9 ms·

I think there's a crisis of ineffectiveness in Center-Left institutions They are too deliberative, and take excessive time including voices of every stakeholde

I think there's a crisis of ineffectiveness in Center-Left institutions They are too deliberative, and take excessive time including voices of every stakeholder. So you don't just go do the "obvious thing". You cater to trying to listen to every voice in an effort to be as inclusive as possible. Committee after committee and an obsession with process. You can spend years placating NIMBYs and people living with their own alternate reality. Meanwhile real people are suffering from lack of action. This level of ineffectiveness just enables authoritarianism ("at least they get something done") and gets people to seek the private industry for their solutions.

sailingparrot 1y ago
This is basically the entire theme of "Abundance" by Klein and Thompson, for those looking for a longer read on this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(Klein_and_Thompson_book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(Klein_and_Thompson_...
- spiritplumber 1y ago
  thank you, i'll grab this!
- rufus_foreman 1y ago
  Another recent book along the same lines would be "Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress and How to Get It Back" by Marc Dunkelman: "When he looked into the history, Dunkelman realized that progressives have long swung back and forth between two opposing impulses. One is what he calls Hamiltonianism: the desire to achieve progress by empowering government and institutions to tackle big problems at the direction of strong leaders (like Robert Moses) and informed experts. The other is what he calls Jeffersonianism: the desire to prevent unaccountable centralized authorities (also like Robert Moses) from abusing ordinary citizens by empowering them to fight back." -- https://www.niskanencenter.org/why-nothing-works-with-marc-dunkelman/ https://www.niskanencenter.org/why-nothing-works-with-marc-d...
- lkey 1y ago
  Abundance is just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way neoliberalism with a new coat of paint. The answer to all questions is 'bust unions and environmental groups'. We've been here before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley All the Reaganite conservative institutions (https://www.abundancedc.org/speakers https://www.abundancedc.org/speakers) that are leery of fascism, but love business back this 'program'. We need a new 'New Deal', that rebuilds what was broken during these last 90 years. We need the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Perkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Perkins of this era. "Frances Perkins was not just the architect of SSA: she also proposed and implemented many of the foundational labor and safety laws1 still relied upon by the American working class. We can also thank her for the 40-hour work week, minimum wage, unemployment compensation, worker’s compensation, workplace safety, abolition of child labor, direct federal aid to the states for unemployment relief, a revitalized federal employment service, and universal health insurance. Well, except the last. We are still working on the last. " She got everything she wanted done as Labor Sec. Except for universal healthcare. And it was a great loss for everything living American every year since.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Somebody hasn't read the book, just knee jerk reactions to it.
    - lkey 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - eli_gottlieb 1y ago
        So basically you ignored the actual text in favor of the conspiracy theorist's "cui bono" about the funding structure behind the authors.
        lkey 1y ago
        No, there's no conspiracy here. Ezra's probably a true believer, which I think is sadder honestly. There is no coordination besides shared interest in protecting capital, same as it ever was. Shared 'class interest' and 'class solidarity' if you like. Though some of these folks are probably in weird passive aggressive and catty group chats these days, like Andresson and Thiel. It is not a conspiracy to look at the super-pacs funding candidates with weird positions either. The transfers of cash are pretty open in our second gilded age. These 'third way' institutes and movements pop up every decade or so if you are paying attention. The literal 'Third Way' and 'Tea Party' movements were funded directly by some of these 'abundance' groups. But there's no 'shadowy cabal' or secret. They are open about their desires, and rely on marketing to paper over the obvious. Manufacturing consent for union breaking in Cali (Ezra didn't outright say it, but Josh Barro did) is clearly in their interest. It's also clear from many of them comments here like: 'I don't care who profits as long as there are suddenly houses' that show the 'abundance' gambit is succeeding. And to be clear, I'm not against the message 'build more housing', but these are not people you should trust. They need to prove they are serious. Their track record tells me they will bait, switch, and act as spoilers. Don't take just my word for it though! When they don't accomplish or even push for what they originally claimed their core goals are, remember this conversation.
- thrance 1y ago
  Wow, deregulation and austerity, what a fresh perspective on the economy! This abundance "movement" has absolutely nothing new to offer, it is simply a rebranding of neoliberalism. It's easy to spot too, just look at who backs the movement: the same old establishment democrats and their wealthy donors. The same people who have entranched the democratic party into this technocratic blob of ineffectiveness and societal erosion. In particular, it is financially backed by, among others, Peter Thiel and Mark Andreessen. This should raise some red flags. Also, I personally like winning. This abundance movement has exactly zero electoral hype. American voters don't care about it at all. Meanwhile, populist leftists like Mamdani are able to generate momentum for the left for the first time in decades. That Klein, Thompson and the billionaires behind them are so harshly criticizing them should raise additional red flags.
