"I have not read Abundance. Great cover. And I definitely agree that California should build more houses and finish that train. But you see how quickly we can get distracted." I laughed out loud.
And yes to the overarching message of the piece. It would be nice to have more candidates speak clearly and unapologetically on behalf of public goods.
I almost took that line out at the last minute for fear it was just a bit too much (too abundant, perhaps?) so I’m so glad that you got a kick out of it too.
Adding to your DMV rant -- those are state run, so if it's shitty, that is due to choices from the state around staffing, compensation, IT, etc. Also, I feel like half the issue is folks not showing up with the proper paperwork and then getting mad that they forgot their title or whatever.
I work in the federal government now (not in Education). I think a lot of the issue is that government operates in shadows and is designed to keep running things smoothly. Like the FAA is supposed to keep the planes from falling out the sky, but people don't see what it takes to keep the planes from falling out the sky. That's an obvious one, but if you start getting into wonky, less public facing things like USDA economists, it can be confusing to the average person what that person does and why they're needed. And most of the public's interaction with the federal government tends to be maligned things like the IRS or SSA.
100%. So well put. I’ve been thinking about that with the CFPB as well (full disclosure- my brother works there). When it does its job well, it means it prevented people from getting ripped off, which is by its very nature invisible.
I am biased as well, haha. Ugh, I hope he's doing ok! They are much more a target than my agency -- we are just turning into fossil fuels shills.
But yeah, people tend to only hear about government when it isn't working properly. It reminds me of an old job I had as a quality engineer. The baseline assumption was that the quality should be good, so the only time I was in the spotlight was when the quality was poor.
I love all of this, but especially your point about helping everyone. One of the challenges we face in attempting to make government work well is that some people view the world as a zero sum game. If I win, then someone else loses.
The reality is that when we work together collectively and promote and uphold good government policies, we can build a society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. It’s definitely not a zero sum game.
Your strategy here-boiling down a campaign to these two questions-gets to the heart of this conundrum and helps to facilitate a productive conversation.
Thanks Nathaniel. As somebody who (very clearly) loves A LOT OF WORDS, I’ve been really challenging myself to think “what’s the most plain and clear way of reaching out to each other.”
Absolutely in terms of what people want to hear and need to have heard.
As for the DoE, as an educator I am appalled by the decision to defund it. At the same time, putting the federal government, business or political types in charge has led to the best professionals leaving the field along with the worst, although the latter are much harder to move out. Standardization of faculties means regression to the mean, way more paperwork, and less support for truly outstanding professionals. There is much that needs to change, and many folks ready to jump in with a plan. We're just using the wrong yardstick when we use a business accountability model
Absolutely Gail. And I think educators are a great case study for the need for a different set of questions I would be obsessed with if I were managing public sector employees— “I know you’re in this job to help, so what would make it easier for you to help?” As you know well, that’s the exact opposite of the way that educators have been managed in a post-NCLB era
The struggle has always been about those who are not doing well by the kids and how to document that, and I get that. The problem is that is also going on at an administrator level, which makes having an objective measure of success much more problematic. The key is creating a set of measures that celebrates gifted teachers and administrators, and recognizing that one size /instrument does NOT fit all.
Ha, thank you both for sending me to look up the book, as someone who used to follow Klein very closely and just can't with him anymore. I don't know whether the NYT poisoned his brain, or he found a new home for his poisoned brain at the NYT? I don't even want to trash talk him because at one point I legitimately liked him so much, but I feel like he's constantly gaslighting me these days because I know that he is smarter than most of what comes out of his mouth. :/
One of the most persistently annoying things I do these days is wax rhapsodical about my love for the Montpelier DMV to anyone who will listen. Some of it may be latent PTSD from the Philly DMV, but every time I go there I leave feeling uplifted! They seem to have a genuinely collegial and nice workplace going there! So yeah, I'd take the DMV to a any kind of nightmare retail experience any day.
You know damn well that you can talk about the Montpelier DMV in this space WHENEVER YOU WANT.
And I have not experienced the Philly DMV (though I am aware that Philly’s approach to citizen-govt interactions can be, um, unique) but I’m increasingly of the conviction that even when the DMV is bad I’d still rather go theatre than wait for a Walgreens employee unlock the Dove soap for me.
