Donald Trump is trying to make radical changes in our society practically overnight. Even if these changes are desirable, which is debatable, history suggests that it is extremely unwise to try to make them in a hurry. It is dangerous to steer a heavy truck around a corner at high speed. Abrupt changes in direction […]
Donald Trump is trying to make radical changes in our society practically overnight. Even if these changes are desirable, which is debatable, history suggests that it is extremely unwise to try to make them in a hurry.
It is dangerous to steer a heavy truck around a corner at high speed. Abrupt changes in direction will turn it over, destroying its cargo. The same danger exists when making abrupt changes in complex political, social and economic systems, which have immense institutional inertia.
We Ignore physical and institutional inertia at our own peril. It doesn’t matter if the truck ought to change its direction or if the major institutions should be changed. Abrupt efforts to make even needed changes will produce bad results. Large changes are best implemented gradually.
The only exception might be when major emergencies arise, things like Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the onslaught of Covid in 2020.
Congress, and perhaps to some extent the Constitution, may authorize the president to deal with emergencies. But they do not authorize the president to create emergencies .
If there is no emergency, the costs of haste will far outweigh the costs of waiting to fix the alleged inefficiency or corruption used to justify major changes. And beyond a certain point it can be cheaper to live with some inefficiency or corruption than to completely eliminate them.
One advantage of peaceful reform over violent revolution is that reforms—even those ultimately producing large changes—-are always gradual. As they are implemented, reforms allow feedback and can be adjusted to reduce unexpected side effects. Unlike revolutions, they do not require total reliance on untested theories.
The goals of the Fabian socialists in England may or may not have been a good idea, but they pursued those goals by democratic reforms rather than the violent revolution employed by the Soviet Union’s Communists. The Fabians, the nucleus of the new Labour Party early in the Twentieth Century, ended up causing much less damage than the Communists did. The Fabian motto—“the inevitability of gradualism”—neatly captured the difference between the reformist and revolutionary mentalities.
When changes in the United States are brought about by Congress, the courts, and administrative agencies, they are generally very slow. But these changes can add up to major and generally beneficial change, and they will have the benefit of legislative, judicial, and administrative deliberation—in the latter case governed by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.
Changes brought about by the president, especially large changes taken to deal with emergencies created by that same president, do not have the same advantage. They may be the functional equivalent of “shooting from the hip.”
The current president, Donald Trump, appears to be highly creative at thinking “outside the box,” which can be useful if properly done. There are limits to this usefulness, though.
A recent cartoon makes the point. A man is addressing a cat, telling it “Never, ever, think outside the box. ” Of course the box referred to here is the litter box in which said cat is supposed to do its business, and outside the box can produce a real mess.
Thinking outside the box is often called brainstorming. In brainstorming, no ideas are rejected no matter how outrageous they may seem on first glance. But the critical assessment which follows brainstorming subjects these ideas to a consideration of the proposed actions’ side effects. It asks if there are ways to modify a proposed action to retain its desired consequences while minimizing its bad side effects.
Mr. Trump’s frequent on again, off again proposals appear to be the result of brainstorming sessions which were not followed up by the necessary critical assessment of the ideas brainstorming produced.
Brainstorming plus critical assessment can make one look like a genius. Brainstorming without a critical assessment followup can make one look like a crackpot.
After critical assessment, responsible actors will almost always pursue large political, social and economic changes gradually.