  - RetiredRichard 1y ago
    The writer of this article (Dave) publicly dislikes Derek Thompson and keeps criticizing Matt Ygelasis for his austerity fetish, along with praising Mamdani
  - sailingparrot 1y ago
    Your argument boils down to "people already said some things like this in the past" (ok, and?) and "some people I don't like agree with part of it", which is very weak and doesn't address anything in substance. You know, you can still want to be able to build housing without having to wait 1 year for permitting or not want to live in a place where making a basic train track is basically impossible because of the number of stakeholders that have to come to a consensus and still vote for Mamdani. You are allowed to have non black and white opinions. You can even have 1% of the things you think are good in common with Peter Thiel, and that won't immediately turn you into a far right psychopath. You can even, hear me out, be for less regulation on specific areas where there has been a massive lack of supply but not for "deregulating the economy" in it's entirety!
    - thrance 1y ago
      Housing can either be an investment vehicle or affordable, but not both at the same time. The abundance crowd remains willfully blind to this obvious reality, and is why they will fail. They promise to make housing affordable while receiving millions from people who became rich off of housing not being affordable. It fundamentally can't deliver on its promise, because it is completely compromised from the start. I perceive abundance as a big grift to keep the populist left out of the democratic party, which is something they spend a lot of energy doing. How else could you explain this obsession of the abundance crowd for shooting down any populist policy or messaging?
- RetiredRichard 1y ago
  I don't think Dave associates himself with the abundance movement
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
snapplebobapple 1y ago
for as long as the left has not been about the working class and been about university educated white collar government workers this has been true though. It may have been true prior to that too i just dont have living memory to back it up. There is something about being removed from the reality of how the metaphorical sausage is made that turns the left from having some valid concerns but usually wrong ideas on how to address them into actively incomptent civilization destroyers. I would love to know why.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  When you go back to The New Deal, its absolutely the case that the Dem coalition was much more effective at delivery. To some extent because FDR acted very aggressively with executive action. My personal opinion is the working class, not the fancy educated types, need to run the Dem coalition. It would be far more effective in a number of ways... with broader appeal.
  - cameldrv 1y ago
    It’s a different coalition now though. The FDR Democrats were labor focused. Then the 60s happened. The New Left student movements reoriented away from labor and towards racial/gender/sexual equality, and Kennedy signed the Civil Rights Act. Southern whites opposed this and you had George Wallace pop up, splitting the Democrats, and then Nixon swooped in with the Southern Strategy. The Democrats needed a new coalition and they went with disadvantaged racial/gender/sexual groups instead of labor. The transition didn’t really finish until Clinton and the New Democrats though. Campaign money and TV ads got to be really important in Presidential politics, and to get that money, Democrats had to appeal to rich people, so they got rid of most of the labor aspects of the platform. Clinton signed NAFTA and MFN for China. Now there were two pro-business parties that served different identity groups. Ironically the last gasp of labor was the billionaire Ross Perot in 92 and 96 who ran on an anti-NAFTA platform. The only way he could do this credibly was to use his own money to buy TV time.
    - mrguyorama 1y ago
Herring 1y ago
[..]
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  "Provide more assistance" My point is that I'm not sure we need more assistance. TBH we need better, more efficient assistance. We spend a lot on deliberation, not enough on delivery. A lot of this is due to leadership gaps IMO. Center-left leaders (ie Schumer) look weak because they excessively triangulate every stakeholder. Instead leaders need to act as true leaders, which means being a touch less collaborative / trying to triangulate. And more focused on some top-down, cut through red-tape, have a vision, persuade people etc. (Then, arguably if people saw the system working well, they might want to award it with more money.)
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
matula 1y ago
This is an interesting thought. I also wonder if Houston is "helped" by the fact that they're a blue city in a red state... that kind of ideological conflict of governance requires unique and localized solutions. Whereas SF is blue city in a blue state, so it creates a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation.
- cootsnuck 1y ago
  I think it also just creates a lack of "urgency" problem. I live in a blue city in a red state. Constituents expect results because we can't rely on our state gov. Local officials know this. There's more competition from more progressive candidates too locally which is helpful in keeping liberal officials more focused on results instead of the game of politics. Idk, I think it's different for every city. But I think the point I'm trying to make is that having some kind of political constraints in governance seems to typically be a good thing for the sake of getting some shit done. Actually I think I'm just stating an obvious point now given the glaring ineffectiveness of our two party political system...
