2 ms·

Doing "most" things at local level is actually as much of a problem as a solution. There are definitely cases where it helps, but there are plenty where it does

Doing "most" things at local level is actually as much of a problem as a solution. There are definitely cases where it helps, but there are plenty where it doesn't: Consider local school boards, etc. Finland is the current darling of education reformers who cheerfully cite all kinds of features of the Finnish school system while ignoring the fact that it's _centrally controlled_. Similarly, the world has tried lots of different healthcare systems and the one thing that seems to have been discovered is that having lots of different healthcare systems is a Bad Idea (don't do single payer AND private AND pay as you go ... pick one dammit). Then there's the 50,000 or so different law enforcement agencies in the US -- with overlapping jurisdictions, powers, responsibilities, and so forth. 9/11 occurred, in part, because the FBI didn't share information efficiently with the CIA, and the "solution" was to create several new organizations (Homeland Security, TSA, Office of Information Awareness, etc. etc.) Local governance isn't a silver bullet any more than central control. Horses for courses.

grandalf 14y ago
I think the things you're mentioning are generally all good things. Why? Because without different approaches there is not really any way to use the scientific method to improve upon things. Suppose we're baking a pie. With your preferred approach, the Federal government bakes one pie. Ingredients are added according to the corrupt interest of all the legislators, and eventually the pie is finished and served to everyone. Since the pie was such a massive Federal undertaking, supporters of the Government's approach are expected to blindly support the chosen recipe, claiming it's delicious and perfect as-is. Detractors, having also spent much political capital, are inclined to criticize every aspect of the pie, even the good parts. If on the other hand each state were baking a pie, we'd have 50 different recipes to explore. Maybe one state gets the crust just right, another the filling, and three others manage to increase the average portion size, etc. Now we have 50 different experiments that nobody has spent a lifetime of political capital building, which can all be improved. If one state serves its citizens lousy pie, they'll talk to their friends in other states and start demanding more from their elected officials. Notice how George W. Bush sold the war in Iraq. The US had to act fast, and had to make a big commitment to the cause, without worrying about evidence to the contrary. Notice how nearly everyone was "with us or against us", leaving no room for debate or reasoning. The same kind of grand approach must be used to do anything at the Federal level. By necessity it becomes 80% propaganda, smoke, and mirrors. Things like local school boards must cater to the people they serve. You can look at the thousands of different school boards and see something that appears messy in comparison to George W. Bush's oversimplified sales pitch for the Iraq war or Obama's oversimplified pitch for Federal health care, but you might consider looking at it more optimistically. School board members are directly accountable to the people who elect them.

grandalf 14y ago

I think the things you're mentioning are generally all good things. Why? Because without different approaches there is not really any way to use the scientific method to improve upon things. Suppose we're baking a pie. With your preferred approach, the Federal government bakes one pie. Ingredients are added according to the corrupt interest of all the legislators, and eventually the pie is finished and served to everyone. Since the pie was such a massive Federal undertaking, supporters of the Government's approach are expected to blindly support the chosen recipe, claiming it's delicious and perfect as-is. Detractors, having also spent much political capital, are inclined to criticize every aspect of the pie, even the good parts. If on the other hand each state were baking a pie, we'd have 50 different recipes to explore. Maybe one state gets the crust just right, another the filling, and three others manage to increase the average portion size, etc. Now we have 50 different experiments that nobody has spent a lifetime of political capital building, which can all be improved. If one state serves its citizens lousy pie, they'll talk to their friends in other states and start demanding more from their elected officials. Notice how George W. Bush sold the war in Iraq. The US had to act fast, and had to make a big commitment to the cause, without worrying about evidence to the contrary. Notice how nearly everyone was "with us or against us", leaving no room for debate or reasoning. The same kind of grand approach must be used to do anything at the Federal level. By necessity it becomes 80% propaganda, smoke, and mirrors. Things like local school boards must cater to the people they serve. You can look at the thousands of different school boards and see something that appears messy in comparison to George W. Bush's oversimplified sales pitch for the Iraq war or Obama's oversimplified pitch for Federal health care, but you might consider looking at it more optimistically. School board members are directly accountable to the people who elect them.