4 ms·

One thing I've always wondered about when it comes to the temporary nature of US presidential terms and their respective administrations - why does it seem like

One thing I've always wondered about when it comes to the temporary nature of US presidential terms and their respective administrations - why does it seem like it's so much easier to dismantle things than to create them in the first place? Especially for things that took a substantial amount of time and effort to build, shouldn't we require much more scrutiny before considering an action that effectively dismantles/dissovles/destroys them? Instead it feels more like we are at the mercy of the whims of whoever is the current temp-employee-in-chief.

jakkyboi 6y ago
I think that's just the nature of government. If a large enough force acts, it's very easy to tear down such an abstract system.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  In all honesty it doesn't even have to be large, it suffices to be powerful. Like the President. If you're the president, you don't really need the 535 people from congress to act with you. You only need them to not act, which they can be relied on to do more often than not. (In fact, I believe you don't even need all 535 of them to not act, only some of them can take the action of "no action" and you can do what you wish.)
  - madhadron 6y ago
    What we have learned is that you only need the Senate Majority Leader to refuse to act. It turns out that is the crucial weakness in the US government with no checks and balances on it. And, of course, isn't in the US Constitution.
ultrarunner 6y ago
If this were true wouldn't the size and scope of governments decline over time? I'm quite confident that there are more governmental organizations in the US than I could name, and each one of them have numerous programs. Indeed there have been entire agencies created in my lifetime, but despite the calls to defund or abolish some, I can't think of one that's closed. (caveat: you said "things" which I took to mean something like "governmental products" which tend to have a high amount of inertia; if you had something else in mind this may not apply)
paulmd 6y ago
> why does it seem like it's so much easier to dismantle things than to create them in the first place? it's because it's incredibly difficult to get anything passed, the US legislative system has too many checks and balances. Every "check and balance" is another group that has to reach consensus for a proposed action and another point for an adversarial opponent to grind everything to a halt. I contend that it is better to have a government that can reach consensus easily and act, and that is easy to change if they no longer reflect public consensus, than to have "checks and balances" where absolutely 100% of the government needs to be in consensus to do anything. Gridlock should not be a design feature of a government but that's how the system was engineered (deliberately - it dates from a time when states didn't view themselves as federal subjects but independent states, and this was supposed to help get everyone on board that "no, really, we're just going to do the things that absolutely everyone agrees on", there were many groups who were afraid of being steamrollered without their own special little body and checks on other authorities). Unicameral parliamentary systems are better - one house to pass legislation, one PM who is a member of the majority in parliament, so everyone is on the same page. Snap elections if they do something that nobody likes, if they don't want to listen to the public then the queen can dissolve parliament and call for new elections. (the queen actually is a very interesting role in the UK, she is kind of an "oracle" that decides deadlocks between the public and the parliament. When the two are in disagreement about whether to call elections she can resolve the stalemate. She really doesn't do much normally but in times of constitutional crisis can serve as a trusted independent authority - a very interesting safety mechanism that evolved almost by accident.)
- cagenut 6y ago
  goddamn i was nodding along with you, hovering over the upvote waiting to click when I finished, and then bam monarchism out of nowhere.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  I disagree and view this more as recency bias. It is better to have scrutiny in government - even if it isn't quite as agile.
  - 6y ago
aphextron 6y ago
>One thing I've always wondered about when it comes to the temporary nature of US presidential terms and their respective administrations - why does it seem like it's so much easier to dismantle things than to create them in the first place? This is just the nature of reality. Creation is incredibly difficult and requires immense struggle. Destruction is effortless. It took billions of years of biological evolution to reach a point where a mass of cells can be conceived, nurtured, and grown into a thinking breathing organism capable of manipulating its' environment. One single mindless, simple burst of radiation can completely destroy that. You're battling against entropy. The natural order of things is chaos, disorder, and dissolution. When the will to fight and struggle for an ideal is lost, the inevitable result is decay.
ihumanable 6y ago
I've heard this sentiment, but I'm not sure if it's real. Republicans are just as adept at constructing things as deconstructing things. Look at No Child Left Behind (fundamental reconstruction of education), the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA (large new bureaucracies), or the TCJA (fundamental reconstruction of the tax system). I think what we actually witness in government is two different phenomenons. First, Republicans act as a largely cohesive block that requires less coalition building. Second, Republican governing philosophy has as a central tenet the idea that government is inefficient and market-based solutions are better, from Reagan's "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." to Grover Norquist's Starve the Beast theory "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." And the inverse of this is also true, there is an aphorism about the two parties voters, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." It seeks to explain why getting voters that agree with Democratic policies to the polls seems to be more difficult than getting voters that agree with Republican policies to the polls. This extends to the politicians, who pick largely from the same menu of issues but at different priority levels. This leads to the Democrats having to expend more effort to build coalitions, an example would be something like healthcare reform. Market-based solutions like the ACA have as much a home in the Democratic party as government-based solutions like Medicare For All (M4A). With a wider gamut of policy positions, more effort inevitably must be spent getting people to consensus. This means that Republican governments get more of their goals done, and because of their governing philosophy many of those things are deconstructing existing programs. They are capable of putting new programs into place, I named a few but there are others, so it doesn't seem to me that the main difference is constructing new thing vs deconstructing existing things, but the amount of effort it requires to get your coalition to take action. This all is an analysis of the efficacy of the two parties in accomplishing their goals, without really treading on the more dangerous ground of "who has the better goals?" I, like everyone else, have some opinion no this matter, but to try to keep the inevitable angry responses when discussing politics to a minimum, I'm going to just avoid discussing that altogether.
- liability 6y ago
  > First, Republicans act as a largely cohesive block that requires less coalition building. Does it require less coalition building, or are they just better at it? It never made much sense to me that a pro-choice/drugs/guns/prostitution libertarian from Nevada would vote for the same team as the social conservative corn farmer from Nebraska who wants to implement a Christian theocracy, yet when push comes to shove they seem to ignore each other and vote for the same party. I don't know how to explain that, other than Republicans are effective at pandering to two mutually incompatible philosophies at once.
runbyfruity 6y ago
It's always easier to destroy than create. I mean, you can demolish a house in a few hours. This isn't new. Creation is hard. Nuance is hard. "How do we fix healthcare" is hard; "don't change anything ever" or even "dismantle the system" is easy.
rsynnott 6y ago
Based on the senators’ complaint mentioned elsewhere in the comments, it appears like the DoD may indeed be breaking the law here.
christophilus 6y ago
> why does it seem like it's so much easier to dismantle things than to create them in the first place? This is just the nature of things. It’s easier to destroy a car than to build one. Same for houses, plants, animals... anything complex, really. Destruction is generally easier than creation.