I also annoyingly tell people how much I love the BMV (it's Bureau here in Indiana!), especially as opposed to the NJ DMVs I grew up with. It's fast! It's rarely crowded! Most of the people are nice! The rules are clear (which I appreciate as someone with anxiety)! It runs as it should!
These are good platforms! I really think there's an opening specifically on health care that I haven't really seen any politician take. The years since Obamacare have seen prices go up astronomically as everyone involved tries to either make a giant profit or just keep the lights on. With as much money as exists in this country, the number of people putting off care is haunting.
And that "have you been to a Kroger" line is so true! I thought maybe the reason the Kroger by my last apartment was terrible and only had a single staffed check out lane was because it was a low income neighborhood, but the one on the rich side of town had the same thing going on when I stopped last week. Turns out it is impossible to check out refreshments for 50 people without needing assistance, because you can't fit three gallons of ice cream in the bagging area!
Hey, readers in the Bay Area, there's an extremely White Pages-coded theatrical experience happening this summer at The Marsh in Berkeley: the brilliant monologist Josh Kornbluth's WHAT IS TO BE DONE?, which is a very funny show (really) about fascism and depression. The anecdote that made me think of you all was about how Josh, who has been having trouble getting off the couch due to his crippling depression, is convinced to accompany his wife to the No Kings demonstration. He's been going to marches all his life (he grew up in NYC and was raised by Communists), but at this one, his spirits were buoyed by a chant he heard: WE LOVE PEOPLE! WE LOVE PEOPLE! He started chanting along, only to have someone correct him: "It's 'We THE People,' not 'We Love People.'" Anyway, four stars, check it out.
I also haven’t read Abundance but what’s interesting is that I think in here you’re actually agreeing with one of the core theses of that movement: in order for government to help people, it has to be able to deliver on policy choices. And in recent memory, partially due to actual opposition but I think in large part much more due to lack of attention to implementation, it hasn’t.
Yes we need a Dept of Education, for all the reasons you mentioned. But have you heard how badly the FAFSA crashed a year or two ago? Or take the healthcare.gov launch for Obamacare. Sure, you can tell me Medicare for all is better and I might agree* but either way, you need to give people a way to sign up and the website needs to not crash under predictable traffic loads. Or take high speed rail. I love trains and I’d love better passenger rail options. But the reality is that building new rail here is incredibly slow relative to peer countries and incredibly expensive.
In other words, we deserve education, healthcare, public works projects that improve our ability to navigate the world, and help from the government on a rainy day. We do! We have to do exactly what you said: “ask what could we change about your working environment that would make providing this vital public service easier for you?” Or: what can we change about this program so that it actually helps the people who need it?
But I think to get there we have to also be honest with ourselves when these government institutions are less like the DMVs we love and more like the IRS instructions that are clear as mud. Complexity is a policy choice. Sometimes that has had malicious intent but plenty of it also came from well meaning liberals/progressives. And until we can be honest about asking ourselves “but does this work in the actual real world we live in?” … we won’t be able to truly build together.
*provided the implementation addresses healthcare cost inflation appropriately, and does not simply cause healthcare provider groups to either exit the market or refuse to accept public insurance because they aren’t getting reimbursed at the cost they have to pay to provide the service
I have read Abundance (you should read it Garrett, it’s good!) and I think this is a more clear gloss on its core ideas in relation to this piece than I would have written!
Completely agree that those of us who love and believe in the power of government need to be clear eyed about the ways it can work better. That’s why talking to so many people about the dream of a government that cares, well, matters so much. So much good faith info about what needs to be tweaked, where good intentions may have added too much complexity, where attempts at good govt are driving people mad, etc.
The government employees get frustrated as well, tbh. A lot of it is risk aversion -- you add in information about "what ifs" and enough "what ifs" and your document is suddenly 100+ pages. Some of it is poorly written laws -- we had a program in my agency that was kind of bust because the underlying statutes were bad. No one really applied for the money because of the paperwork relative to the grant amounts.
Before DOGE took it over in a coup, the US Digital Service was trying to fix some of that stuff. Obama created it after the botched heatlhcare.gov rollout.
What's tough, too, is some of it boils down to just needing more money. But if people think something in inefficient. it's hard to argue "well, give the inefficient thing more money."
