A Comprehensive View on the Functionality of Our Government System
Written on
Understanding the performance of our government system is essential to determine if it operates as intended.
The next assertion highlights significant alterations that have impacted our governmental system.
“Enhancing the performance of individual components of a system does NOT guarantee improvement in the system as a whole.”
Consider the analogy of a car. A car functions as a system designed to transport people and goods from one location to another.
When you purchase a new vehicle, you anticipate it will fulfill its purpose reliably, lasting for an extended period with regular maintenance—exactly what it was engineered for.
A car represents a “balanced system.” However, if one day you attempt to construct the “ultimate car” by acquiring the top components from various leading vehicles, the result may be disappointing.
The outcome will not be successful. Even the finest parts from the best cars will not create an optimal vehicle; they will not integrate properly, rendering the assembly ineffective.
Understanding Effectiveness and Efficiency
The car will fail to operate correctly, as Ackoff noted,
“The merit of the goal pursued is irrelevant when assessing efficiency. Instead, it is a product of efficiency and value for a meaningful outcome.”
When a system is crafted for a specific goal, it is termed “effective.” Effectiveness is a function of efficiency multiplied by value. The symbol for efficiency is eta (?). Achieving 100% efficiency is unattainable in our reality.
For instance, a jet aircraft exhibits greater efficiency than a propeller aircraft, and advancements in jet technology have led to cleaner and quieter engines. Efficiency is evaluated by comparing useful output to total input.
Examining Our Government System
In the context of the Supreme Court, the only critical measure is its “effectiveness in applying the Constitution, the ‘Law of the Land,’ to current legal matters.”
As Ackoff further elaborates,
“Such evaluative measures are impersonal. We can assess the efficiency of an action without regard to who performed it. Effectiveness, however, is subjective; the value of an action is dependent on the evaluator, and differing judges may not agree.”
Focus on SCOTUS
Regarding the Supreme Court, evaluating a nominee should center on their understanding of the Constitution. Each individual brings a unique perspective. Consequently, a President aiming to “pack the Court” may actually lower efficiency—more members lead to more debates and prolonged decision-making. If the nominees lack constitutional knowledge, the court will struggle to yield wisdom, functioning merely as data processors.
Ackoff states,
“Despite our ability to create systems that generate information, knowledge, and understanding, we will not be able to generate wisdom through these systems. Wisdom, crucial for pursuing ideals, is what distinguishes humans from machines.”
For over a century, there has been hesitation to declare the administrative government unconstitutional. Can we truly claim they have attained wisdom?
The Supreme Court stands as the weakest governmental branch, composed of members appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. They have operated with a sense of dependency for far too long.
Insights on Congress
The role of Congress is to legislate. Our founders envisioned it as a mechanism for transformative leadership, akin to the Constitution they established. They anticipated a body that would engage in compromise, a far cry from what we witness today. Current members often lack foundational knowledge, primarily pursuing control over the populace.
Reflections on the Presidency
The President can circumvent constitutional norms by issuing Executive Orders when dissatisfied with Congress's actions, effectively acting with autocratic power at times. However, such orders can have lasting negative impacts on citizens and may lead to violations of the oath of office.
For instance, Nixon faced potential impeachment due to his deceitful actions while in office. Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066, which led to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, was a constitutional breach. More recently, during Biden's administration, the CDC's “Eviction Moratorium Order” was extended despite its questionable constitutionality.
The search for humanity compels us, the people, to revive the spirit of charity. Not all solutions rest solely in the hands of the President or Congress; we have our part to play, which seems to have been forgotten.
How Did We Reach This Point?
For over a century, we have wandered aimlessly, akin to Moses in the desert, unaware of the factors influencing our effectiveness.
What did Woodrow Wilson say when he established the administrative government, a fourth branch of government that has burdened voters ever since?
Consider reading further if you wish to understand the historical decisions that continue to impact us negatively today.
Everything Wilson advocated has proven detrimental, placing us under the oppressive weight of the administrative government he initiated, which remains a significant concern for the Supreme Court. They fear declaring this entire administrative structure unconstitutional.
In an 1887 article titled “The Study of Administration,” published in Political Science Quarterly, Wilson expressed:
“The aim of administrative study is to determine what government can appropriately and effectively accomplish and how to do so with maximum efficiency and minimal cost in money or effort.”
He reviewed the governance models of “old world” nations like Germany and England, reflecting on governance less than a century after our independence. Perhaps we can awaken to the unique governmental structure established by our founders.
Wilson identified three stages of governmental evolution observed in prominent nations:
- The era of absolute rulers with administrative systems supporting absolute authority.
- The development of constitutions aimed at abolishing absolute rule in favor of popular control, often at the expense of effective administration.
- The period where the sovereign populace strives to enhance administration under a new constitutional framework that empowers them.
However, he cautioned that constitutions would always require adjustments to remain relevant.
Wilson further remarked,
“The critical debates surrounding constitutional principles persist, but administrative concerns are becoming increasingly urgent. Managing a constitution has become more complex than drafting one.”
He observed that government duties have evolved from simple to complex, with a multitude of influences shaping governance.
Wilson seemingly overlooked the fact that the USA comprises 50 states, each with its own governance, while he favored a centralized national authority. Our founders envisioned limited governance, whereas Wilson aspired to a centralized government overseeing society rather than individuals. His vision has materialized; today, the federal government stands as the largest employer in the nation, focused solely on the efficiency of societal structures, often at the expense of effectiveness.
Consider the Veterans Affairs (VA) system, plagued by bureaucratic inertia and a lack of accountability. The legacy of Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” has further entrenched this bureaucracy, creating regulations that cast citizens as the problem.
Wilson asserted that the administrative government possesses two vital distinctions:
“Administration operates outside of politics. While politics determines administrative tasks, it should not interfere with administrative operations.”
Moreover, he differentiated between constitutional and administrative matters, emphasizing the need for clarity between the two.
Every specific application of general law constitutes an administrative act, while the overarching legal framework remains superior to administration. Administrative details execute broad governmental plans but do not dictate them.
Where Are We Now?
For over 100 years, we have endured injustices wrought by Wilson's vision. His administrative government has distanced us from effective governance, undermining our electoral power and enabling lobbying.
In contemporary governance, we have become isolated. While our votes still lend legitimacy, we have little influence over governmental actions.
Our government no longer functions as an effective system. It has lost its core principle of collaboration aimed at achieving compromise. Instead of benefiting from a unified approach, we see the results of extreme partisan positions, leaving large segments of the population unrepresented in decision-making.
This discord is palpable. A truly unified system would reflect the majority's will through compromise.
THIS IS NOT WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES TODAY!
Errata:
May 5, 2022 [1] Changed: Under the title “What About the President,” four paragraphs down, corrected “CPID-19” to “COVID-19.” [2] Changed: Under the title “How Did We Get Here?,” four paragraphs down, corrected “OFF” to “UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”