Why the U.S. Can’t Solve Big Problems
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Julian Zelizer presents a litany of justifications for authoritarian government in an OpEd published in the Atlantic. And the dreamed for authoritarian approach to solving big problems is premised on a delusional belief that people with the proper expertise, credentials, and bank accounts will govern in a benevolent manner.
The Utopian ideal of benevolent authoritarian government is contrary to real human history. The very real history of politics, religion, economics, law, and even science has shown that authoritarian power is a corrupting influence responsible for creating more long lasting problems than has been solved. "This time will be different" has failed far too many times throughout history to be credible.
The culture of the United States is not anti-intellectual, it is anti-authoritarian. Intellectuals have repeatedly claimed ability to solve big problems if they only had the centralized authority to impose their solutions on society. However, in the United States it is necessary for intellectuals to solve problems without authority. The good ideas of intellectuals can only come to fruition by public acceptance, not by government decree. Apparently that consensus approach is too difficult for those with intellectual expertise and credentials. Intellectuals have repeatedly demanded the authority to impose their ideas on the public no matter how much the public might object.
The system of government in the United States is specifically designed to prevent an authoritarian approach to solving problems. The arguments being presented portray that as a flaw. But that claimed flaw was deliberately intended. Apparently those with the proper expertise, credentials, and bank accounts are not that superior; they cannot seem to solve problems without authoritarian power over society. If the ideas of experts must be imposed on society, how good are those ideas?
The alternative of grassroots activism is the populist politics so recently declared a threat by Hillary Clinton. The demands for stronger controls on immigration really is a result of grassroots activism. And the so called denial of climate change is also grass roots activism against unacceptable solutions proffered by intellectuals.
Like it or not the United States was established on the idea of solving problems by public consensus. And history has shown that the United States will rip itself apart when authoritarian approaches are imposed on the public. The Utopian dream of solving problems by giving intellectual experts power over society has always failed in the United States.
The United States solves problems by empowering the public; not by obtaining power over the public.
Tags
Who is online
67 visitors
Like it or not the United States was established on the idea of solving problems by public consensus. And history has shown that the United States will rip itself apart when authoritarian approaches are imposed on the public. The Utopian dream of solving problems by giving intellectual experts power over society has always failed in the United States.
Intellectual expertise is in the eyes of the beholder, when we have some representatives touting the notion that our planet is only 6,000 years old, I am a wee bit reluctant to bestow any title suggesting intellect to them.
The main problem is we have way too many children in the current playpen (Washington D.C.) sans adult supervision as evidenced yesterday during the Cohen hearings.
It's the MONEY in government. The money talks, the legislators, politicians & lobbyists listen. They don't listen to the American people until they are forced to. Government is not inherently bad, its who we elect.
And yet over the years we continue to elect officials of the same ilk, so that makes us??????????
Why the U.S. Can’t Solve Big Problems
Because at some point we began to think small. We can and we have accomplished great things, what it takes is political will and determination, both of which are certainly lacking in this day and age. Also as lib50 notes, get the money out of the system and have our legislators actually write the laws rather than farming it out to the lobbyists.
The primary problem Mr. Zelier demonstrates is that we....as a nation....are absolutely terrible at math.
If a Princeton professor imagines that $21 billion in road damage over 81 years is a substantial amount, the problem is worse than we imagine. He complains about having a science-denier in the White House while we apparently have a math-denier as historian at Princeton.
It is also odd that his definition of "solving big problems" seems wholly limited to government action.
When you are horrible at math and believe only the government can save you, then yes....the world looks bleak. It's difficult not to laugh at the irony of his complaint about "anti-intellectualism".
I would never look towards government to solve many big problems like cancer things like that will be solved by private for profit endeavors.
The problems caused by government will need to be solved by government but that will require some level of consensus on an issue for anything to be done to repair the damage the government has done. One example is the debt. Many view it as a big problem others like Warren Buffett claim deficit spending doesn’t matter.
False.
Instead of just stating that Zelizer is doing this, why don't you give examples? You don't... because you can't.
This is typical: Saying "Mr X says yada-yada", when Mr X has never said anything of the kind.
Just make $hit up!!
From the seeded op/ed article (my emphasis added):
"The separation of powers, which ensures that no single part of the government can ever achieve unified control of the policymaking process, has been a blessing and a curse."
"American anti-intellectualism stands in the way of change, too. "
"Perhaps as influential as anti-intellectualism is anti-statism: the resistance to strong government, and accompanying confidence in the private marketplace, which hampers lawmakers’ ability to mobilize support for the large-scale regulations or programs needed to tackle big challenges."
And the concluding paragraph:
"The way out is through grassroots activism. Civil-rights legislation seemed impossible until it wasn’t. Health care legislation seemed impossible until it wasn’t. Activists keep up pressure on media organizations to cover climate change, and on wavering politicians to rethink their opposition to desperately needed reforms and regulations. Of course the problem with climate change is that there is such a thing as too late. If lawmakers don’t act until the environment degrades perceptibly, then they’ve passed the point of no return."
The examples of Civil Rights, health care, and climate change are examples of grass roots activism being used to justify government and institutions imposing remedies developed by intellectuals in an authoritarian manner. The examples of Civil Rights, health care, and climate change were not about empowering the public to address those problems.
You said "litany of justifications for authoritarian government". That is not true.
That is makin' $hit up!
Obviously not since I provided the examples from the article that were demanded.
Did you read the seeded article or are you just makin' $shit up?
Where did Julian Zelizer point out that the United States solves problems by empowering the public; not by obtaining power over the public?
Good Lord!
You cite: "The way out is through grassroots activism. Civil-rights legislation seemed impossible until it wasn’t. Health care legislation seemed impossible until it wasn’t. Activists keep up pressure on media organizations to cover climate change, and on wavering politicians to rethink their opposition to desperately needed reforms and regulations. Of course the problem with climate change is that there is such a thing as too late. If lawmakers don’t act until the environment degrades perceptibly, then they’ve passed the point of no return."
And then you ask,"Where did Julian Zelizer point out that the United States solves problems by empowering the public...?"
This, of course, goes far above and beyond your totally invented "litany of justifications for authoritarian government".
The litany is to blame anti-intellectual and anti-statist attitudes in the United States followed by a call for grass roots activism to overcome anti-intellectual and anti-statist attitudes.
Zelizer's examples are used to call for grass roots activism to empower authoritarian intellectuals. Zelizer's assumptions are incorrect; the United States hasn't solved big problems that way.
Could you point out the parts of the article that you believe support this hypothesis? I see none; rather the opposite.
"Why the U.S. Can’t Solve Big Problems"
Simple....Because every Human Elected into office, has their own "Grandiose IDEAS" of what is right !
They will save the World dontchyaknow !
Maybe they should concentrate on "Saving their own Country" first !
Like the airline notes : "You are instructed to put on your mask before helping anyone sitting with you. This may fly in the face of instinct for parents of small children and other caregivers. The reality is that in a panic, some people may fight getting a mask tied to their face. If you are running low on oxygen, you have little chance of helping them. Supply yourself with good air and you'll be in better condition to deal with those around you."