I know this is a crazy idea in a DOGE-dazed era but maybe there’s a lot we could gain from listening to government employees about what would make y’all’s life easier rather than just demonizing you all!
1000% agree - used to work at a government agency and plenty of folks I worked with would support sensible civil service reform so hiring and firing (for cause) was not impossible. I really don’t want DOGE and the EOs on this stuff to make it politically toxic to make changes. And it used to be my dream to work for the US Digital Service 🙃
Small-government people have won? The BBB is set to balloon the federal deficit.
Far be it from me to let libertarians off the hook for inconsistency, but the Department of Defense is not really at all analogous to the Department of Education.
In terms of "how can we afford not to pay for them?" have you heard of Peronism?
In terms of "I asked how the government could make your life better, not how it could harm another human being," I get that you want a good narrative. But if you're running for office, at some point you will need to talk about policies. That's... not policy. Policy is tradeoffs.
That's what makes government government. It's fundamentally zero-sum. Everything a government gives or does for anyone it must first take from someone else at gunpoint. That's just true. If you don't want to deal with the mess of politics, of taking, of hurting someone to help someone else, or at least prioritizing one problem above others, of, in other words, tradeoffs, then you don't have to. But to frame the discussion incorrectly doesn't seem helpful to me.
Thanks for all the critiques, Cathy. I think we likely have different philosophies of government. I'm going to engage with a few of your points here, not necessarily as counter-points but bc I respect that you've thought deeply about these questions so want to not just ignore some of our points of disagreement.
One big one: I fundamentally don't believe in the framing of taxation as being taken from me "at gun point" though I do understand that is a common belief, and it sounds like one you hold). While there are no countries worldwide where every single citizen loves being taxed (and therefore where nobody would view taxation as coercive), there are countries where, because of a history of extremely effective government investments in the common good, there is a much higher society level of pride in and willingness to be taxed at a much higher rate than the U.S. [And yes, I have studied Peronism, but also have studied the Rehn-Meidner model and seen first hand its long-term impact in Sweden-- there are savvy, fiscally responsible ways to manage an economy while maintaining a general spirit of abundant public sector generosity]. On one hand, I do agree that policy inherently contains trade-offs, but policy and politics at its best is also a statement of values and vision-- the most effective policy makers throughout history (in terms of improving the well being of their citizenry) have recognized the power of political storytelling in rallying a country both around the promise of what can be true, and an understanding of the trade-offs that approach might take.
A separate issue: Personally (and I don't say this as a gotcha, but as a good faith curiosity) I've never understood why the most prominent acolytes of the argument that taxation occurs "at gunpoint" haven't been more curious about/open to social movements to demilitarize/defund the police. If the concern is state coercion to do anything "at gunpoint" [which I am very much concerned about on a number of fronts-- while I've never had an armed IRS agent knock on my front door, my kids do attend (thanks to a draconian Wisconsin state law targeting its only majority Black and Brown city) public schools that are required to have cops with side arms patrolling the hallways every day], I would love to see more solidarity with the more material and less theoretical ways that state power is executed violently (or with a very explicit threat of violence).
A couple other quick points/questions. First, I definitely agree that the current GOP is not the party of small government, which is why I was careful not to frame them that way. I believe that the project to try to convince Americans that government is ineffective is not a small government project, but a project focused both on rhetorical renunciations of government and systematic defunding of certain programs (not to shrink deficits, but to render them less effective).
Finally, would love to hear your thoughts on why the Department of Defense is not analogous to the Department of Education? I have a sense that might speak (in a really interesting way) to the fact that the two of us have very different philosophies of government and what its core functions should be.
Most of all, thanks for engaging so thoughtfully with this piece, especially since a lot of it seemed to rub you the wrong way. No pressure to respond, but happy to keep talking if that's of interest.
100% here — reminds me of the great piece from Tressie McMilan Cottom piece on why the DMV is great, actually, because there is no jumping the line for rich folks who want to pretend service doesn’t take effort (gift link) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/31/opinion/dmv-inequality.html?unlocked_article_code=1._U0.HbmH.1NH75DP87-9p
YES!!
"I have not read Abundance. Great cover. And I definitely agree that California should build more houses and finish that train. But you see how quickly we can get distracted." I laughed out loud.
