Republicans like to paint Democrats as the party of "big government" and "ivory tower elites". Although a look at the Democratic platform doesn't flat out say "we want bigger government", most of the Democratic goals would require government involvement - legislation, regulations, etc.
I don't quibble with Democratic goals so much as the methods they use to get there. There are two pieces to this. One - that as an educated individual myself, while I can sympathize with the frustration at trying to convince people to support a plan they don't know much about, a democratic system requires continuing efforts at education rather than trying to impose 'what's best for everyone' from the top down. Too often there's an unstated attitude of "we know what's best for you, and if you're too stupid to see it then we will just have to find a way of making it happen anyway." (Not saying it doesn't happen with conservatives, either. It's just that right now there's a lot of talk about anti-intellectualism, and it's mostly associated with the conservative side. And most people on the liberal side dismiss that critique out of hand. I think it's worth pointing out why people might be disposed to disbelieve elite opinion.)
James C. Scott has an excellent book calling Seeing Like a State, that discusses some of the issues and challenges that occur when a government tries to engineer a society from the top down. While I do think education is good for something, it needs to be coupled with a sense of humility and an awareness of the complex environment you are working in. Otherwise you end up with Brasilia, and the unplanned Brasilia that grew up to compensate for the flaws in the planned one.
I'm not saying you should give up planning entirely, just leave room for the unplanned and unexpected...and don't get so tied to your idea of some utopia that you fail to account for the real world. Sometimes that obstacle to your plan is actually something, once you address, that can make it better.
Speaking of obstacles that can make things better - here's some of the issues with big government. First - these are not necessarily issues of today. It's just that it's important to consider what potential there is for harm further down the road. Particularly if someone unscrupulous winds up in charge.
When you have the power to give, you also have the power to take away. That's part of why there's been more recent research into the problems with giving out rewards. They can become so normal and expected that NOT getting a reward seems like a punishment. So any government benefit also increases the government's ability to make your life difficult under certain circumstances. Maybe you'll be deemed ineligible for that student loan you need, or food stamps, or what-have-you. This is part of why I kind of prefer the government policy of giving grants to non-government organizations. In that sense, people don't feel like it's the government deciding whether or not they get assistance...it's a non-profit. And if there's issues with one organization (like it's religion-based and won't help someone who is LGBTQA or whatever the acronym is these days) or some other issues, there are other options. The more options the better.
(The downside to that, of course, is that there's not necessarily a lot of coordination between these agencies. So one person may not get any help, and another may draw on two or more organizations to get more help than others.)
One of the results of the recession is that more of these types of organizations are struggling to make ends meet as government grants shrivel up. (Big Brothers Big Sisters is well enough known that I don't think it's doing too bad, but I do think it still felt the effects.)
In addition to having the power to give (and take away), there's just something impersonal, dehumanizing, and ineffective about bureaucratic government involvement. Filling out hundreds of documents. In triplicate. Meeting some impersonal and over-worked government employee who doesn't see you as a person. Waiting in line or on the phone for someone knowledgeable to help steer you to the next step.
These things don't generally build relationships between people, either. Or they do by accident, if someone happens to be in and out of a government agency so often that they get to know the people there.
Relationships matter. It's relationships that lead to real change. An organization like Big Brothers Big Sisters can make a difference in someone's life because you're building relationships with them. Waiting in line or on the phone for some by-the-book impersonal bureaucrat doesn't.
In a way, this reminds me of a change I saw with the Indiana BMV. (I find it funny how some states call it a BMV and others call it a DMV. Either way, it's the place you go for your driver's license and vehicle registration.) When I was a teenager, the BMV was just about as awful as every depiction of bureacracy you've ever seen. You'd have to plan for a wait of an unknown period of time. Service was s l o o o o w w w. If you didn't have the right paperwork, which you might now know right away, the entire trip was wasted. The employees took forever on the computer, there seemed like a lot of forms to fill out, and if I recall correctly you had to wait for your license to get mailed to you. And received a temporary license until then.
Last time I went to the BMV (and it's been a while, since I now live in Illinois) there was a world of difference. Someone checked that you had the right paperwork up front, processing was fast, the lines were short, and overall it was just a much better experience.
It's like...you can make the system better. If you provide the right resources. A case worker swamped with more cases than they can handle is just not going to be able to offer up timely and personal service.
People complain about feelings of entitlement, government dependency, and ingratitude. How much of that comes from dealing with a bureaucracy? If you have to wait for hours (or days) for assistance, and you deal with a different bureaucrat every time, and fill out paperwork until you're sick of it, you will have a much different experience from working with a person who knows you, has your best interests at heart, and is helping you take advantage of those resources in order to make your life better.
This, btw, is not something that necessarily has to be government provided. As I said, there's numerous non-government agencies that provide services to those in need. I'm putting it out there more as a goal for the level of involvement required. And to suggest that we get to that level by empowering local communities and taking advantage of our republican structure, rather than have some centralized federal government try doing it all.
