rj - starting a new thread as the other has apparently run dry:
Neither of which prove your point that local governments are less corrupt and more effective or support your blanket statement.
I’ve never said local governments are less corrupt; I’ve said that the corruption at the local level does less damage and cannot spread as far and wide as it can at the federal level. I’m quite certain local governments are often among the most corrupt governments (the police abuses in this country help illustrate this point) but this is also at least partly due to the fact that people aren’t paying close enough attention to local politics and instead blame the president for everything.
We're kind of deep in the comments to get back to the substance of the post, but:
1) The credit card issue evinces an issue with either the full faith and credit clause of the constitution or the lack of meaningful federal regulation, not the benefit of localism.
The credit card example shows how decentralized regulation can work for the American consumer and can disadvantage big business which lobbies for one set of rules and regulations. Localism may be incidental to this argument, but I’m not merely arguing localism here, I’m arguing for a decentralized regulatory framework.
2) The large number of environmental prosecutions say nothing about the content of those prosecutions. How many were NIMBY-motivated? How many were filed under federal laws that allow local participation but not local modification?
This is a good question. I’m not really sure to be honest with you, as this was lifted from Smith’s piece and I did not independently research it. Do you know?
3) The first statement on eduction (aside from a statement of your preferences), is a quote about how there are fewer school districts. Issues of why that decline took place aside (rural flight, urban consolidation, etc), that fact is not tethered to any argument on outcomes.
Well I’ve written a great deal about education, and I think NCLB is evidence enough that federal mandate/subsidy programs are too blunt and often too punitive and ineffective to be worth a damn. I think a better way for the feds to be involved in education is the Pell Grant. I think the system of standardized tests and “race to the top” reforms are well-intentioned but severely flawed.
4) The second statement on education asks us to imagine a situation in which the Texas textbook board runs federal eduction policy. All you've done is take a bad outcome of a state government, grafted it on to an example about the feds and used it to prove what's wrong with the feds.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’ve done. When people think of federal solutions they imagine they’ll be somehow better and less stupid than the states. But what is stopping the Texas school board from capturing federal education? Former Texas Governor George W Bush brought much of his Texas charm to the White House. This is exactly what I mean by centralized systems being more fragile and prone to catastrophe.
What you're left with is a romantic notion of local citizen-government and little else.
I think what we’re left with is not seeing eye-to-eye, honestly.
Actually Mike I don't see any parallel there at all. Smith is complaining about a specific governing mentality, you are referencing a common straw man levelled at libertarians.
Right. why don't you read both posts again and find where I say no to all centralization. I know you want to have a gotcha moment here but it's not working.
Well that's certainly not my intention, and I did try to clarify that in this post. I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with preferring more centralized or decentralized solutions; indeed, I'd say it really depends on the situation. What worries me are the trends, especially in education, toward what I think is a mistake.
I really think y'all are taking the 'grad school elite' comment a little too literally. It's not an attack on people with advanced degrees; it's a comment about hubris, and the false faith in federal solutions to every problem. Yes, local politics are often fraught with special interests - so are federal politics. Local politics are just much, much less glamorous. And no, nobody is saying that nobody should ever aspire to higher office. If I were saying that I would be decrying the institution of president or claiming we should not have a federal government at all, which I am most certainly not arguing.
The trend toward centralization is exactly why there are no easy answers. You’re absolutely correct about that trend, and that’s why actually coming up with ways to decentralize is difficult. The political reality is not on the side of decentralists. Big business wants government as centralized as possible because it’s more efficient for them and it’s more easily captured.
Let’s flip the Norway example on its head for a moment. Norway is efficient and well-managed because it is a small country. Scale Norway up fifty times over. Could they as effectively manage fifty Norways the way they run the one they’ve got? No, fifty sets of regulations is not efficient, and it’s especially inefficient when things like health insurance can’t be sold across state lines, but neither is trying to run the USA like Norway.
All good points, Francis. What about federal anti-unionization laws? And actually I've written a lot about local abuses. No doubt most of the bad regulations are state and local bit really that's just an argument to keep regulation at that level for the same reason you note re: law enforcement.
But these disparities already exist. Federalizing public schools, for instance, will not magically level public education. Simply centralizing authority doesn't result in balance of power or outcome. Dispersing authority doesn't result in best-case-scenarios either, it simply mitigates risk and makes democracy more tangible. I think the effects of the internet and other communications technologies are hard to understand just yet, but I wouldn't put too much weight in them at this point. They can have, however, both centralizing and decentralizing effects - a leveling, for instance, of the barrier to entry in news media, comes at the same time as increased access to organizational tools for grassroots groups but also increased privacy risks.
