Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kevin's avatar

Here's what I think I hear you saying: "We want nice things, too. Why can't we have them?"

I empathize with that. When I visit other countries, or a handful of cities here, I come away wanting all the nice public amenities I see. We've had a serious downgrade in the quality of public goods over the last half-century, and perhaps longer. The public spaces and buildings built in my city from the 1880s-1920s is far superior to most anything in recent years. When we do build something new that's nice, it seems to be extraordinarily expensive - far beyond what I'd expect.

The question is, how do we get them without also leading to a bloated, corrupt administrative regime?

It seems to me we're in a populist moment now that is questioning the entire foundation of the administrative state we've built the last 100 years. I think that's good. Much of it is bloated and corrupt. But there's certainly a challenge implicit in your writings - what happens afterwards? If a lot of that gets torn down, what replaces it? Society will still need some sort of management of public space and shared spaces/features.

I think these are great questions to explore. So much of what we have today just flat-out doesn't work. It needs to be replaced. But what's the positive vision that replaces it all? I sense there are some good answers in much smaller-scale place management and localism. I think a wider embrace of decentralization of much of life will be good for us. But it's important for promoters of grass roots or bottom-up efforts, like myself, to articulate how we get to a society that provides really quality results for the majority.

Expand full comment
Sean's avatar

This article really drives home a potential fear of mine, and I’m glad it was brought up.

I’m not sure Republicans can truly access a populism that builds so long as Trump is president. President Trump started his presidency claiming and touting he had “the best people”, and I genuinely agreed. The cabinet he put together seemed to be first rate and like it could accomplish some pretty impressive things. But it seemed like over time, he lost them all through what can only be described as his own personal failings.

Now, Trump and the Heritage Foundation are really going to try to implement a form of populism, but I’m not convinced. Schedule F seems like a plan to overhaul many portions of our government, but I think there is a sizable chance it could be a disaster for the Republican Party and the country.

If we think about rebuilding from a pure resource perspective, I think it’s easy to think about money/materials, as referenced from the example of the plaza. But it’s also about attracting really intelligent/talented people to solve future problems. If leadership starts from the top, what will the new “foot soldiers” of Schedule F look like?

I’m worried that 7ish years of Trump has driven away many intelligent conservatives away from politics, and only drawn in half-rate people with a bone to pick with “the libs”. If Trump is re-elected, I pray I’m wrong.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts