Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday January 01 2017, @03:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the prescient-author-or-eternal-situation dept.

A computer scientist who saw congressional decision-making up close in 1980 found it insufficient to the task of solving big problems.

"I've heard many times that although democracy is an imperfect system, we somehow always muddle through. The message I want to give you, after long and hard reflection, is that I'm very much afraid it is no longer possible to muddle through. The issues we deal with do not lend themselves to that kind of treatment. Therefore, I conclude that our democracy must grow up. I'm not going to give you a magic recipe on how that will happen—I wish I had one—but I offer some thoughts that I hope will stimulate your thinking.

What's principally lacking on the federal scene, it seems to me, is the existence of respected, nonpartisan, interdisciplinary teams that could at least tell us what is possible and something about the pluses and minuses of different solutions. Take energy, for instance. What I would love to see established, with the National Academies or any other mechanism to confer respectability, is a team that will ... say, 'Okay, there are lots of suggestions around, and most of them won't work. But here are six different plans, any one of which is possible. We'll tell you what each one costs, what's good about it, what's bad about it, how dangerous it is, and what its uncertainties are.' At least each option would be a well-integrated, clearly thought-out plan. I do not trust democracy to try to put together such a plan by having each committee of Congress choose one piece of it. Suppose Congress designed an airplane, with each committee designing one component and an eleventh-hour conference committee deciding how the pieces should be put together. Would you fly on that airplane? I am telling you we are flying on an energy plan, an inflation plan, and so on that are being put together in exactly that way.

Unfortunately the original 1980 article that this was excerpted from is paywalled.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @10:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @10:32PM (#448263)

    The 20th Century's first technocrat "brain trusts" hatched Stalin's 5-Year Plans,

    Are you fucking kidding me?? "Brain Trusts"? First thing that was done at time of Stalin was to purge his perceived enemies, which included the entire intellectual class and replace them by frighted yes-man that did nothing but be yes-man that tried to survive in a cut-throat inner-circle. So before you talk about "brain trusts" and "Stalin" or even "Lenin", give your head a shake.

    If you want to look at technocratic governments, look at Canada. Or Germany. Or France (unless they elect that right-wing nut).

    Turkey *had* a technocratic government too, until last 15 years and especially now, as it is purged and replaced by yes-man and theocracy.

    And finally, Russia, which is currently the opposite of technocratic government. And this is what US is now going towards since at least George W.'s days and when Tea Party took over the Republican Party. A brief reprieve forced by Obama, but that is snapping back faster to Stalinist/Trumpist style than you can say "5 year plan". Maybe US needs to wake up that they elected Stalin-like man.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @11:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @11:02PM (#448276)

    Maybe US needs to wake up that they elected Stalin-like man.

    Won't happen. One thing I've noticed about strong man types is that when they inevitably don't do what people elected them to do, the people just double down. Obviously, if the strong man didn't succeed, it must be because his enemies are just that powerful.

    Not sure if the USA can wake up from this. There's too much stupid, and stupid won. When stupid doesn't work, stupid just fights harder.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 02 2017, @03:52AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 02 2017, @03:52AM (#448382) Journal

      When stupid doesn't work, stupid just fights harder.

      Don't fight stupid directly. Let it fight itself.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 02 2017, @06:23AM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday January 02 2017, @06:23AM (#448414) Journal

        The problem with that is, stupid has gotten so big and so powerful and monopolized so many resources that in its fighting itself it's going to kill a bunch of us little people as collateral. Unless and until we get these bastards on both sides of the aisle onto the notional B Ark and aim it at the Sun, there's gonna be fallout, and we're gonna eat it.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @09:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @09:57AM (#448460)

        "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." (Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.) Friedrich Schiller