3 ms·

I think it’s political will more than structure. The desire to play obstructionist politics has consumed parties on all sides, to the detriment of the populatio

I think it’s political will more than structure. The desire to play obstructionist politics has consumed parties on all sides, to the detriment of the population at large.

squozzer 8y ago
Not to mention that even those who support improving infrastructure have to receive a pet project (aka a bridge to nowhere) as part of the transaction. It's also obviously clear that at least one person in the US government doesn't like the current state of our infrastructure and would love to do something about it.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Structure is a huge part. Local projects (infrastructure being a common one) used to get a lot of funding via earmarks. Say you have a senator who's constituents don't care one way or the other about your bill but their party affiliation requires them to vote against your bill. You toss them an earmark that they can use to say "look at how I've helped you" to his constituents next election with the understanding that he'll break from his party's default position on your bill.
busterarm 8y ago
That's a result of the death of the party boss system, the last vestiges of which we lost in the late 70s. It was extremely corrupt, but largely centrist politics. The appeal to extremes and gerrymandering came afterwards. The obstructionist politics are not about willpower -- the issue is systemic.
- jpfed 8y ago
  I don't know if it's centrism that enabled infrastructure, so much as the two major parties seeing each other as legitimate rivals that could be negotiated with. Without a common enemy since the Soviet Union disintegrated, the parties have lost their sense of mutual legitimacy. There's nothing visibly* urgent enough to push us into e.g. building a continent-spanning system of highways. *Climate change doesn't count because one side doesn't see it as a threat.

3 ms·

I think it’s political will more than structure. The desire to play obstructionist politics has consumed parties on all sides, to the detriment of the populatio

by glitchc 8y ago

I think it’s political will more than structure. The desire to play obstructionist politics has consumed parties on all sides, to the detriment of the population at large.

squozzer 8y ago
Not to mention that even those who support improving infrastructure have to receive a pet project (aka a bridge to nowhere) as part of the transaction. It's also obviously clear that at least one person in the US government doesn't like the current state of our infrastructure and would love to do something about it.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Structure is a huge part. Local projects (infrastructure being a common one) used to get a lot of funding via earmarks. Say you have a senator who's constituents don't care one way or the other about your bill but their party affiliation requires them to vote against your bill. You toss them an earmark that they can use to say "look at how I've helped you" to his constituents next election with the understanding that he'll break from his party's default position on your bill.
busterarm 8y ago
That's a result of the death of the party boss system, the last vestiges of which we lost in the late 70s. It was extremely corrupt, but largely centrist politics. The appeal to extremes and gerrymandering came afterwards. The obstructionist politics are not about willpower -- the issue is systemic.
- jpfed 8y ago
  I don't know if it's centrism that enabled infrastructure, so much as the two major parties seeing each other as legitimate rivals that could be negotiated with. Without a common enemy since the Soviet Union disintegrated, the parties have lost their sense of mutual legitimacy. There's nothing visibly* urgent enough to push us into e.g. building a continent-spanning system of highways. *Climate change doesn't count because one side doesn't see it as a threat.