And yes to the overarching message of the piece. It would be nice to have more candidates speak clearly and unapologetically on behalf of public goods.
I almost took that line out at the last minute for fear it was just a bit too much (too abundant, perhaps?) so I’m so glad that you got a kick out of it too.
Adding to your DMV rant -- those are state run, so if it's shitty, that is due to choices from the state around staffing, compensation, IT, etc. Also, I feel like half the issue is folks not showing up with the proper paperwork and then getting mad that they forgot their title or whatever.
I work in the federal government now (not in Education). I think a lot of the issue is that government operates in shadows and is designed to keep running things smoothly. Like the FAA is supposed to keep the planes from falling out the sky, but people don't see what it takes to keep the planes from falling out the sky. That's an obvious one, but if you start getting into wonky, less public facing things like USDA economists, it can be confusing to the average person what that person does and why they're needed. And most of the public's interaction with the federal government tends to be maligned things like the IRS or SSA.
100%. So well put. I’ve been thinking about that with the CFPB as well (full disclosure- my brother works there). When it does its job well, it means it prevented people from getting ripped off, which is by its very nature invisible.
I am biased as well, haha. Ugh, I hope he's doing ok! They are much more a target than my agency -- we are just turning into fossil fuels shills.
But yeah, people tend to only hear about government when it isn't working properly. It reminds me of an old job I had as a quality engineer. The baseline assumption was that the quality should be good, so the only time I was in the spotlight was when the quality was poor.
I love all of this, but especially your point about helping everyone. One of the challenges we face in attempting to make government work well is that some people view the world as a zero sum game. If I win, then someone else loses.
The reality is that when we work together collectively and promote and uphold good government policies, we can build a society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. It’s definitely not a zero sum game.
Your strategy here-boiling down a campaign to these two questions-gets to the heart of this conundrum and helps to facilitate a productive conversation.
Thanks Nathaniel. As somebody who (very clearly) loves A LOT OF WORDS, I’ve been really challenging myself to think “what’s the most plain and clear way of reaching out to each other.”
Absolutely in terms of what people want to hear and need to have heard.
As for the DoE, as an educator I am appalled by the decision to defund it. At the same time, putting the federal government, business or political types in charge has led to the best professionals leaving the field along with the worst, although the latter are much harder to move out. Standardization of faculties means regression to the mean, way more paperwork, and less support for truly outstanding professionals. There is much that needs to change, and many folks ready to jump in with a plan. We're just using the wrong yardstick when we use a business accountability model
Absolutely Gail. And I think educators are a great case study for the need for a different set of questions I would be obsessed with if I were managing public sector employees— “I know you’re in this job to help, so what would make it easier for you to help?” As you know well, that’s the exact opposite of the way that educators have been managed in a post-NCLB era
The struggle has always been about those who are not doing well by the kids and how to document that, and I get that. The problem is that is also going on at an administrator level, which makes having an objective measure of success much more problematic. The key is creating a set of measures that celebrates gifted teachers and administrators, and recognizing that one size /instrument does NOT fit all.
Omg Garrett the Ezra Klein driveby has me cackling.
Maybe he wrote a great book! Maybe I disagree with it! There's just no way to know!
Ha, thank you both for sending me to look up the book, as someone who used to follow Klein very closely and just can't with him anymore. I don't know whether the NYT poisoned his brain, or he found a new home for his poisoned brain at the NYT? I don't even want to trash talk him because at one point I legitimately liked him so much, but I feel like he's constantly gaslighting me these days because I know that he is smarter than most of what comes out of his mouth. :/
One of the most persistently annoying things I do these days is wax rhapsodical about my love for the Montpelier DMV to anyone who will listen. Some of it may be latent PTSD from the Philly DMV, but every time I go there I leave feeling uplifted! They seem to have a genuinely collegial and nice workplace going there! So yeah, I'd take the DMV to a any kind of nightmare retail experience any day.
You know damn well that you can talk about the Montpelier DMV in this space WHENEVER YOU WANT.
And I have not experienced the Philly DMV (though I am aware that Philly’s approach to citizen-govt interactions can be, um, unique) but I’m increasingly of the conviction that even when the DMV is bad I’d still rather go theatre than wait for a Walgreens employee unlock the Dove soap for me.
100%.
And, as a born and raised Philadelphian, I feel loved when on the receiving end of extreme surlyness. Very comforting.
I also annoyingly tell people how much I love the BMV (it's Bureau here in Indiana!), especially as opposed to the NJ DMVs I grew up with. It's fast! It's rarely crowded! Most of the people are nice! The rules are clear (which I appreciate as someone with anxiety)! It runs as it should!
Having good BMVs is a very Indiana coded thing to exemplary at (see also: Indianapolis' pride in its airport, which is quite nice)
These are good platforms! I really think there's an opening specifically on health care that I haven't really seen any politician take. The years since Obamacare have seen prices go up astronomically as everyone involved tries to either make a giant profit or just keep the lights on. With as much money as exists in this country, the number of people putting off care is haunting.
And that "have you been to a Kroger" line is so true! I thought maybe the reason the Kroger by my last apartment was terrible and only had a single staffed check out lane was because it was a low income neighborhood, but the one on the rich side of town had the same thing going on when I stopped last week. Turns out it is impossible to check out refreshments for 50 people without needing assistance, because you can't fit three gallons of ice cream in the bagging area!
Is the fact that all Krogers are bad now... equity? Go off, woke Kroger!
Hey, readers in the Bay Area, there's an extremely White Pages-coded theatrical experience happening this summer at The Marsh in Berkeley: the brilliant monologist Josh Kornbluth's WHAT IS TO BE DONE?, which is a very funny show (really) about fascism and depression. The anecdote that made me think of you all was about how Josh, who has been having trouble getting off the couch due to his crippling depression, is convinced to accompany his wife to the No Kings demonstration. He's been going to marches all his life (he grew up in NYC and was raised by Communists), but at this one, his spirits were buoyed by a chant he heard: WE LOVE PEOPLE! WE LOVE PEOPLE! He started chanting along, only to have someone correct him: "It's 'We THE People,' not 'We Love People.'" Anyway, four stars, check it out.
oh that sounds great
I also haven’t read Abundance but what’s interesting is that I think in here you’re actually agreeing with one of the core theses of that movement: in order for government to help people, it has to be able to deliver on policy choices. And in recent memory, partially due to actual opposition but I think in large part much more due to lack of attention to implementation, it hasn’t.
Yes we need a Dept of Education, for all the reasons you mentioned. But have you heard how badly the FAFSA crashed a year or two ago? Or take the healthcare.gov launch for Obamacare. Sure, you can tell me Medicare for all is better and I might agree* but either way, you need to give people a way to sign up and the website needs to not crash under predictable traffic loads. Or take high speed rail. I love trains and I’d love better passenger rail options. But the reality is that building new rail here is incredibly slow relative to peer countries and incredibly expensive.
In other words, we deserve education, healthcare, public works projects that improve our ability to navigate the world, and help from the government on a rainy day. We do! We have to do exactly what you said: “ask what could we change about your working environment that would make providing this vital public service easier for you?” Or: what can we change about this program so that it actually helps the people who need it?
But I think to get there we have to also be honest with ourselves when these government institutions are less like the DMVs we love and more like the IRS instructions that are clear as mud. Complexity is a policy choice. Sometimes that has had malicious intent but plenty of it also came from well meaning liberals/progressives. And until we can be honest about asking ourselves “but does this work in the actual real world we live in?” … we won’t be able to truly build together.
*provided the implementation addresses healthcare cost inflation appropriately, and does not simply cause healthcare provider groups to either exit the market or refuse to accept public insurance because they aren’t getting reimbursed at the cost they have to pay to provide the service
I have read Abundance (you should read it Garrett, it’s good!) and I think this is a more clear gloss on its core ideas in relation to this piece than I would have written!
The real journey of this piece is whether or not I will eventually read Abundance!
Completely agree that those of us who love and believe in the power of government need to be clear eyed about the ways it can work better. That’s why talking to so many people about the dream of a government that cares, well, matters so much. So much good faith info about what needs to be tweaked, where good intentions may have added too much complexity, where attempts at good govt are driving people mad, etc.
