Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
People Are a Problem
“Drain the swamp!” you say. It’s a fine catchphrase, and I endorse the sentiment, but what are we really talking about? Well, corruption in Washington, of course; everyone can agree that we need to eliminate corruption in Washington. Right?
Well, sure. But Washington is a big place. There are a lot of moving parts and a lot of places for corruption to hide. How precisely do we go about exposing it, let alone removing it? And assuming we do manage to both expose and remove corruption to any degree, just exactly what are we going to replace it with? This last question is a serious one, for without a serious answer to it, it’s not clear that “draining the swamp” is worth the effort.
I don’t have the answers to these questions, but I do have some thoughts. I only wish they were more encouraging.
As it seems we must, let’s begin with President Trump. Trump has brought a lot to the presidency — some good; some not. Without wading into what’s what on that front, I think it’s objectively true that Trump has acted as a lightning rod for corruption. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing, and time and again we’ve seen corruption reveal itself as its victims risk their reputations and careers to defend or destroy him. We’ve had a harsh glimpse at both how rampant and deep is the corruption in Washington. So, at least in that narrow sense, Trump has done the country a service. Still, it’s a safe bet that we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg, and we can only fret at how much more lies beneath the surface.
The thing is, Trump is a singularly polarizing figure, and he won’t be with us forever. While things may never return to “normal,” in a few months, or years, this particular lightning rod will be gone. And whatever the new “normal” looks like, we can be sure the “deep state” will seek out new rocks, once again to wage corruption from the shadows.
The upshot of all this is that whatever corruption Trump has managed to expose or even remedy, it’s not enough, and it’s only temporary. So I ask again, just how do we go about “draining the swamp” in any meaningful and lasting way?
It is the temporariness of the problem which prompts my “serious” question above: Supposing we do figure out how to expose and eliminate corruption in Washington, what are we going to replace it with? That’s the thing about swamps. You can drain them, but they are just going to fill back up unless you fill them in with something (typically land). The same conditions that gave rise to the swamp in the first place are going to give rise to it again..
In the case at hand, the “conditions” are people. You can fire all the corrupt people you want (assuming you can find them), but if all you’ve got to replace them with is other people, good luck. One of the things that makes a conservative is a realistic view of human nature, and any realistic assessment has to conclude that we’re going to end up right back where we started.
If there is a serious answer to the question, I think it lies in Milton Friedman’s observation that you don’t want a system that relies on the right people being in the right positions. There just aren’t enough right people, and there’s no reliable way to ensure that the wrong people aren’t going to come along tomorrow. All of which has me concluding that “draining the swamp” is the wrong approach, at least in the way it’s being conceptualized. Replacing “their corrupt people” with “our corrupt people” — even if you could do it — is satisfying (and, admittedly, an improvement), but it’s not a long-term solution.
One of my personal mottoes is People are a problem — and people in charge of other people are a bigger problem. That’s not going to change any time soon. So if there’s any hope, and I’m not sure there is, it has to be in changing the system itself. If we’re serious about tackling the problem, we need to abandon the “drain the swamp” mentality and adopt more of a “pull the plug” approach. We need to take so much power away from Washington that there’s literally nothing left to corrupt.
Now, I know I’m preaching to the proverbial choir here; all of us are in favor of drastically reducing the size and scope of the federal government. And it’s fair to ask just how, precisely, we go about gutting the government when all efforts since the Signing have failed. And, sadly, the answer is … I don’t know. (Recall, I only promised you thoughts, not answers.)
I am convinced, however, that this is the better question to be asking.
Published in General
Bullying isn’t necessary if simple ‘buying’ is possible. Vote-buying has always carried the risk of lack of verification. ‘Transparent’ voting would fix that.
Also, peer pressure in voting is very real. Do you remember voting in class by show of hands?
One of my favorite authors is Gerald Weinberg who wrote about consulting (mostly software management and systems) in the 70’s. One of his laws of consulting was:
I forget when I learned about this, but the magic word is: reorganize. This provides lots of options and authorities for
eliminating positions“rightsizing” the government. If conducted in tandem with a review of the responsibilities of each department, the effort would increase the scope of possible reductions dramatically. To expect any action in the near term, it’s all predicated on Trump winning another term. Here are a few ideas on what to do:There are lots of other talking points to make this palatable to the electorate. Downsizing is rightsizing. Companies go through reorganizations, so why is the government exempt? With the technologies that exist now, more work can be done by fewer people. Etc.
This makes sense. If the government is said to represent “We the People,” then why should I be bound by legislation passed by people long since dead for whom I never voted? Why should the antics of people for whom I do vote bind my posterity?
Of course, the obvious way the government would get around that is just to pass a humongous omnibus bill every session. It would just keep growing generation after generation, and so wouldn’t be much different than what we have anyway.
That’s the second envelope.
Bully, threaten, intimidate — all the same as far as the point is concerned. With a secret ballot, who is to say how you voted? With an open ballot, there’s a major risk of voter intimidation.
The last four years have revealed corruption. No one is happy about it, and how to remedy it seems nigh impossible.
Added to the problem of corruption is massive silly-fication. For instance, recently, in the US House, they have decided to establish as Federal law that ICE should not be told when an illegal immigrant applies to get a gun.
Perhaps you read that statement and figured it had to be Republican sponsoring the legislation. As after all, it is usually a Republican lawmaker who wants to allow someone to have a gun.
But no, it was a Democrat. Apparently all that talk and blather about the dangers of guns, and how no one ever needs one, doesn’t apply if someone who wants one is not here legally. It is only us citizens who should not have guns.
In other news, it has been decided that there are too many white people in the cafeteria at a Virginia college. Apparently African American students do not feel safe when they are in the presence of too many whites. So now we have come full circle. After so many people were spending a good part of the middle of the last century bringing integration into play, segregation is now determined to return. Not because of our supposedly White Supremacist President, but because people of color are scared of White-y.
Just 120 years ago, white women in the South were taught that it was normal and instinctive to fear the black man. Protection of white females was one of the reasons elucidated for having segregation come into play and then be strictly enforced. Now protection of the sensibilities of the people of color is demanding a return to segregation. So what gives?
Perhaps this is not corrupt, but it is so absurd I am trying to hold my grey matter together long enough to puzzle it out. Reverse racism is just as hate fueled as plain old racism. I would hope the administrators at that campus make it plain that no form of bigotry will be tolerated. However, I am not holding my breath in the hopes that some leader of the Democrat Party steps forward to denounce this reverse racism. I doubt that would happen, even though the bigotry certainly flies offensively across the face of “Diversity” that the Democrat Party is always preaching.
I’ve made it my personal policy never to use the term reverse racism. It just feeds the narrative that it’s not real racism, and that only Whites can be racist. I’m done living in their imaginary world.
That’s about it. Empires (yes, the US is one) die when too much power and money flow to the capital.
Seeing this
at Instapundit led me to Paul Sperry’s feed where I found these:
Maybe Main Justice is too rotten to fix.
There’s never enough sunshine to prevent rot. As long as evidence of corruption can be hidden under a top sheet that has ‘classified’ stamped on it, government is going to have a lot of corruption.
If we could have a zealous review board to declassify as much as possible and start firing people who classify things unnecessarily we might have a chance at uncovering corruption in government.