- rtkwe 1y ago
  It probably does make it easier to make drastic changes as described to consolidate data sharing etc when they ultimate authority is likely the city/county instead of the state. The state level agencies will have their own policies, systems and goals/approaches that might not suite the individual cities so the programs remain separated and fragmented.
- mjd 1y ago
  The article itself makes this point more than once.
roenxi 1y ago
Nothing wrong with deliberation and listening to stakeholders. Great idea. The issue is the centre-left voters keep asking these institutions to take on more power, channel more funds and veto more projects [0]. I don't see how else they expect large centralised bodies to play out. I'm not sure if the US left even has a collective theory of how to fight institutional rot apart from stuffing institutions with leftists and assuming they do they right thing. Expecting good results from that strategy requires a certain naivete to the sort of people who seek power in government. [0] Not just them, the centre right also seems to love the idea based on what I've read. Not the brightest crowd.
- Yossarrian22 1y ago
  Isn’t China even more centralized? They complete infrastructure projects in years not decades.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    I dunno, is it? In what sense are you comparing the centralisation of the two countries? The US is pretty centralised. Around 40% of its spending is via the government and of the balance a lot of the decision making is controlled by the government.
  - Fade_Dance 1y ago
    China isn't centralized when it comes to boots on the ground policy implementation. The regional governments are extremely important. They direct subsidies and issue loans and have massive balance sheets and their own banks, they decide production capacity and things like factory output targets, they even decide which industries they specialize in, like EVs vs solar panels, etc. Of course there is a framework from the CCP, and if red lines are crossed the big stick comes out and people are made an example of, but the regionals run the society. Including things like the social safety net. That's all regional and it's different between different regions. There's a fairly large gap between how China works internally and how the west sees China. For a more concrete example, the recent Third Plenum planning session was the typical communist style decade long roadmap with loud bullet points and achievement targets. Then there is a multi-month-long gap, all of the politicians go home, they work out how to achieve the goals between themselves, and they present their plans for approval. It's actually not as top down as you would think. As you may sense, there is a sort of competition at play. If the committee is looking to consolidate key sectors like electric vehicles and increase industrial profits, the leaders who implement this guidance the best that get the acclaim. Likewise, if the central government is doing something like de-risking the regional banks, you so not want to be the region with the problems. Good luck in your career and climbing the ladder if so... This power play dynamic is also strategically used to play different factions against themselves in a multifaceted way that is sometimes obvious but often has quiet subterfuge, in typical Chinese fashion.
lkey 1y ago
SF, Dallas, and Houston all have Democratic leadership that could be described as center left? (For America. To an outsider, America has two conservative parties) The unhoused are 'stakeholders' too actually, so I'd describe Cali's problem as listening too much to wealthy/powerful stakeholders, while ignoring those most impacted. Who can forget Newsom's camp-destroying photo-op and forced bussing the undesirables out of town to prevent people from seeing 'crime' aka 'poverty'. These institutions are not log-jammed by accident. "You cater to trying to listen to every voice" Reader, they only listen to their friends and donors, this is the problem. These 'listening sessions' you are told are 'stopping progress' exist to placate legitimate concerns. Blaming unions is also fun, I heard that a lot back in Cali, no matter the issue, no matter the union, from the wealthiest people. Politicians that seem to do almost nothing are preferred by the donor class. Bog standard Democrats have more smoke for Zohran (the sincere housing and affordability guy) than they have for their 'Republican colleagues' in this era. That should tell you everything you need to know. "This level of ineffectiveness just enables authoritarianism ("at least they get something done") and gets people to seek the private industry for their solutions." EXACTLY. THIS IS INTENTIONAL. PUBLIC COST, PRIVATE PROFIT IS THE GOAL. A WELFARE STATE FOR BUSINESSES, NOT PEOPLE.
- queenkjuul 1y ago
  100%. Class solidarity is extremely strong amongst the wealthy.
  - pyuser583 1y ago
    Then why are the wealthy supporting left candidates, while working class supporting Trump. This is a really toxic dynamic, and I don’t understand it.
    - Fade_Dance 1y ago
      That's what the previous poster was getting at - moderate left cantidates are not bad for the wealthy. Very status quo. As for the working class, they don't feel represented, and the strongman shift is a predictable and toxic dynamic.
dylan604 1y ago
From time to time, we see response here that doing X is dumb because it is not a perfect solve. It's very common in discussions about solving pollution or energy use. Don't bother using EVs as we're still burning coal. Don't recycle because so much trash is everywhere else. These people are suggesting doing nothing until the perfect solve is available. Perfect will never happen. Instead make as many things better where you can while you can.
