The majority of America's political debates can be summarized in just two short conversations:
SCENE ONE
A: "Look at this wide-ranging, comprehensive legislation that will change everything."
B: "Have you actually read it? This legislation spans several volumes, much of it indecipherable. If it really replaces the existing paradigm, then you're seeing a bonanza for politically-connected players as they swoop in to provide what this legislation requires."
A: "Under existing legislation, your side benefited because you passed it and your friends and lobbyists doled out contracts based on your understanding of the legislation. Why it is a problem if we do the same thing?"
B: "Well, if it works, we're going to catch hell because it'll look like we didn't know what we were doing before, so I'm going to try to stop it. Then we'll copy the parts we think we can incorporate into our existing framework, take the credit, and let the judges resolve any poorly-worded sections."
A: "Sounds like you've got a lot of faith in lawyers and litigation, but go ahead and try to stop us. We'll blame you for harming the poor, handicapped, [insert vulnerable group], and the country by not passing this."
B: "How are you going to fund the legislation? More taxes? Good luck with that."
A: "We will do exactly what you do--borrow money. We're the federal government. We can borrow as much as we want."
B: "What's next? Are you going to promise voters a unicorn in every backyard?"
A: "If it wins us the election, why not?"
SCENE TWO
A: "We've been getting complaints about [INSERT GOVERNMENT AGENCY]. They are too slow."
B: "We can centralize the work, but eventually we'll become a sprawling, intractable bureaucracy and lose all efficiency we gained pre-consolidation."
A: "But right now, by spreading the work across different local and state agencies, we're creating unnecessary complexity."
B: "Sure, but we're also reducing opportunities for centralized corruption and giving residents an easier time contacting local officials, who are more closely situated to the issues."
A: "That may be true, but decentralization also potentially creates entrenched political fiefdoms because multiple agencies can slow down the work deliberately or claim they are not getting enough credit or recognition. Can't one entrenched city council hold up the entire process if it rejects accountability or if it tacks on additional requirements purely to justify its existence or expansion?"
B: "Sort of. The more decentralized a government process, the more lawyers are required to navigate the system. In other words, more government complexity reduces personal agency, but also potentially improves the system as it adapts over time while keeping lawyers, judges, and legal associations in the loop."
A: "So decentralization oftentimes means more lawyers, which either improves efficiency or reduces it based on finding the right lawyer; on the other hand, centralization might makes everything easier by creating a 'one-stop shop' but in doing so, eventually increases the risk of corruption."
B: "In theory, the smaller the country and the smaller the population, the better centralization works, whereas the larger the country and the more diverse the population, the better decentralization works. This, however, is only a theory. Many other factors are in play, such as inflation, social cohesion, etc."
END SCENE
© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (February 2021)
Bonus: In the spirit of political cartoonist Tom Toles, I'll add the following sidebar to the first scene: "It's almost as if an independent third party could somehow help."
No comments:
Post a Comment