0:00

Support for scratch and

0:02

win comes from M.

0:04

Steinert and Sons, guiding

0:06

musicians of all skill

0:08

levels to their ideal

0:10

piano for 165 years,

0:12

featuring the Steinway Spirio,

0:14

the world's finest high-resolution

0:17

player piano, M. steinert.com.

0:19

One of the questions I get

0:21

about the series is, what do

0:24

you mean when you say America's

0:26

most successful lottery? Like, are you

0:28

sure success is the right word

0:31

here? The answer, I think, is

0:33

yes. And here is what I

0:35

mean by it. Every part of

0:37

government has a purpose. Maybe it's

0:39

to build roads, educate children, protect

0:41

the environment. The purpose of

0:44

the lottery is to raise

0:46

money by selling lottery tickets.

0:48

And by that measure, however

0:50

you feel about the purpose,

0:52

the mass lottery is a great

0:54

success. We should be proud of it.

0:56

We should be proud of it. I wish

0:58

every part of my government were

1:01

so successful at its own purpose.

1:03

Now if you've been with us

1:05

since our first season about the

1:07

mighty infrastructure project known as the

1:10

Big Dig, you know that it

1:12

did not go so smoothly. Obviously

1:14

that was a very different

1:16

kind of government endeavor. It

1:19

involved tunneling through downtown Boston

1:21

and under the harbor. But

1:23

if you step back and stick

1:25

with me here, The lottery and

1:27

the big dig have a lot

1:29

in common. They required

1:32

coordination, design, technical

1:34

expertise, political support, people

1:36

power, all the ingredients

1:39

of state action.

1:41

So why do the

1:44

two stories play out

1:46

so, so differently? From

1:56

GBH News, this is scratch

1:58

and win. I'm Ian. Today I'm

2:00

talking with Mark Dunkelman about

2:03

his new book, Why Nothing Works.

2:05

Mark is a fellow at Brown

2:07

University, and he and I started

2:10

corresponding after the Big Dig series

2:12

came out when we realized we

2:14

were exploring a similar question of

2:17

why it was so hard for

2:19

the government to do big things.

2:21

As I was finishing up my

2:24

book, I was listening to your

2:26

podcast and thinking to myself, man.

2:28

We really have stumbled on a

2:31

similar body of thinking at

2:33

the same time. My hope

2:35

with this conversation is to

2:38

take Mark a little beyond

2:40

that question and his comfort

2:42

zone to consider why do

2:45

some parts of the government

2:47

work better than others?

3:01

I feel like our projects are

3:03

already somewhat in conversation, so

3:05

it's great to be personally

3:07

in conversation. Agree. And so

3:09

to help set that up,

3:11

I was wondering if you

3:14

could lay out your thesis

3:16

in that you described there

3:18

are these two kind

3:20

of core impulses of

3:22

American progressivism. Could you

3:24

describe what those impulses

3:26

are? So my view is

3:28

that progressivism when it was

3:31

born in the late 1800s came

3:33

with it two Impulses as you

3:35

say that are sort of

3:37

in a strange marriage and

3:40

that most progressives don't even

3:42

realize that they themselves possess

3:45

The first impulse is what I

3:47

call a Hamiltonian impulse. And the

3:50

Hamiltonian impulse as you might remember

3:52

with Alexander Hamilton is to centralize

3:54

power in some bureaucracy or agency

3:57

that can do great things for

3:59

people. who couldn't do it

4:01

for themselves. So you see a tragedy

4:04

to the common. There's a

4:06

whole neighborhood without a good

4:08

sewer system. No one resident

4:10

can build a sewer for

4:13

themselves. So you need to bring power

4:15

up into some centralized authority

4:17

that sits above everyone

4:19

else and that authority

4:22

will decide where the... sewer

4:24

pipes are going to go, how

4:26

they're going to be connected, where

4:28

the sewage is going to go,

4:30

that's a Hamiltonian impulse. In many

4:32

cases, like with climate change,

4:35

progressives continue to have a

4:37

Hamiltonian view. We need to push

4:39

power up into some bureaucracy that

4:41

will tell the polluters not

4:43

to emit carbon that have

4:46

that authority. We at the

4:48

same time have a second

4:50

impulse, Jeffersonian impulse, and many

4:52

will remember Jefferson, the white slave

4:54

union farmer, but yet the still

4:56

the ordinary person and his fear

4:58

was centralized authority. Like he was

5:01

afraid of the crown, he was

5:03

afraid of a big powerful government

5:05

in the United States as well.

