)

Anyway, end of my rant! I agree that we as citizens have enormous responsibility in this democracy, yet that's precisely why we should expect our lawmakers to do more than split along party lines. I don't want my party to be blinkered ; I want them to be pragmatic and respond to real-world, actual, complex problems. And neither party is doing that very well.

Gavin, though, you do have a point: self-destructive action is worse.