jakkyboi 6y ago

I think that's just the nature of government. If a large enough force acts, it's very easy to tear down such an abstract system.

bilbo0s 6y ago
In all honesty it doesn't even have to be large, it suffices to be powerful. Like the President. If you're the president, you don't really need the 535 people from congress to act with you. You only need them to not act, which they can be relied on to do more often than not. (In fact, I believe you don't even need all 535 of them to not act, only some of them can take the action of "no action" and you can do what you wish.)
- madhadron 6y ago
  What we have learned is that you only need the Senate Majority Leader to refuse to act. It turns out that is the crucial weakness in the US government with no checks and balances on it. And, of course, isn't in the US Constitution.

ultrarunner 6y ago

If this were true wouldn't the size and scope of governments decline over time? I'm quite confident that there are more governmental organizations in the US than I could name, and each one of them have numerous programs. Indeed there have been entire agencies created in my lifetime, but despite the calls to defund or abolish some, I can't think of one that's closed. (caveat: you said "things" which I took to mean something like "governmental products" which tend to have a high amount of inertia; if you had something else in mind this may not apply)

paulmd 6y ago

> why does it seem like it's so much easier to dismantle things than to create them in the first place? it's because it's incredibly difficult to get anything passed, the US legislative system has too many checks and balances. Every "check and balance" is another group that has to reach consensus for a proposed action and another point for an adversarial opponent to grind everything to a halt. I contend that it is better to have a government that can reach consensus easily and act, and that is easy to change if they no longer reflect public consensus, than to have "checks and balances" where absolutely 100% of the government needs to be in consensus to do anything. Gridlock should not be a design feature of a government but that's how the system was engineered (deliberately - it dates from a time when states didn't view themselves as federal subjects but independent states, and this was supposed to help get everyone on board that "no, really, we're just going to do the things that absolutely everyone agrees on", there were many groups who were afraid of being steamrollered without their own special little body and checks on other authorities). Unicameral parliamentary systems are better - one house to pass legislation, one PM who is a member of the majority in parliament, so everyone is on the same page. Snap elections if they do something that nobody likes, if they don't want to listen to the public then the queen can dissolve parliament and call for new elections. (the queen actually is a very interesting role in the UK, she is kind of an "oracle" that decides deadlocks between the public and the parliament. When the two are in disagreement about whether to call elections she can resolve the stalemate. She really doesn't do much normally but in times of constitutional crisis can serve as a trusted independent authority - a very interesting safety mechanism that evolved almost by accident.)

