The Cure for Dysfunctional Government
In the new issue of Vanity Fair, Todd Purdum takes an inside look at the operations of the Obama White House, leading up to a simple question: "Is our government dysfunctional beyond repair?"
The problem starts, he writes, with the sheer size of the federal apparatus:
Washington is hard to govern, above all, because of the radical growth in the scope of the federal government's responsibilities--it's an obvious fact, but it's where explanations must begin. On the eve of World War II, F.D.R. had six high-level aides who carried the title "administrative assistant to the president." Harry Truman, after the war, had 12 of them: they met every morning in a semicircle around his desk. There are now upwards of 100 people who have some variation on "assistant to the president" in their titles. The sheer number of things the executive branch is responsible for just keeps expanding; the time available to think about any one of them therefore keeps shrinking. This is not just a management issue, it's a stakeholder issue: every special interest in the country is working zealously to keep what it has, or to get something better.
These aides, Purdum writes, "all work punishing hours, because the entire executive branch funnels through the White House."
Over at the Daily Dish, Conor Friersdorf observes that this is all too much to expect one president and his team to manage: "Perhaps it would be better if less depended on the federal government -- in fact, perhaps if it had less to do, its remaining functions could be carried out more skillfully, with less waste, and to the greater benefit of the citizenry."
Here's my question: Why must we always frame this in terms of the size of government? After all, it's as big as it is because of what citizens (and corporations) have demanded of it. And in fact, when bad things happen, from bank collapses to hurricanes to oil spills, the common complaint isn't that government is doing too much, but that it isn't doing enough.
The deeper issue to me is why "the entire executive branch funnels through the White House." Why must White House aides seek to micromanage the operations of government, adding more layers of authority to the decision-making process? What if the president relied on his Cabinet officers, and more importantly, on the career civil servants who have developed expertise in the myriad operations of government, to do their jobs, instead of assuming that only his own staffers can make things work?
Look at recent crisis response efforts: Things tend to get bogged down until a proven leader with demonstrated government experience (Thad Allen is the classic example) is given the authority to deal forthrightly with the situation at hand.
Instead of exhausting themselves by seeking to manage the entire government from the West Wing of the White House, the president and his aides might try trusting the people who have devoted their careers to federal service.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
Politics.
EJC in ATL Posted Friday, September 3, 2010 8:25 AMIn looking at part of the Friersdorf quote ("perhaps if it had less to do, its remaining functions could be carried out more skillfully, with less waste, and to the greater benefit of the citizenry") and then your later observation ("the common complaint isn't that government is doing too much, but that it isn't doing enough") causes one to come to the following deduction: By spreading itself too thin across an increasing spectrum of concerns, the result is half-assed management of everything. It's not that "government is doing too much" on any one thing -- it's that it's trying to be directly involved in too many things. And it's not exactly the case that "it isn't doing enough" -- it's more an inability to bring a critical mass of concentration to the vital few.
And that, of course, is where politics enters the issue. What's vital? That can be answered variously, depending on one's political bent. Which means, over time, an accretion of special interest assistants to ensure the appropriate political top-spin on an ever-expanding field of topics.
And leaving more to the departments to handle on their own? Let's just say "Oh, my, no, we can't hand over political issues to supposedly apolitical handlers," and leave it at that.
Well, instead of just leaving it at that, let me suggest that politicians are elected based on their ability to convince the electorate of their intention to make a difference. Being elected is a great ego boost to people who often are already pretty full of themselves. One of the great elements of hubris is thinking you have all the answers, and for many, getting elected confirms it for them. If you were elected because the electorate thought you had all the right answers, why in the world would you delegate decision-making to a bunch of non-elected bureaucrats?
It begins and ends with politics.
Tom Shoop homed in with laser-like accuracy on the absurdity of the proposition that the government is dysfunctional. He is correct that government functions in accordance with the demands of the American citizens and corporations who, when things go wrong (bank collapses, hurricanes, oil spills), complain that government isn't doing enough.
joan salemi Posted Friday, September 3, 2010 8:29 AMThe federal government is a bloated, dysfunctional bureaucracy. It is not "as big as it is because of what citizens (and corporations) have demanded of it." It is as big as it is because of an out-of-control Congress and Executive Branch - failed stimulus bills, bailouts to special interest groups, socialized health care bill, Dodd-Frank financial control bill, et al. Most Congressmen and Executive Branch leaders have not even read the thousands of pages of bureaucracy included in these ill-conceived attempts at centralized government control of American life. Yet, the government continues to expand into every facet of our lives, and in the case of these recent examples, against the will of American citizens and contrary to what is authorized in the Constitution.
