

Increasing complexity: A day in the life of the president - linhir
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/09/broken-washington-201009?printable=true

======
uuilly
"Gridlock is not an American problem, it is an American achievement! When
James Madison and 54 other geniuses went to Philadelphia in the sweltering
summer of 1787, they did not go there to design an efficient government. That
idea would have horrified them. They wanted a safe government, to which end
they filled it with blocking mechanisms: three branches of government, two
branches of the legislative branch, veto, veto override, supermajorities, and
judicial review. And yet, I can think of nothing the American people have
wanted intensely and protractedly that they did not eventually get. The world
understands, a world most of whose people live under governments they wish
were capable of gridlock, that we always have more to fear from government
speed than government tardiness."

-George Will

~~~
loewenskind
This is only the case when you imagine your government is only capable of
incompetence. A safe assumption in America but not everywhere.

~~~
jackowayed
They didn't design the government that way because they were afraid of
government incompetence. They were afraid of replacing one tyrant with another
tyrant or small group of them.

And also of majorities persecuting minorities. And of the government getting
caught up in "popular passions" and overreacting to things that people briefly
got very fired up about.

~~~
loewenskind
Well, my point was that other governments weren't designed that way and do
fine. I think it's safe to say that people in e.g. Sweden trust their
government more since (a) there are so many government services and (b) Sweden
is supposed to be the most democratic place on earth.

> And of the government getting caught up in "popular passions" and
> overreacting to things that people briefly got very fired up about.

Well, the US government still does this to devastating effect (e.g. "war on
terror", patriot act, etc.).

~~~
luu
Sweden is a small[1] culturally and racially homogenous country. If you look
at indices that try to measure good governance, they correlate very strongly
with all of those factors [2]. It's amazing that the U.S. does as well as it
does, considering its size, and the fact that it allows so many poor
immigrants with heterogeneous backgrounds into the country.

[1] population ~ 9M. NYC alone has nearly 8M people and is much more diverse.
[2] <http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/mc_chart.asp>

------
flipbrad
If I have an issue with this article, it's that it reaches a crescendo of
Obama-worship by the end (celebrating healthcare reform with a depiction of a
White House martini-on-the-balcony scene worthy of a crap James Bond ending) -
clearly, the price of access to Rahm Emanuel. Thus after painting a derogatory
picture of 24/7 news media (not Vanity Fair's game) as a child badly in need
of Ritalin, then playing down the general media's power (" The press may claim
the vestigial title of Fourth Estate, but it is the lobbying industry that is
now effectively the fourth branch of government"), Vanity Fair is actually
trading its detachment and objectivity for access to the Oval Office; hardly
demonstrative of the standards it bemoans the absence of in Washington... a
poetic illustration of a different facet of Washington's ills, maybe, but
really unimpressive.

------
philwelch
I have to wonder whether the increasing difficulty of the presidency may have
been one of the reasons for Bush's and now Obama's poor performance and
reputation. It may indeed be too much work for anyone to do well.

~~~
martey
The article seems to suggest that it is rather the result of a press looking
for short-term advantage over their competitors and an uneducated populace who
listens to them. I think that it is true that increases in lobbying and
decreases in bipartisanship have reduced the ability of much of the American
government (not just the presidency) to get things done, but I think those
issues would be mitigated if more of the voting population was willing to
delve deeper into legislative issues. Soundbites might be easier to digest,
but they are also less filling.

------
maxklein
That's an advantage of the Chinese system - you can run the system as a
collaboration between a committee of Bureaucrats, and leave all the baby-
kissing or earthquake-rubble-trapped-person-cheering-up to the premier.

Such complexity is too much for a single person - a group of technocrats is a
better way to run such a huge and complicated machine.

~~~
swombat
Give it another 10-20 years to see if the Chinese economy doesn't pop, before
claiming the Chinese model to be superior in some way. The endless rows of
empty buildings in Shanghai tell a different story, despite the "group of
technocrats"' desire to keep that hushed.

~~~
maxklein
What a weak argument! Yes, let's wait 10-20 years to come back to this comment
to say "I told you so."

------
temphn
The fundamental problem is the centralization of what should be distributed
computation and decision making. The federal government busies itself with
making rules that prohibit and distort voluntary exchanges between individuals
and businesses. Many of the rules it considers or enacts in a fit of piqué or
in response to the latest headline pose existential threats to businesses.

To survive, businesses have to lobby. The money is also nothing comparatively.
Obama and co spent around 787 billion, just on the stimulus. That sort of
money flying through the air can destroy you directly or flow into the pockets
of your competitors. So against your better judgment and with a heavy heart
you lobby. You would much rather that Washington geld itself so that you can
get back to growing your business.