duxup 1y ago
A local school system near me was facing some financial issues a number of years ago. The superintendent noted that there were dozens and dozens of individual social programs that the school system managed. Many extending well beyond education and even testing the bounds of what might be called social work. While they all (on the surface) operated on the idea that if students got these services they would be more effective in school ... it wasn't clear for most of them if that was even the case / being measured. The superintendent noted that the only thing they could be sure of was that if they touched anyone of them, they were sure to be someone's baby and they'd face a backlash. Personally, I'd like to see a more "fail fast" type system for a lot of social programs. Run it, see what happens ... then make the call if it goes any further. But that would mean people would have to start up programs fast, and shut them down fast. Both are not easy.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  >it wasn't clear for most of them if that was even the case / being measured. If the programs were doing what they claimed they'd be measuring that and using the numbers as further justification. The fact that they're not speaks volumes.
  - duxup 1y ago
    Most of these programs are funded by government organizations so any measurement rules come form there, if there are any. It's less a choice than it is something (like much of the program) dictated.
- testing22321 1y ago
  > Personally, I'd like to see a more "fail fast" type system for a lot of social programs. Run it, see what happens ... then make the call if it goes any further. But that would mean people would have to start up programs fast, and shut them down fast. Both are not easy. My partner does exactly this with healthcare in BC. They spin up a project to trial, say, allowing nurses to prescribe methadone directly, or even for patients just to get it directly. They measure costs, patient outcomes, etc etc. After a set time get patient, doctor and nurse feedback. Looks good? Great, roll it out to the whole province and hurry up about it. They’re running 50+ of them continuously. Constant improvement is awesome.
Braxton1980 1y ago
The cities in Texas are run by Democrats
thewebguyd 1y ago
Those on the left also quite often suffer from letting perfect be the enemy of good. I've had a few friends over the years who would seem to prefer nothing be done rather than make incremental progress. I.e., how people will be critical of a carbon tax to help reduce emissions simply because it's not good enough, even if its a step in the right direction. We've seen it with health care as well. It's "medicare for all or bust." I appreciate the sentiment of wanting the right/perfect solution, but the perfect solution doesn't happen all at once. Often times a compromise is needed in order to help people right now, not hypothetically in the future. Sometimes that means you end up being less inclusive, but so be it if shit gets done.
- kridsdale1 1y ago
  This is something that Barack Obama used to complain about. Incremental progress is progress.
  - fakedang 1y ago
    Talking from personal experience, it applies also. Perfectionists like me are often deadlocked into not releasing something until it's perfectly executed, caters to every use case, takes every edge case into account, etc. My late cofounder spent (too much) time training me otherwise, that small incremental changes will compound into larger ones in a big enough timescale, and that it's more effective to simply get started than deliberate ages over it.
- dyauspitr 1y ago
  Definitely. Right now they’re “cancelling” Bill Burr because he went and did a show in Saudi Arabia. One of the left’s staunchest allies for years and one of the few males on the left that young boys can actually identify with and he’s in the trashcan for doing a show with the Saudis. It’s bonkers.
  - softwaredoug 1y ago
    If anyone is not cancelable it Bill Burr. Cancel culture is pretty defanged at the moment.
queenkjuul 1y ago
I think the center-left deliberately prefers not to get things done. Centrists are usually people treated well by the status quo and would rather find any excuse to keep things the way they are than acquiesce to the left or meaningfully challenge the right
techblueberry 1y ago
While I’m not specifically arguing against your conclusion, there are a few narratives that to me point unfortunately to a systemic cause. One is the book why nations fail, which among other causes points to circumstance and initial conditions. There was an interesting freakonomics podcast interviewing the mayor of, I think it was Dallas, and why Dallas was so successful, and the problem with California isnt sort of generic leftness but the specific organization of power structures that supports Nimbyism in a way that Texas doesn’t. Plus the irony the EPA was formed by Nixon and the modern California environmental act was formed by Reagan? The conspiracy theorist in me might suggest that in fact some of the environmental protections are explicitly right leaning to prevent progress.
motbus3 1y ago
I am not left, right, center. I am not even American. I am mostly curious why this is seem in center-left but (as I understood) not expected from the right? I am supposing that and endless stack of problems to solve is always good for any politician. There is always room to blame something/someone and propose something else of there is a problem. From outside, the discussions over immigrants in the United States seems to shadow deeper discussions on how to fix the rest. It seems to blame the outside world for the lack of internal competitivity while not recognising any of the obvious problems. For example, it is not a matter of preferirng public or private healthcare like here in Europe. It is a matter of getting what makes more sense. Same for environment, trading, taxes, etc.

