3 ms·

I think the ineffectiveness comes from the lack of gravitas such problems have on the public psyche. We now feel that it is "over", so we relax instead of buckl

I think the ineffectiveness comes from the lack of gravitas such problems have on the public psyche. We now feel that it is "over", so we relax instead of buckling down and asking ourselves "how can we make the next time this happens not such a shitshow?". Luckily, there are organs within the government that do keep at least some focus on it. The problem is getting public and political attention to not chase whatever shiny Hollywood is doing or the Strawman of the Week is being put forth instead. However, I have far more trust in these government organs at doing something effective than leaving it to "the market" which will just always be distracted by money instead of "taking one for the team" and focusing on the hard problems "just in case".

wutbrodo 5y ago
> We now feel that it is "over", so we relax instead of buckling down and asking ourselves "how can we make the next time this happens not such a shitshow?" The cultural rot that prevents iterating on effective government runs deep, and has little to do with exhaustion. In _Spring 2020_, i was shocked by the strong reaction I got from my friends at even passing mentions of the FDA/CDC's significant and severe early failures. In the usual reductive framing, I'm a pretty "big govt" guy. While govt is horrendously incompetent, as a baseline, it allows us to choose from a wider array of goals, more precisely than the market does. But I learned that even my nominally-intelligent friends are too simple-minded to understand this, and that their support is rooted in religious belief in an omnicompetent govt that provides flawless protection from the world's dangers. An environment that can't even see failures is not one that's going to improve upon them. Already, the excuses have been lined up: every single failure was due in some way to Trump, and now that he's gone (hopefully), the gov't can go back to its usual, hyper-efficient mode of function (lol)
- mathstuf 5y ago
  Yes, realizing that not everything is perfect (good or evil) is a good base that needs to be done first. Trump made lots of blunders and such, but the morass that is our government is also what insulated it from his attempts to destroy it. If government were an efficient machine, a strong leader would be able to redirect it much more easily. However, we instead have a swarm of pearl-clutching monstrosities that have defenses they can deploy. Yes, it makes improvement slow, but it also (largely) protects us from terrible leadership.

wutbrodo 5y ago

> We now feel that it is "over", so we relax instead of buckling down and asking ourselves "how can we make the next time this happens not such a shitshow?" The cultural rot that prevents iterating on effective government runs deep, and has little to do with exhaustion. In _Spring 2020_, i was shocked by the strong reaction I got from my friends at even passing mentions of the FDA/CDC's significant and severe early failures. In the usual reductive framing, I'm a pretty "big govt" guy. While govt is horrendously incompetent, as a baseline, it allows us to choose from a wider array of goals, more precisely than the market does. But I learned that even my nominally-intelligent friends are too simple-minded to understand this, and that their support is rooted in religious belief in an omnicompetent govt that provides flawless protection from the world's dangers. An environment that can't even see failures is not one that's going to improve upon them. Already, the excuses have been lined up: every single failure was due in some way to Trump, and now that he's gone (hopefully), the gov't can go back to its usual, hyper-efficient mode of function (lol)

mathstuf 5y ago
Yes, realizing that not everything is perfect (good or evil) is a good base that needs to be done first. Trump made lots of blunders and such, but the morass that is our government is also what insulated it from his attempts to destroy it. If government were an efficient machine, a strong leader would be able to redirect it much more easily. However, we instead have a swarm of pearl-clutching monstrosities that have defenses they can deploy. Yes, it makes improvement slow, but it also (largely) protects us from terrible leadership.