cagenut 6y ago
goddamn i was nodding along with you, hovering over the upvote waiting to click when I finished, and then bam monarchism out of nowhere.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
I disagree and view this more as recency bias. It is better to have scrutiny in government - even if it isn't quite as agile.
- 6y ago

aphextron 6y ago

>One thing I've always wondered about when it comes to the temporary nature of US presidential terms and their respective administrations - why does it seem like it's so much easier to dismantle things than to create them in the first place? This is just the nature of reality. Creation is incredibly difficult and requires immense struggle. Destruction is effortless. It took billions of years of biological evolution to reach a point where a mass of cells can be conceived, nurtured, and grown into a thinking breathing organism capable of manipulating its' environment. One single mindless, simple burst of radiation can completely destroy that. You're battling against entropy. The natural order of things is chaos, disorder, and dissolution. When the will to fight and struggle for an ideal is lost, the inevitable result is decay.

ihumanable 6y ago

I've heard this sentiment, but I'm not sure if it's real. Republicans are just as adept at constructing things as deconstructing things. Look at No Child Left Behind (fundamental reconstruction of education), the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA (large new bureaucracies), or the TCJA (fundamental reconstruction of the tax system). I think what we actually witness in government is two different phenomenons. First, Republicans act as a largely cohesive block that requires less coalition building. Second, Republican governing philosophy has as a central tenet the idea that government is inefficient and market-based solutions are better, from Reagan's "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." to Grover Norquist's Starve the Beast theory "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." And the inverse of this is also true, there is an aphorism about the two parties voters, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." It seeks to explain why getting voters that agree with Democratic policies to the polls seems to be more difficult than getting voters that agree with Republican policies to the polls. This extends to the politicians, who pick largely from the same menu of issues but at different priority levels. This leads to the Democrats having to expend more effort to build coalitions, an example would be something like healthcare reform. Market-based solutions like the ACA have as much a home in the Democratic party as government-based solutions like Medicare For All (M4A). With a wider gamut of policy positions, more effort inevitably must be spent getting people to consensus. This means that Republican governments get more of their goals done, and because of their governing philosophy many of those things are deconstructing existing programs. They are capable of putting new programs into place, I named a few but there are others, so it doesn't seem to me that the main difference is constructing new thing vs deconstructing existing things, but the amount of effort it requires to get your coalition to take action. This all is an analysis of the efficacy of the two parties in accomplishing their goals, without really treading on the more dangerous ground of "who has the better goals?" I, like everyone else, have some opinion no this matter, but to try to keep the inevitable angry responses when discussing politics to a minimum, I'm going to just avoid discussing that altogether.

liability 6y ago
> First, Republicans act as a largely cohesive block that requires less coalition building. Does it require less coalition building, or are they just better at it? It never made much sense to me that a pro-choice/drugs/guns/prostitution libertarian from Nevada would vote for the same team as the social conservative corn farmer from Nebraska who wants to implement a Christian theocracy, yet when push comes to shove they seem to ignore each other and vote for the same party. I don't know how to explain that, other than Republicans are effective at pandering to two mutually incompatible philosophies at once.

runbyfruity 6y ago

It's always easier to destroy than create. I mean, you can demolish a house in a few hours. This isn't new. Creation is hard. Nuance is hard. "How do we fix healthcare" is hard; "don't change anything ever" or even "dismantle the system" is easy.

rsynnott 6y ago

Based on the senators’ complaint mentioned elsewhere in the comments, it appears like the DoD may indeed be breaking the law here.

christophilus 6y ago

> why does it seem like it's so much easier to dismantle things than to create them in the first place? This is just the nature of things. It’s easier to destroy a car than to build one. Same for houses, plants, animals... anything complex, really. Destruction is generally easier than creation.