sailingparrot 1y ago

This is basically the entire theme of "Abundance" by Klein and Thompson, for those looking for a longer read on this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(Klein_and_Thompson_book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(Klein_and_Thompson_...

spiritplumber 1y ago
thank you, i'll grab this!
rufus_foreman 1y ago
Another recent book along the same lines would be "Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress and How to Get It Back" by Marc Dunkelman: "When he looked into the history, Dunkelman realized that progressives have long swung back and forth between two opposing impulses. One is what he calls Hamiltonianism: the desire to achieve progress by empowering government and institutions to tackle big problems at the direction of strong leaders (like Robert Moses) and informed experts. The other is what he calls Jeffersonianism: the desire to prevent unaccountable centralized authorities (also like Robert Moses) from abusing ordinary citizens by empowering them to fight back." -- https://www.niskanencenter.org/why-nothing-works-with-marc-dunkelman/ https://www.niskanencenter.org/why-nothing-works-with-marc-d...
lkey 1y ago
Abundance is just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way neoliberalism with a new coat of paint. The answer to all questions is 'bust unions and environmental groups'. We've been here before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley All the Reaganite conservative institutions (https://www.abundancedc.org/speakers https://www.abundancedc.org/speakers) that are leery of fascism, but love business back this 'program'. We need a new 'New Deal', that rebuilds what was broken during these last 90 years. We need the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Perkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Perkins of this era. "Frances Perkins was not just the architect of SSA: she also proposed and implemented many of the foundational labor and safety laws1 still relied upon by the American working class. We can also thank her for the 40-hour work week, minimum wage, unemployment compensation, worker’s compensation, workplace safety, abolition of child labor, direct federal aid to the states for unemployment relief, a revitalized federal employment service, and universal health insurance. Well, except the last. We are still working on the last. " She got everything she wanted done as Labor Sec. Except for universal healthcare. And it was a great loss for everything living American every year since.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Somebody hasn't read the book, just knee jerk reactions to it.
  - lkey 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - eli_gottlieb 1y ago
      So basically you ignored the actual text in favor of the conspiracy theorist's "cui bono" about the funding structure behind the authors.
      - lkey 1y ago
        No, there's no conspiracy here. Ezra's probably a true believer, which I think is sadder honestly. There is no coordination besides shared interest in protecting capital, same as it ever was. Shared 'class interest' and 'class solidarity' if you like. Though some of these folks are probably in weird passive aggressive and catty group chats these days, like Andresson and Thiel. It is not a conspiracy to look at the super-pacs funding candidates with weird positions either. The transfers of cash are pretty open in our second gilded age. These 'third way' institutes and movements pop up every decade or so if you are paying attention. The literal 'Third Way' and 'Tea Party' movements were funded directly by some of these 'abundance' groups. But there's no 'shadowy cabal' or secret. They are open about their desires, and rely on marketing to paper over the obvious. Manufacturing consent for union breaking in Cali (Ezra didn't outright say it, but Josh Barro did) is clearly in their interest. It's also clear from many of them comments here like: 'I don't care who profits as long as there are suddenly houses' that show the 'abundance' gambit is succeeding. And to be clear, I'm not against the message 'build more housing', but these are not people you should trust. They need to prove they are serious. Their track record tells me they will bait, switch, and act as spoilers. Don't take just my word for it though! When they don't accomplish or even push for what they originally claimed their core goals are, remember this conversation.
thrance 1y ago
Wow, deregulation and austerity, what a fresh perspective on the economy! This abundance "movement" has absolutely nothing new to offer, it is simply a rebranding of neoliberalism. It's easy to spot too, just look at who backs the movement: the same old establishment democrats and their wealthy donors. The same people who have entranched the democratic party into this technocratic blob of ineffectiveness and societal erosion. In particular, it is financially backed by, among others, Peter Thiel and Mark Andreessen. This should raise some red flags. Also, I personally like winning. This abundance movement has exactly zero electoral hype. American voters don't care about it at all. Meanwhile, populist leftists like Mamdani are able to generate momentum for the left for the first time in decades. That Klein, Thompson and the billionaires behind them are so harshly criticizing them should raise additional red flags.
- RetiredRichard 1y ago
  The writer of this article (Dave) publicly dislikes Derek Thompson and keeps criticizing Matt Ygelasis for his austerity fetish, along with praising Mamdani
- sailingparrot 1y ago
  Your argument boils down to "people already said some things like this in the past" (ok, and?) and "some people I don't like agree with part of it", which is very weak and doesn't address anything in substance. You know, you can still want to be able to build housing without having to wait 1 year for permitting or not want to live in a place where making a basic train track is basically impossible because of the number of stakeholders that have to come to a consensus and still vote for Mamdani. You are allowed to have non black and white opinions. You can even have 1% of the things you think are good in common with Peter Thiel, and that won't immediately turn you into a far right psychopath. You can even, hear me out, be for less regulation on specific areas where there has been a massive lack of supply but not for "deregulating the economy" in it's entirety!
  - thrance 1y ago
    Housing can either be an investment vehicle or affordable, but not both at the same time. The abundance crowd remains willfully blind to this obvious reality, and is why they will fail. They promise to make housing affordable while receiving millions from people who became rich off of housing not being affordable. It fundamentally can't deliver on its promise, because it is completely compromised from the start. I perceive abundance as a big grift to keep the populist left out of the democratic party, which is something they spend a lot of energy doing. How else could you explain this obsession of the abundance crowd for shooting down any populist policy or messaging?
RetiredRichard 1y ago
I don't think Dave associates himself with the abundance movement
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

snapplebobapple 1y ago

for as long as the left has not been about the working class and been about university educated white collar government workers this has been true though. It may have been true prior to that too i just dont have living memory to back it up. There is something about being removed from the reality of how the metaphorical sausage is made that turns the left from having some valid concerns but usually wrong ideas on how to address them into actively incomptent civilization destroyers. I would love to know why.

softwaredoug 1y ago
When you go back to The New Deal, its absolutely the case that the Dem coalition was much more effective at delivery. To some extent because FDR acted very aggressively with executive action. My personal opinion is the working class, not the fancy educated types, need to run the Dem coalition. It would be far more effective in a number of ways... with broader appeal.
- cameldrv 1y ago
  It’s a different coalition now though. The FDR Democrats were labor focused. Then the 60s happened. The New Left student movements reoriented away from labor and towards racial/gender/sexual equality, and Kennedy signed the Civil Rights Act. Southern whites opposed this and you had George Wallace pop up, splitting the Democrats, and then Nixon swooped in with the Southern Strategy. The Democrats needed a new coalition and they went with disadvantaged racial/gender/sexual groups instead of labor. The transition didn’t really finish until Clinton and the New Democrats though. Campaign money and TV ads got to be really important in Presidential politics, and to get that money, Democrats had to appeal to rich people, so they got rid of most of the labor aspects of the platform. Clinton signed NAFTA and MFN for China. Now there were two pro-business parties that served different identity groups. Ironically the last gasp of labor was the billionaire Ross Perot in 92 and 96 who ran on an anti-NAFTA platform. The only way he could do this credibly was to use his own money to buy TV time.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago

Herring 1y ago

[..]

softwaredoug 1y ago
"Provide more assistance" My point is that I'm not sure we need more assistance. TBH we need better, more efficient assistance. We spend a lot on deliberation, not enough on delivery. A lot of this is due to leadership gaps IMO. Center-left leaders (ie Schumer) look weak because they excessively triangulate every stakeholder. Instead leaders need to act as true leaders, which means being a touch less collaborative / trying to triangulate. And more focused on some top-down, cut through red-tape, have a vision, persuade people etc. (Then, arguably if people saw the system working well, they might want to award it with more money.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

matula 1y ago

This is an interesting thought. I also wonder if Houston is "helped" by the fact that they're a blue city in a red state... that kind of ideological conflict of governance requires unique and localized solutions. Whereas SF is blue city in a blue state, so it creates a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation.

cootsnuck 1y ago
I think it also just creates a lack of "urgency" problem. I live in a blue city in a red state. Constituents expect results because we can't rely on our state gov. Local officials know this. There's more competition from more progressive candidates too locally which is helpful in keeping liberal officials more focused on results instead of the game of politics. Idk, I think it's different for every city. But I think the point I'm trying to make is that having some kind of political constraints in governance seems to typically be a good thing for the sake of getting some shit done. Actually I think I'm just stating an obvious point now given the glaring ineffectiveness of our two party political system...
rtkwe 1y ago
It probably does make it easier to make drastic changes as described to consolidate data sharing etc when they ultimate authority is likely the city/county instead of the state. The state level agencies will have their own policies, systems and goals/approaches that might not suite the individual cities so the programs remain separated and fragmented.
mjd 1y ago
The article itself makes this point more than once.