The pace of the march to socialism has unfortunately and wrongly been exponentially increased by the Obama administration and congressional democrats. It is time to stop this disastrous course and reset the federal government to the responsibilities originally framed by our founding fathers. The Constitution intentionally limits federal government and should be the guide for establishing the range and depth of what we allow the government to do.
American Posted Friday, September 3, 2010 8:54 AMI think we need to get away from "Big Government" and "Small Government" and move toward "Good Government." Government is sized up and down with little to no regard for the personnel requirements for programs. If we, as Americans, want our Government to do something for us, we need to take a hard look at what it is and if we decide to move forward, to allocate the appropriate level of resources (inlcuding oversight) necessary for successful performance. We need to break the cycle of underallocating resources for a program and then wondering why performance lagged or failed.
Lane Narrows Posted Friday, September 3, 2010 9:51 AMTom Shoop hit the nail on its head. As an entrepreneur who worked at the White House under 3 Presidents and now help conceive entrepreneurial solutions at a procurement think tank at a major university, I suggest more emphasis on 'delegation of responsibilities' and 'reliance on entrepreneurial solutions' for the 'cure' to the dysfunctional bureaucratic culture.
What's needed is to empower entrepreneurs and allow them to implement their solutions.
Dysfunctionality comes when bureaucrats get bit by 'Potomac fever' and think they know everything, have power and can solve all the problems in the government. Their dysfunctional culture IS the problem!
Raul Espinosa, Director
Raul Espinosa Posted Friday, September 3, 2010 10:00 AMFPA Think Tank at UNF
Heaven forbid that anyone elected to Congress should read Section 8 - Powers of Congress - in the Constitution albeit they swear to uphold the Constitution when they take their oath of office. “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States….” Nothing in this document allows them to do what they have done; i.e. Obamacare, cap and trade, etc. And our Declaration of Independence says citizens have the "unalienable rights" to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Nothing is guaranteed. Nothing is given. We, the People, must pursue our hapiness on our own, within the law of course.
Suz Posted Friday, September 3, 2010 10:35 AMAnd I agree that it is politics and who can get elected and how big their ego is. Too many of our elected officials believe their own press. The political ads say one thing and too many voters believe them. If it’s an incumbent, do the research and look at their record and see what they actually did verses what they say in their ad. If it's a "newbe", research the best you can since most have a political or legal background. This year, November, will be a turning point in Washington. Read, research, think, and vote what is best for the country and look at more than one issue since the problems this conuntry is more than one issue big.
It's what the citizens and corporation demand..HUH?? When has a corporation ever asked for federal regulation.
dan ketter Posted Friday, September 3, 2010 12:42 PMLets fix this only those who PAY taxes (50%) of the total should be allowed to vote rather than allow the freeloaders to spend other peoples money
It is an iron law of history, rooted in human nature, that the more powerful a government becomes, the worse are the sorts of sociopaths that desire to control it. That trend has been clear here for the last 20 years. The process is self limiting only because centralized control is inherently unworkable. The end result is always to become a perennial basket case like North Korea or the violent overthrow of the government. Our founders understood the only legitimate functions of government are to protect the citizens from force and fraud. We have a brief window where we can still go back to our constitution peacefully. I hope we can do it.
Energy PE Posted Saturday, September 4, 2010 9:42 AMI think everyone thinks we work and live in plush carpet areas and clean desk. We don't have nice plush carpet nor do we have items to clean our desk. We work in an environment that is closed in the windows do not open you can only see out. We breath in and out the germs of everyone we work with. We work with people who don't wash their hands. We work with people who leave out food on their desk. We work with people who play games and take naps. You would think people would just break down the doors to work in a agency like we do.
Lydia Posted Tuesday, September 7, 2010 10:37 AM