Not the OP but look at the difference between what governments can do when there is a sense of urgency (i.e it is wartime or one is in recent memory) vs what they do when it's not.
My lizard brain interprets this in the following way: Elites in response to external competition or in the presence of existential threat experience strong incentives to make "real" progress.
When there's little external competition, leadership are more concerned with maintaining or slightly enhancing their relative status within existing power structures and this leads to stasis as their interest is mainly blocking or slowing any disruption which could change the balance of power.
Projects often fail because the forces of "keep things the same" beat the team that wanted the change to happen.
Yeah I argue that's human nature. When you're in danger (or perceived danger) you will make drastic moves to survive. When you're in a good spot, you are less incensed to rush things. And generally, status quo in not-bad times is the majority.
So on a macro level a progressive or simply sympathetic minority has to fight a conservative majority in order to keep pushing for change.
The only solace here is that the you rarely need a majority to enact change. Apparently movements need a critical capacity of 3.5% in order to start this network effect of people joining in due to popularity bias.
> Not the OP but look at the difference between what governments can do when there is a sense of urgency (i.e it is wartime or one is in recent memory) vs what they do when it's not.
Every example I can think of involved rushing through legislation and policy changes that were not looked upon kindly given a moment of retrospection.
The New Deal, Japanese internment camps, the PATRIOT Act, Zero COVID policies, etc. The one exception might be something like the Space Race, but that also had a lot to do with Operation Paperclip, which had its own ethical dilemmas.
> Every example I can think of involved rushing through legislation and policy changes that were not looked upon kindly given a moment of retrospection.
The New Deal?
> rushing
Really? This was rushed?
Wiki says:
> During Roosevelt's first hundred days in office in 1933 until 1935, he introduced what historians refer to as the "First New Deal", which focused on the "3 R's": relief for the unemployed and for the poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels, and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.
Further:
> From 1935 to 1938, the "Second New Deal" introduced further legislation and additional agencies which focused on job creation and on improving the conditions of the elderly, workers, and the poor.
Next you wrote:
> not looked upon kindly given a moment of retrospection
Really? Read the intro from Wiki about this programme. Its impact was staggering then, and remains today.
There is a long tradition which views Roosevelt's policies as both ineffective and unjustifiable. In 1933, he confiscated privately-held gold by executive order in 1933. That same year, he instituted a policy paying farmers to slaughter their livestock and leave their fields fallow. The effects of this policy are described (in somewhat flowery language) in John Steinbeck's 1939 novel The Grapes of Wrath. He then attempted to pack the courts in 1937.
It's notable that none of these policies were particularly effective. Of the major industrial economies of the period, only France lagged behind America in terms of economic recovery.
These libertarians are mostly an American phenomenon. In Europe it’s “small-government” conservatives who do this. (They are not really about small government, though, and they never reduce deficits; they are just for upwards wealth redistribution).
Indeed. It was a shame that the country suffered in the experiment but it was quite cathartic to watch her faceplant so utterly and publicly, for purely ideological reasons.
In the end, her stint will be what she deserves: a footnote in history, and the answer to the pub quiz question “who managed to beat Johnson as the absolute worst PM in the history of the UK?” Maybe someone will call a variety of lettuce “truss”. That’d be entertaining.