I don't think there is a single easy answer to this question. How could we decentralize public schools? Well, that's an easy one. Quit trying to get the feds involved in the first place. Credit card regulations I've already tackled. Mainly, though, it's about resisting further centralization rather than moving toward a more decentralized system in general. I'll have to read up on polycentrism to get a better grasp on those concepts. I mentioned the Swiss also. They place a great deal more of the taxation (both revenue and spending decisions) in the hands of cantons rather than the central government.
Exactly. And actually not only is the lens distorted, but I think the unintended consequences of legitimately good ideas are amplified in ways that become more and more difficult to parse out.
Thanks, mcclaren. Those are all very good points, and exactly why I don't think this post is anti-intellectualism so much as it was meant to be anti-arrogance. I appreciate it.
I'm a hopeless Bach fanboy. Nobody compares. No music since can stir me quite like his. I'd take Bach over Beethoven any day of the week. Though taste is taste and there's really no accounting for it...
Have you ever tried to manage people? Managing ten people is hard. Running a city government is a huge task. Or running a school. These things simply do not scale gracefully when you're talking about tens and then hundreds of millions of people. It has nothing to do with intention and everything to do with the reality of results.
You are obviously not reading this very carefully Tom. I suggest you read it again. Carefully this time. Nobody is saying that the MBA's are liberals. Find where anyone actually says that. I mean, really, just read the damn thing (mine and Smith's) without whatever bias you're coming into this with, and construct an argument as opposed to a strawman and then maybe we can talk.
Of all the places I would think to find an anti-intellectual streak, LoOG was not one of them. You regularly have posts on Greek literature (I enjoy them btw)! E.D., you’ve delved deep into the weeds of healthcare reform, comparing the merits and demerits of healthcare systems in an effort to draw lessons for the US – iirc you’re partial to Singapore. A giant exercise in comparative government in politics, what are we to rely upon when making/suggesting public policy if not critical thinking of this sort?
Creon - My take is that this is not anti-intellectualism so much as it is anti-elites-know-best-ism. In other words, it's all well and good to be an intellectual, to go to grad school, to be "elite" and so forth, but when you take that experience go to the halls of government and start trying to mold the world to your vision of what's best, to perfect it from a central location and a central ideal, you will inevitably fall short. That's the arrogance of the central planner (and I realize everyone will deny being or wanting to be a central planner, but just look at education reform for a wonderful example of how this is the default position very smart people take when they also get ahold of too much power). So think of it not as anti-intellectualism but rather anti-arrogance. These grad school elites should be trying to improve their own communities, not an entire nation of 300+ million. At least as much as is possible. This is just another branch of the whole concept of subsidiarity.
Now Smith may go a bit overboard at times, but I think his point stands.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Anti-Intellectualism and Magical Thinking”
rj - starting a new thread as the other has apparently run dry:
I’ve never said local governments are less corrupt; I’ve said that the corruption at the local level does less damage and cannot spread as far and wide as it can at the federal level. I’m quite certain local governments are often among the most corrupt governments (the police abuses in this country help illustrate this point) but this is also at least partly due to the fact that people aren’t paying close enough attention to local politics and instead blame the president for everything.
The credit card example shows how decentralized regulation can work for the American consumer and can disadvantage big business which lobbies for one set of rules and regulations. Localism may be incidental to this argument, but I’m not merely arguing localism here, I’m arguing for a decentralized regulatory framework.
This is a good question. I’m not really sure to be honest with you, as this was lifted from Smith’s piece and I did not independently research it. Do you know?
Well I’ve written a great deal about education, and I think NCLB is evidence enough that federal mandate/subsidy programs are too blunt and often too punitive and ineffective to be worth a damn. I think a better way for the feds to be involved in education is the Pell Grant. I think the system of standardized tests and “race to the top” reforms are well-intentioned but severely flawed.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’ve done. When people think of federal solutions they imagine they’ll be somehow better and less stupid than the states. But what is stopping the Texas school board from capturing federal education? Former Texas Governor George W Bush brought much of his Texas charm to the White House. This is exactly what I mean by centralized systems being more fragile and prone to catastrophe.
I think what we’re left with is not seeing eye-to-eye, honestly.
"
I used education and credit card regulation as examples and quoted both Smith on the environment and Konczal on preemption.
"
I could be wrong but I think this post was an attempt to go into more detail than the last. So I'm not following you here.
On “Abortion and Slavery again”
Yes, but this is the trouble with analogies in general. and yes, Santorum is vile and indefensible.
On “Anti-Intellectualism and Magical Thinking”
Actually Mike I don't see any parallel there at all. Smith is complaining about a specific governing mentality, you are referencing a common straw man levelled at libertarians.
"
Tom, I say essentially the same thing in the post so this on the record stuff is sort of silly don't you think?
"
Right. why don't you read both posts again and find where I say no to all centralization. I know you want to have a gotcha moment here but it's not working.
"
Well that's certainly not my intention, and I did try to clarify that in this post. I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with preferring more centralized or decentralized solutions; indeed, I'd say it really depends on the situation. What worries me are the trends, especially in education, toward what I think is a mistake.