The government employees get frustrated as well, tbh. A lot of it is risk aversion -- you add in information about "what ifs" and enough "what ifs" and your document is suddenly 100+ pages. Some of it is poorly written laws -- we had a program in my agency that was kind of bust because the underlying statutes were bad. No one really applied for the money because of the paperwork relative to the grant amounts.
Before DOGE took it over in a coup, the US Digital Service was trying to fix some of that stuff. Obama created it after the botched heatlhcare.gov rollout.
What's tough, too, is some of it boils down to just needing more money. But if people think something in inefficient. it's hard to argue "well, give the inefficient thing more money."
I know this is a crazy idea in a DOGE-dazed era but maybe there’s a lot we could gain from listening to government employees about what would make y’all’s life easier rather than just demonizing you all!
1000% agree - used to work at a government agency and plenty of folks I worked with would support sensible civil service reform so hiring and firing (for cause) was not impossible. I really don’t want DOGE and the EOs on this stuff to make it politically toxic to make changes. And it used to be my dream to work for the US Digital Service 🙃
Small-government people have won? The BBB is set to balloon the federal deficit.
Far be it from me to let libertarians off the hook for inconsistency, but the Department of Defense is not really at all analogous to the Department of Education.
In terms of "how can we afford not to pay for them?" have you heard of Peronism?
In terms of "I asked how the government could make your life better, not how it could harm another human being," I get that you want a good narrative. But if you're running for office, at some point you will need to talk about policies. That's... not policy. Policy is tradeoffs.
That's what makes government government. It's fundamentally zero-sum. Everything a government gives or does for anyone it must first take from someone else at gunpoint. That's just true. If you don't want to deal with the mess of politics, of taking, of hurting someone to help someone else, or at least prioritizing one problem above others, of, in other words, tradeoffs, then you don't have to. But to frame the discussion incorrectly doesn't seem helpful to me.
Thanks for all the critiques, Cathy. I think we likely have different philosophies of government. I'm going to engage with a few of your points here, not necessarily as counter-points but bc I respect that you've thought deeply about these questions so want to not just ignore some of our points of disagreement.
One big one: I fundamentally don't believe in the framing of taxation as being taken from me "at gun point" though I do understand that is a common belief, and it sounds like one you hold). While there are no countries worldwide where every single citizen loves being taxed (and therefore where nobody would view taxation as coercive), there are countries where, because of a history of extremely effective government investments in the common good, there is a much higher society level of pride in and willingness to be taxed at a much higher rate than the U.S. [And yes, I have studied Peronism, but also have studied the Rehn-Meidner model and seen first hand its long-term impact in Sweden-- there are savvy, fiscally responsible ways to manage an economy while maintaining a general spirit of abundant public sector generosity]. On one hand, I do agree that policy inherently contains trade-offs, but policy and politics at its best is also a statement of values and vision-- the most effective policy makers throughout history (in terms of improving the well being of their citizenry) have recognized the power of political storytelling in rallying a country both around the promise of what can be true, and an understanding of the trade-offs that approach might take.
A separate issue: Personally (and I don't say this as a gotcha, but as a good faith curiosity) I've never understood why the most prominent acolytes of the argument that taxation occurs "at gunpoint" haven't been more curious about/open to social movements to demilitarize/defund the police. If the concern is state coercion to do anything "at gunpoint" [which I am very much concerned about on a number of fronts-- while I've never had an armed IRS agent knock on my front door, my kids do attend (thanks to a draconian Wisconsin state law targeting its only majority Black and Brown city) public schools that are required to have cops with side arms patrolling the hallways every day], I would love to see more solidarity with the more material and less theoretical ways that state power is executed violently (or with a very explicit threat of violence).
A couple other quick points/questions. First, I definitely agree that the current GOP is not the party of small government, which is why I was careful not to frame them that way. I believe that the project to try to convince Americans that government is ineffective is not a small government project, but a project focused both on rhetorical renunciations of government and systematic defunding of certain programs (not to shrink deficits, but to render them less effective).
Finally, would love to hear your thoughts on why the Department of Defense is not analogous to the Department of Education? I have a sense that might speak (in a really interesting way) to the fact that the two of us have very different philosophies of government and what its core functions should be.
Most of all, thanks for engaging so thoughtfully with this piece, especially since a lot of it seemed to rub you the wrong way. No pressure to respond, but happy to keep talking if that's of interest.