Living outside of DC, I mostly read this as if foreign text. I understand enough to appreciate what you have done, and are proposing. I wonder- how many are there out there that do what you do? Does every state have one? What is a day in the life of your kind like? Does your kind have conventions? Can you condense your message to one or two memorable bumper stickers, or to a one minute pitch that a politician could understand and be willing to act upon? Does your kind have a lobbyist?
To your call to action seeking people thinking and writing about horizon 3 - Minnesota DHS published a vision for horizon 3 and how to get there. It is focused on removing the structural constraints you mention here. How do we start dialogue between folks pondering these ideas and people on the ground who are working to make them a reality? Are there other strategies out there for horizon 3 that are being discussed/evaluated/tested?
Very nice work from the argument, the lovely Horizon model that steers innovation work in companies, and the calls to action - “Tell me your vision.” Very excited about the next pieces from your new organization. It's choppy waters out there for all of us! Thank you for the humility to publish this and reflect on your own good work. The window has changed, and your past work has built a well-informed perspective with real Wisdom.
“The number of carve-outs Congress has granted to the Paperwork Reduction Act in recent years is its own story.” - Privacy Act’s Matching Program restrictions are the same, there have been like a dozen amendments to create purpose-specific carve-outs.
I think you might consider that our government hasn’t lost legitimacy because it can’t deliver but that powerful people and organizations want it to fail and they ensure that it does in order that it lose legitimacy and that otherwise our government works quite well and much better than it probably should given that environment. I hope in this era where agencies are being “put into the wood chipper” by the richest man in the world that would be clear. You don’t want the government to effectively regulate your companies or accomplish some other goal you don’t like and you make sure they don’t. There is only so much anyone can do on “reform” when power is the name of the game. The solution then has to be building power for effectiveness, convincing enough stakeholders of the value of government effectiveness and capability to build the political power necessary to make that happen.
I'm sure there's a handful of people somewhere that actually want government to fail.
But that's not most people. Not even most republicans.
We can see that clearly, because it's in red states that a lot of the major reform is happening. for example, education in mississippi, louisiana, tennessee, et cetera
It’s interesting you’re accusing me of partisanship. I’ve talked to a lot of former USAID workers. Their agency doesn’t exist anymore not because they weren’t good and effective. They did lots of impressive things. Including things like PEPFAR, that was started by George W Bush and continued by Obama and funded by both parties of years, and which saved huge numbers of lives from AIDS. It was ended because Musk wanted to end it.
"I think you might consider that our government hasn’t lost legitimacy because it can’t deliver but that powerful people and organizations want it to fail and they ensure that it does in order that it lose legitimacy and that otherwise our government works quite well"
Which is overly broad and assigns malign motives to a lot of people that disagree with you politically.
I agree that there are probably a handful of people that actually want government to fail. But I don't think there are that many.
I think much more common are just different political objectives and/or lack of care/incompetence.
Also while I would disagree with them, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to support ZERO as the best level for foreign aid. Or even ZERO for the best level for a safety net in the US (although again I would disagree with them).
But still want things like an effective government to provide things like military, police, a justice department etc.
The people who actually keep these systems running already know which fixes are buying time and which ones are real. They're just never in the room when the reform conversation happens. Any framework that doesn't start with them is going to get absorbed the same way the last ten did.
The missing piece here is procurement. Whatever the new model looks like, it's going to get built through the same contracts and vendors that produced the broken one. You can change the language and the org charts and still end up in the same place if the money flows the same way, because there's no good way to increase "competition" through smaller, modular, tactical work.
There are a bevy of ways to solve the various problems we face -- especially at sub-federal levels -- but the morass of complexity makes it hard to actually help.
I agree that the people currently keeping these systems running usually know what the problems are.
But that doesn't mean they understand the solutions.
To fix the problems in many cases, you will need both the people running the systems as well as outside people. That understand what a well functioning organization looks like
This is a really interesting argument. I like the idea that “H2-“ work is making the status quo hang on for longer, whereas “H2+” work is actually moving toward a better solution.
I wonder though… I feel like all the proposals at the end are themselves H2-! There’s this fundamental problem of organizations with no real pressure on them to perform, because they are so far from democracy, and then they don’t perform.
I feel like H2+ would be something that is changing the model. Like a Palantir for general government agencies. Or like three of them. Required to be interchangeable. Enforce performance by terminating the underperforming 10% of contracts every year and giving their work to their competitors. I don’t know, I’m just trying to think of something that would feel like a real, fundamental, structural difference from how government services are provided today.
Very much resonated with point about the well-intentioned, but worrying tendency for the bureaucracy to adopt H2- language, which can result in a bandaid fix (particularly the point about agile contracting). Your reflections help me to be cognizant of this when doing procurement, hiring, etc!
Living outside of DC, I mostly read this as if foreign text. I understand enough to appreciate what you have done, and are proposing. I wonder- how many are there out there that do what you do? Does every state have one? What is a day in the life of your kind like? Does your kind have conventions? Can you condense your message to one or two memorable bumper stickers, or to a one minute pitch that a politician could understand and be willing to act upon? Does your kind have a lobbyist?