(This leads to some interesting discussions on centralization, decentralization, and nested hierarchies but that's a topic better discussed another time.)
I don't quibble with Democratic goals so much as the methods they use to get there. There are two pieces to this. One - that as an educated individual myself, while I can sympathize with the frustration at trying to convince people to support a plan they don't know much about, a democratic system requires continuing efforts at education rather than trying to impose 'what's best for everyone' from the top down. Too often there's an unstated attitude of "we know what's best for you, and if you're too stupid to see it then we will just have to find a way of making it happen anyway." (Not saying it doesn't happen with conservatives, either. It's just that right now there's a lot of talk about anti-intellectualism, and it's mostly associated with the conservative side. And most people on the liberal side dismiss that critique out of hand. I think it's worth pointing out why people might be disposed to disbelieve elite opinion.)
James C. Scott has an excellent book calling Seeing Like a State, that discusses some of the issues and challenges that occur when a government tries to engineer a society from the top down. While I do think education is good for something, it needs to be coupled with a sense of humility and an awareness of the complex environment you are working in. Otherwise you end up with Brasilia, and the unplanned Brasilia that grew up to compensate for the flaws in the planned one.
I'm not saying you should give up planning entirely, just leave room for the unplanned and unexpected...and don't get so tied to your idea of some utopia that you fail to account for the real world. Sometimes that obstacle to your plan is actually something, once you address, that can make it better.
Speaking of obstacles that can make things better - here's some of the issues with big government. First - these are not necessarily issues of today. It's just that it's important to consider what potential there is for harm further down the road. Particularly if someone unscrupulous winds up in charge.
When you have the power to give, you also have the power to take away. That's part of why there's been more recent research into the problems with giving out rewards. They can become so normal and expected that NOT getting a reward seems like a punishment. So any government benefit also increases the government's ability to make your life difficult under certain circumstances. Maybe you'll be deemed ineligible for that student loan you need, or food stamps, or what-have-you. This is part of why I kind of prefer the government policy of giving grants to non-government organizations. In that sense, people don't feel like it's the government deciding whether or not they get assistance...it's a non-profit. And if there's issues with one organization (like it's religion-based and won't help someone who is LGBTQA or whatever the acronym is these days) or some other issues, there are other options. The more options the better.
(The downside to that, of course, is that there's not necessarily a lot of coordination between these agencies. So one person may not get any help, and another may draw on two or more organizations to get more help than others.)
One of the results of the recession is that more of these types of organizations are struggling to make ends meet as government grants shrivel up. (Big Brothers Big Sisters is well enough known that I don't think it's doing too bad, but I do think it still felt the effects.)
In addition to having the power to give (and take away), there's just something impersonal, dehumanizing, and ineffective about bureaucratic government involvement. Filling out hundreds of documents. In triplicate. Meeting some impersonal and over-worked government employee who doesn't see you as a person. Waiting in line or on the phone for someone knowledgeable to help steer you to the next step.
These things don't generally build relationships between people, either. Or they do by accident, if someone happens to be in and out of a government agency so often that they get to know the people there.
Relationships matter. It's relationships that lead to real change. An organization like Big Brothers Big Sisters can make a difference in someone's life because you're building relationships with them. Waiting in line or on the phone for some by-the-book impersonal bureaucrat doesn't.
In a way, this reminds me of a change I saw with the Indiana BMV. (I find it funny how some states call it a BMV and others call it a DMV. Either way, it's the place you go for your driver's license and vehicle registration.) When I was a teenager, the BMV was just about as awful as every depiction of bureacracy you've ever seen. You'd have to plan for a wait of an unknown period of time. Service was s l o o o o w w w. If you didn't have the right paperwork, which you might now know right away, the entire trip was wasted. The employees took forever on the computer, there seemed like a lot of forms to fill out, and if I recall correctly you had to wait for your license to get mailed to you. And received a temporary license until then.
Last time I went to the BMV (and it's been a while, since I now live in Illinois) there was a world of difference. Someone checked that you had the right paperwork up front, processing was fast, the lines were short, and overall it was just a much better experience.
It's like...you can make the system better. If you provide the right resources. A case worker swamped with more cases than they can handle is just not going to be able to offer up timely and personal service.
People complain about feelings of entitlement, government dependency, and ingratitude. How much of that comes from dealing with a bureaucracy? If you have to wait for hours (or days) for assistance, and you deal with a different bureaucrat every time, and fill out paperwork until you're sick of it, you will have a much different experience from working with a person who knows you, has your best interests at heart, and is helping you take advantage of those resources in order to make your life better.
This, btw, is not something that necessarily has to be government provided. As I said, there's numerous non-government agencies that provide services to those in need. I'm putting it out there more as a goal for the level of involvement required. And to suggest that we get to that level by empowering local communities and taking advantage of our republican structure, rather than have some centralized federal government try doing it all.
(This leads to some interesting discussions on centralization, decentralization, and nested hierarchies but that's a topic better discussed another time.)
No comments:
Post a Comment