"Why Nothing Works" by Marc Dunkelman - Book Review
Summary
"A provocative exploration about the architecture of power, the forces that stifle us from getting things done, and how we can restore confidence in democratically elected government--"the best book to date on the biggest political issue that nobody is talking about" (Matthew Yglesias)
America was once a country that did big things--we built the world's greatest rail network, a vast electrical grid, interstate highways, abundant housing, the Social Security system, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and more. But today, even while facing a host of pressing challenges--a housing shortage, a climate crisis, a dilapidated infrastructure--we feel stuck, unable to move the needle. Why?
America is today the victim of a vetocracy that allows nearly anyone to stifle progress. While conservatives deserve some blame, progressives have overlooked an unlikely culprit: their own fears of "The Establishment." A half-century ago, progressivism's designs on getting stuff done were eclipsed by a desire to box in government. Reformers put speaking truth to power ahead of exercising that power for good. The ensuing gridlock has pummeled faith in public institutions of all sorts, stifled the movement's ability to deliver on its promises, and, most perversely, opened the door for MAGA-style populism.
A century ago, Americans were similarly frustrated--and progressivism pointed the way out. The same can happen again. Marc J. Dunkelman vividly illustrates what progressives must do if they are going to break through today's paralysis and restore, once again, confidence in democratically elected government. To get there, reformers will need to acknowledge where they've gone wrong. Progressivism's success moving forward hinges on the movement's willingness to rediscover its roots."
Review
I believe we currently live in a climate of widespread government incompetence across many public spheres. Diagnosing the exact source of this malaise is a complicated task, and the presence of competing narratives often muddles the debate. This book offers a sober and compelling analysis of how public authority has become costly and ineffective due to decades of reform and conflicts between two competing instincts: the Hamiltonian instinct, which values government authority and centralised power, and the Jeffersonian instinct, which emphasises decentralisation and grassroots power.
The competition between these two perspectives has led to a system of veto power, where progress is stalled because numerous stakeholders can block any project or public initiative to protect their own self-interests. As a result, nations that once built remarkable infrastructure now pay five times the price for projects that often end up delayed or ineffective due to litigation.
The book is well-researched and, although it may be a bit longer than necessary, it provides a compelling view of the current paralysis in public policy.
Key Takeaways
- A clear examination of two competing perspectives, the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian impulses, which often conflict
- An excellent historical account of how these two impulses have competed over time, resulting in a system of vetocracy
- A powerful call to action for nations on how to restore the effectiveness of public authority without infringing on individual rights
Who Should Read This
This book is ideal for readers interested in public policy, thorough historical analysis, and understanding the origins of our current cynicism towards government competence.
Favourite Quotes
"It was, and is, easy to argue that the downsides of any given decision could have been avoided if everyone affected had been given sufficient voice. But the reality was, and is, that progress involves ratifying trade-offs that distribute burdens across communities, fair and unfair. And so a progressive agenda centered in almost every context on providing ordinary citizens with new tools to thwart that centralized authority—opportunities to use their voice to lobby an official, to file a lawsuit, to register a complaint—too frequently fails to answer a crucial question: Who, after everyone has spoken, should make the final choice?"
"It was simply an extreme manifestation of the movement’s Jeffersonian impulse gone awry. The dream—or, perhaps more accurately stated, the fantasy—was that giving everyone voice would ensure an optimal solution. But in too many cases, there is no way to serve the greater good without exacting some cost on at least someone. Mitigating ecological damage is expensive—and those costs will be passed on to some producers, and potentially to some consumers. Giving everyone a seat at the table doesn’t by any stretch guarantee a mutually agreeable fix. But, as we’ve seen, giving anyone at the table a veto almost ensures that nothing will be accomplished. Yet that’s what happened."
"Now, by contrast, regulatory authority is so diffused that nearly anyone can upend even the most well-intentioned effort to do good. The protections, reforms, rights, and processes have combined, in too many cases, to make government incompetent."
Rating
⭐⭐⭐½ (3.5/5 stars)