I think there is a significant bias to overestimate the impact of who wins the Presidential election on policy. Look at how many of the Bush policies were continued by Obama. Normally that’s used as a condemnation of Obama, but I think it’s much better interpreted as evidence that the guy at the top doesn’t matter that much—whoever wins is subject to almost the same set of pressures from interest groups, constraints based on who has what powers & goals, etc, which has a huge effect on policy.
In the tribe, you saw everyone, so you saw everyone with political influence. In the modern world, you only see a few politicians, and so you assume that’s where the influence is, but you don’t see the millions of unelected bureaucrats, and they also have power.
I’m inclined to agree with the first paragraph, but not so much with the second.
It’s probably not just the bureaucrats, it’s the special interest groups, the financial, imaginative, and technological limitations, and comparable inertia from other countries.
I think there is a significant bias to overestimate the impact of who wins the Presidential election on policy. Look at how many of the Bush policies were continued by Obama. Normally that’s used as a condemnation of Obama, but I think it’s much better interpreted as evidence that the guy at the top doesn’t matter that much—whoever wins is subject to almost the same set of pressures from interest groups, constraints based on who has what powers & goals, etc, which has a huge effect on policy.
In the tribe, you saw everyone, so you saw everyone with political influence. In the modern world, you only see a few politicians, and so you assume that’s where the influence is, but you don’t see the millions of unelected bureaucrats, and they also have power.
I’m inclined to agree with the first paragraph, but not so much with the second.
It’s probably not just the bureaucrats, it’s the special interest groups, the financial, imaginative, and technological limitations, and comparable inertia from other countries.