roenxi 1y ago

Nothing wrong with deliberation and listening to stakeholders. Great idea. The issue is the centre-left voters keep asking these institutions to take on more power, channel more funds and veto more projects [0]. I don't see how else they expect large centralised bodies to play out. I'm not sure if the US left even has a collective theory of how to fight institutional rot apart from stuffing institutions with leftists and assuming they do they right thing. Expecting good results from that strategy requires a certain naivete to the sort of people who seek power in government. [0] Not just them, the centre right also seems to love the idea based on what I've read. Not the brightest crowd.

Yossarrian22 1y ago
Isn’t China even more centralized? They complete infrastructure projects in years not decades.
- roenxi 1y ago
  I dunno, is it? In what sense are you comparing the centralisation of the two countries? The US is pretty centralised. Around 40% of its spending is via the government and of the balance a lot of the decision making is controlled by the government.
- Fade_Dance 1y ago
  China isn't centralized when it comes to boots on the ground policy implementation. The regional governments are extremely important. They direct subsidies and issue loans and have massive balance sheets and their own banks, they decide production capacity and things like factory output targets, they even decide which industries they specialize in, like EVs vs solar panels, etc. Of course there is a framework from the CCP, and if red lines are crossed the big stick comes out and people are made an example of, but the regionals run the society. Including things like the social safety net. That's all regional and it's different between different regions. There's a fairly large gap between how China works internally and how the west sees China. For a more concrete example, the recent Third Plenum planning session was the typical communist style decade long roadmap with loud bullet points and achievement targets. Then there is a multi-month-long gap, all of the politicians go home, they work out how to achieve the goals between themselves, and they present their plans for approval. It's actually not as top down as you would think. As you may sense, there is a sort of competition at play. If the committee is looking to consolidate key sectors like electric vehicles and increase industrial profits, the leaders who implement this guidance the best that get the acclaim. Likewise, if the central government is doing something like de-risking the regional banks, you so not want to be the region with the problems. Good luck in your career and climbing the ladder if so... This power play dynamic is also strategically used to play different factions against themselves in a multifaceted way that is sometimes obvious but often has quiet subterfuge, in typical Chinese fashion.

lkey 1y ago

SF, Dallas, and Houston all have Democratic leadership that could be described as center left? (For America. To an outsider, America has two conservative parties) The unhoused are 'stakeholders' too actually, so I'd describe Cali's problem as listening too much to wealthy/powerful stakeholders, while ignoring those most impacted. Who can forget Newsom's camp-destroying photo-op and forced bussing the undesirables out of town to prevent people from seeing 'crime' aka 'poverty'. These institutions are not log-jammed by accident. "You cater to trying to listen to every voice" Reader, they only listen to their friends and donors, this is the problem. These 'listening sessions' you are told are 'stopping progress' exist to placate legitimate concerns. Blaming unions is also fun, I heard that a lot back in Cali, no matter the issue, no matter the union, from the wealthiest people. Politicians that seem to do almost nothing are preferred by the donor class. Bog standard Democrats have more smoke for Zohran (the sincere housing and affordability guy) than they have for their 'Republican colleagues' in this era. That should tell you everything you need to know. "This level of ineffectiveness just enables authoritarianism ("at least they get something done") and gets people to seek the private industry for their solutions." EXACTLY. THIS IS INTENTIONAL. PUBLIC COST, PRIVATE PROFIT IS THE GOAL. A WELFARE STATE FOR BUSINESSES, NOT PEOPLE.

queenkjuul 1y ago
100%. Class solidarity is extremely strong amongst the wealthy.
- pyuser583 1y ago
  Then why are the wealthy supporting left candidates, while working class supporting Trump. This is a really toxic dynamic, and I don’t understand it.
  - Fade_Dance 1y ago
    That's what the previous poster was getting at - moderate left cantidates are not bad for the wealthy. Very status quo. As for the working class, they don't feel represented, and the strongman shift is a predictable and toxic dynamic.

dylan604 1y ago

From time to time, we see response here that doing X is dumb because it is not a perfect solve. It's very common in discussions about solving pollution or energy use. Don't bother using EVs as we're still burning coal. Don't recycle because so much trash is everywhere else. These people are suggesting doing nothing until the perfect solve is available. Perfect will never happen. Instead make as many things better where you can while you can.