I wish there were one of us in every state, and maybe there is and I don't know them. We should have conventions!
I definitely need to get better at the one minute pitch but to be fair it depends a little on the politician and what they're interested in.
I'll think about bumper stickers!
To your call to action seeking people thinking and writing about horizon 3 - Minnesota DHS published a vision for horizon 3 and how to get there. It is focused on removing the structural constraints you mention here. How do we start dialogue between folks pondering these ideas and people on the ground who are working to make them a reality? Are there other strategies out there for horizon 3 that are being discussed/evaluated/tested?
Very nice work from the argument, the lovely Horizon model that steers innovation work in companies, and the calls to action - “Tell me your vision.” Very excited about the next pieces from your new organization. It's choppy waters out there for all of us! Thank you for the humility to publish this and reflect on your own good work. The window has changed, and your past work has built a well-informed perspective with real Wisdom.
“The number of carve-outs Congress has granted to the Paperwork Reduction Act in recent years is its own story.” - Privacy Act’s Matching Program restrictions are the same, there have been like a dozen amendments to create purpose-specific carve-outs.
Great article so much to think on here.
We need real reform. But that's going to require changes both from the legislative branches and the executive.
And it's a long term process, not something that can be done in months
Great article so much to think on here.
We need real reform. But that's going to require changes both from the legislative branches and the executive.
And it's a long term process, not something that can be done in months
I think you might consider that our government hasn’t lost legitimacy because it can’t deliver but that powerful people and organizations want it to fail and they ensure that it does in order that it lose legitimacy and that otherwise our government works quite well and much better than it probably should given that environment. I hope in this era where agencies are being “put into the wood chipper” by the richest man in the world that would be clear. You don’t want the government to effectively regulate your companies or accomplish some other goal you don’t like and you make sure they don’t. There is only so much anyone can do on “reform” when power is the name of the game. The solution then has to be building power for effectiveness, convincing enough stakeholders of the value of government effectiveness and capability to build the political power necessary to make that happen.
I'm sure there's a handful of people somewhere that actually want government to fail.
But that's not most people. Not even most republicans.
We can see that clearly, because it's in red states that a lot of the major reform is happening. for example, education in mississippi, louisiana, tennessee, et cetera
Your partisanship is blinding you
It’s interesting you’re accusing me of partisanship. I’ve talked to a lot of former USAID workers. Their agency doesn’t exist anymore not because they weren’t good and effective. They did lots of impressive things. Including things like PEPFAR, that was started by George W Bush and continued by Obama and funded by both parties of years, and which saved huge numbers of lives from AIDS. It was ended because Musk wanted to end it.
That wasn't your statement. You said
"I think you might consider that our government hasn’t lost legitimacy because it can’t deliver but that powerful people and organizations want it to fail and they ensure that it does in order that it lose legitimacy and that otherwise our government works quite well"
Which is overly broad and assigns malign motives to a lot of people that disagree with you politically.
I agree that there are probably a handful of people that actually want government to fail. But I don't think there are that many.
I think much more common are just different political objectives and/or lack of care/incompetence.
Also while I would disagree with them, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to support ZERO as the best level for foreign aid. Or even ZERO for the best level for a safety net in the US (although again I would disagree with them).
But still want things like an effective government to provide things like military, police, a justice department etc.
The people who actually keep these systems running already know which fixes are buying time and which ones are real. They're just never in the room when the reform conversation happens. Any framework that doesn't start with them is going to get absorbed the same way the last ten did.
The missing piece here is procurement. Whatever the new model looks like, it's going to get built through the same contracts and vendors that produced the broken one. You can change the language and the org charts and still end up in the same place if the money flows the same way, because there's no good way to increase "competition" through smaller, modular, tactical work.
There are a bevy of ways to solve the various problems we face -- especially at sub-federal levels -- but the morass of complexity makes it hard to actually help.
I agree that the people currently keeping these systems running usually know what the problems are.
But that doesn't mean they understand the solutions.
To fix the problems in many cases, you will need both the people running the systems as well as outside people. That understand what a well functioning organization looks like
This is a really interesting argument. I like the idea that “H2-“ work is making the status quo hang on for longer, whereas “H2+” work is actually moving toward a better solution.
I wonder though… I feel like all the proposals at the end are themselves H2-! There’s this fundamental problem of organizations with no real pressure on them to perform, because they are so far from democracy, and then they don’t perform.
I feel like H2+ would be something that is changing the model. Like a Palantir for general government agencies. Or like three of them. Required to be interchangeable. Enforce performance by terminating the underperforming 10% of contracts every year and giving their work to their competitors. I don’t know, I’m just trying to think of something that would feel like a real, fundamental, structural difference from how government services are provided today.
Very much resonated with point about the well-intentioned, but worrying tendency for the bureaucracy to adopt H2- language, which can result in a bandaid fix (particularly the point about agile contracting). Your reflections help me to be cognizant of this when doing procurement, hiring, etc!
Maybe those who know already know too well, but is there a primer for those who don't about what has gone wrong with the Paperwork Reduction Act?