"
I really think y'all are taking the 'grad school elite' comment a little too literally. It's not an attack on people with advanced degrees; it's a comment about hubris, and the false faith in federal solutions to every problem. Yes, local politics are often fraught with special interests - so are federal politics. Local politics are just much, much less glamorous. And no, nobody is saying that nobody should ever aspire to higher office. If I were saying that I would be decrying the institution of president or claiming we should not have a federal government at all, which I am most certainly not arguing.
"
Localism isn't a solution in and of itself and nobody is saying that.
"
Kyle -
I would say the feds should universally stop the cycle of mandate/subsidize when it comes to public education.
In other words no to paternalism.
"
62across -
The trend toward centralization is exactly why there are no easy answers. You’re absolutely correct about that trend, and that’s why actually coming up with ways to decentralize is difficult. The political reality is not on the side of decentralists. Big business wants government as centralized as possible because it’s more efficient for them and it’s more easily captured.
"
greginak -
Let’s flip the Norway example on its head for a moment. Norway is efficient and well-managed because it is a small country. Scale Norway up fifty times over. Could they as effectively manage fifty Norways the way they run the one they’ve got? No, fifty sets of regulations is not efficient, and it’s especially inefficient when things like health insurance can’t be sold across state lines, but neither is trying to run the USA like Norway.
"
All good points, Francis. What about federal anti-unionization laws? And actually I've written a lot about local abuses. No doubt most of the bad regulations are state and local bit really that's just an argument to keep regulation at that level for the same reason you note re: law enforcement.
"
Kyle -
But these disparities already exist. Federalizing public schools, for instance, will not magically level public education. Simply centralizing authority doesn't result in balance of power or outcome. Dispersing authority doesn't result in best-case-scenarios either, it simply mitigates risk and makes democracy more tangible. I think the effects of the internet and other communications technologies are hard to understand just yet, but I wouldn't put too much weight in them at this point. They can have, however, both centralizing and decentralizing effects - a leveling, for instance, of the barrier to entry in news media, comes at the same time as increased access to organizational tools for grassroots groups but also increased privacy risks.
P.S. glad to see you around these parts again.
"
62across -
I don't think there is a single easy answer to this question. How could we decentralize public schools? Well, that's an easy one. Quit trying to get the feds involved in the first place. Credit card regulations I've already tackled. Mainly, though, it's about resisting further centralization rather than moving toward a more decentralized system in general. I'll have to read up on polycentrism to get a better grasp on those concepts. I mentioned the Swiss also. They place a great deal more of the taxation (both revenue and spending decisions) in the hands of cantons rather than the central government.
"
Awesome, thanks!
"
Exactly. And actually not only is the lens distorted, but I think the unintended consequences of legitimately good ideas are amplified in ways that become more and more difficult to parse out.
On “Little Republics & Little Platoons”
Actually no, but your reading skills might be.
"
Thanks, mcclaren. Those are all very good points, and exactly why I don't think this post is anti-intellectualism so much as it was meant to be anti-arrogance. I appreciate it.
On “NYTimes critic just can’t bracket his personal preference for Bach”
I'm a hopeless Bach fanboy. Nobody compares. No music since can stir me quite like his. I'd take Bach over Beethoven any day of the week. Though taste is taste and there's really no accounting for it...
On “Little Republics & Little Platoons”
Have you ever tried to manage people? Managing ten people is hard. Running a city government is a huge task. Or running a school. These things simply do not scale gracefully when you're talking about tens and then hundreds of millions of people. It has nothing to do with intention and everything to do with the reality of results.
"
Dude. You seriously need to read more carefully, scarshapedstar. Much, much more carefully, if you think this is somehow an anti-liberal piece.
"
You are obviously not reading this very carefully Tom. I suggest you read it again. Carefully this time. Nobody is saying that the MBA's are liberals. Find where anyone actually says that. I mean, really, just read the damn thing (mine and Smith's) without whatever bias you're coming into this with, and construct an argument as opposed to a strawman and then maybe we can talk.
"
Creon - My take is that this is not anti-intellectualism so much as it is anti-elites-know-best-ism. In other words, it's all well and good to be an intellectual, to go to grad school, to be "elite" and so forth, but when you take that experience go to the halls of government and start trying to mold the world to your vision of what's best, to perfect it from a central location and a central ideal, you will inevitably fall short. That's the arrogance of the central planner (and I realize everyone will deny being or wanting to be a central planner, but just look at education reform for a wonderful example of how this is the default position very smart people take when they also get ahold of too much power). So think of it not as anti-intellectualism but rather anti-arrogance. These grad school elites should be trying to improve their own communities, not an entire nation of 300+ million. At least as much as is possible. This is just another branch of the whole concept of subsidiarity.
Now Smith may go a bit overboard at times, but I think his point stands.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.