duxup 1y ago

A local school system near me was facing some financial issues a number of years ago. The superintendent noted that there were dozens and dozens of individual social programs that the school system managed. Many extending well beyond education and even testing the bounds of what might be called social work. While they all (on the surface) operated on the idea that if students got these services they would be more effective in school ... it wasn't clear for most of them if that was even the case / being measured. The superintendent noted that the only thing they could be sure of was that if they touched anyone of them, they were sure to be someone's baby and they'd face a backlash. Personally, I'd like to see a more "fail fast" type system for a lot of social programs. Run it, see what happens ... then make the call if it goes any further. But that would mean people would have to start up programs fast, and shut them down fast. Both are not easy.

potato3732842 1y ago
>it wasn't clear for most of them if that was even the case / being measured. If the programs were doing what they claimed they'd be measuring that and using the numbers as further justification. The fact that they're not speaks volumes.
- duxup 1y ago
  Most of these programs are funded by government organizations so any measurement rules come form there, if there are any. It's less a choice than it is something (like much of the program) dictated.
testing22321 1y ago
> Personally, I'd like to see a more "fail fast" type system for a lot of social programs. Run it, see what happens ... then make the call if it goes any further. But that would mean people would have to start up programs fast, and shut them down fast. Both are not easy. My partner does exactly this with healthcare in BC. They spin up a project to trial, say, allowing nurses to prescribe methadone directly, or even for patients just to get it directly. They measure costs, patient outcomes, etc etc. After a set time get patient, doctor and nurse feedback. Looks good? Great, roll it out to the whole province and hurry up about it. They’re running 50+ of them continuously. Constant improvement is awesome.

Braxton1980 1y ago

The cities in Texas are run by Democrats

thewebguyd 1y ago

Those on the left also quite often suffer from letting perfect be the enemy of good. I've had a few friends over the years who would seem to prefer nothing be done rather than make incremental progress. I.e., how people will be critical of a carbon tax to help reduce emissions simply because it's not good enough, even if its a step in the right direction. We've seen it with health care as well. It's "medicare for all or bust." I appreciate the sentiment of wanting the right/perfect solution, but the perfect solution doesn't happen all at once. Often times a compromise is needed in order to help people right now, not hypothetically in the future. Sometimes that means you end up being less inclusive, but so be it if shit gets done.

kridsdale1 1y ago
This is something that Barack Obama used to complain about. Incremental progress is progress.
- fakedang 1y ago
  Talking from personal experience, it applies also. Perfectionists like me are often deadlocked into not releasing something until it's perfectly executed, caters to every use case, takes every edge case into account, etc. My late cofounder spent (too much) time training me otherwise, that small incremental changes will compound into larger ones in a big enough timescale, and that it's more effective to simply get started than deliberate ages over it.
dyauspitr 1y ago
Definitely. Right now they’re “cancelling” Bill Burr because he went and did a show in Saudi Arabia. One of the left’s staunchest allies for years and one of the few males on the left that young boys can actually identify with and he’s in the trashcan for doing a show with the Saudis. It’s bonkers.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  If anyone is not cancelable it Bill Burr. Cancel culture is pretty defanged at the moment.

queenkjuul 1y ago

I think the center-left deliberately prefers not to get things done. Centrists are usually people treated well by the status quo and would rather find any excuse to keep things the way they are than acquiesce to the left or meaningfully challenge the right

techblueberry 1y ago

While I’m not specifically arguing against your conclusion, there are a few narratives that to me point unfortunately to a systemic cause. One is the book why nations fail, which among other causes points to circumstance and initial conditions. There was an interesting freakonomics podcast interviewing the mayor of, I think it was Dallas, and why Dallas was so successful, and the problem with California isnt sort of generic leftness but the specific organization of power structures that supports Nimbyism in a way that Texas doesn’t. Plus the irony the EPA was formed by Nixon and the modern California environmental act was formed by Reagan? The conspiracy theorist in me might suggest that in fact some of the environmental protections are explicitly right leaning to prevent progress.

motbus3 1y ago

I am not left, right, center. I am not even American. I am mostly curious why this is seem in center-left but (as I understood) not expected from the right? I am supposing that and endless stack of problems to solve is always good for any politician. There is always room to blame something/someone and propose something else of there is a problem. From outside, the discussions over immigrants in the United States seems to shadow deeper discussions on how to fix the rest. It seems to blame the outside world for the lack of internal competitivity while not recognising any of the obvious problems. For example, it is not a matter of preferirng public or private healthcare like here in Europe. It is a matter of getting what makes more sense. Same for environment, trading, taxes, etc.