5:07

He wanted to push power down

5:09

to ordinary people, so he was

5:11

really about rights. And so that

5:14

impulse also exists within the

5:16

progressive mind and heart today. Like

5:18

you think about the issue of

5:20

reproductive rights. And the fear is

5:22

once again a centralized bureaucrat telling

5:24

a woman what to do with

5:27

her body. And so our solution

5:29

to that problem is to push

5:31

power down into the individual so that

5:33

she can make a choice at her

5:35

own volition. And these two impulses

5:37

exist within the hearts

5:39

and minds of progressivism

5:41

of individual progressives at the same

5:44

time. Like if you went into a

5:46

coffee shop today and saw probably a

5:48

young person. Who you thought was a Democrat

5:51

and asked them what are your top

5:53

two voting issues and they said climate

5:55

change and reproductive rights? You wouldn't think

5:57

anything about it Right, but these two

5:59

ideas are born from these two different

6:02

impulses. So it's not to say

6:04

in my view that one of these

6:06

impulses is good and one is

6:08

bad or one is more progressive

6:10

and one less. It's that these

6:12

are two different ideas about how

6:15

power should be changed in order

6:17

to drive progress and we progressives

6:19

are betwixt in between.

6:21

We're vexed against ourselves in the

6:23

sense that we believe in both

6:25

of them and have to think

6:27

pretty hard to apply one in

6:29

one spot and one in another, or

6:31

to figure out what the right balance

6:33

is. Yeah, I love this idea. It

6:36

kind of troubles the conventional linear

6:38

nature of like the left and

6:40

right. And what you're suggesting is

6:43

that it's not just a matter

6:45

of how far left, but like

6:47

how far left along which of

6:50

these tracks. It's operating on different

6:52

axis, which is interesting. That's exactly

6:54

right. It is, you know, one

6:57

of the fears I had when

6:59

I wrote the book. and delineated

7:01

between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian impulses, was

7:04

that people would say, oh, well,

7:06

clearly the mods among the progressives

7:08

are Hamiltonian and the, and

7:10

the Libs are Jeffersonian, but

7:12

that's not, certainly not true,

7:14

right? Like you could solve

7:17

our health care mess by

7:19

pushing power up into a

7:21

single-payer system, right? That would

7:23

be a Hamiltonian system, and

7:25

it's embraced by the far

7:27

left. you know, and you can find

7:29

situations the other way as well. So

7:32

my view is that both of

7:34

these impulses are in the

7:36

hearts and minds of both

7:38

the both moderate and the

7:40

most quote-unquote liberal progressives,

7:43

and that we're operating on an

7:46

axis that people don't

7:48

really consider. You said it's

7:50

not an either-or. It's not like,

7:52

you know... Lyndon Johnson is either

7:54

a Hamiltonian or a Jeffersonian. So

7:56

I'm wondering if you could give

7:58

an example of... a figure, a

8:01

project from the past when we

8:03

can see those two impulses working

8:05

together. Yeah, well, the reason that

8:08

I struggle is that both

8:10

impulses are almost always

8:12

at work in some way

8:14

or another. Like there's never

8:17

been a project that was

8:19

entirely Hamiltonian and never been

8:21

a project that was entirely

8:24

Jeffersonian. So they're always working

8:26

and there are tradeoffs. no

8:29

matter how you balance the

8:31

two. So the quintessential example

8:33

of Hamiltonian Progressivism,

8:35

sort of at its apex, is

8:37

the Tennessee Valley Authority, where

8:40

this little lawyer named

8:42

David Lilenthal from Wisconsin

8:44

was basically vested with

8:46

dictatorial powers in the upper south

8:49

of the United States. And the

8:51

problem at the time was that

8:53

the local utilities in and around

8:55

the upper south did not believe that

8:57

it was. going to be profitable

9:00

for them to wire up all

9:02

the poor farms that sat in

9:04

the countryside. And so in that

9:07

case, Franklin Roosevelt invested

9:09

David Lelenthal as

9:11

the head of the Tennessee

9:13

Valley Authority to do this

9:16

on his own using federal

9:18

workers. And he damned rivers,

9:20

created electrical generation, condemned land,

9:23

built poles connected those wires

9:25

to various farms. And what's

9:27

so remarkable about it is that

9:29

Lilnthal in that situation, who was

9:32

still remembered, to the degree he

9:34

is remembered, as a hero, for

9:36

having, you know, brought the lights

9:38

to this huge swath of the

9:40

countryside that was really, you know,

9:42

living in the 19th century, but

9:45

in the middle of the 20th,

9:47

he was exercising essentially the same

9:49

power that Robert Moses would exert

9:51

in New York City, when he was...

9:53

viewed today or is viewed today because

9:56

of the power broker which came out

9:58

in 1974 as a villain. But

10:00

it's the same basic paradigm. None

10:02

of the people who were opposed

10:05

to this project had any real

10:07

standing to oppose it. And so

10:09

just depending on the gloss you

10:12

put on a story, and I

10:14

think the big dig was spectacular

10:16

for this very reason, you looked

10:19

at how various people, depending on

10:21

their vantage point, took away different

10:24

lessons from the big dig. Was

10:26

it a boondoggle? Was it? an

10:28

incredible feat of engineering. Was it

10:31

both of these things at the

10:33

same time? And what does it

10:35

mean for the way that we

10:38

view government generally? And I think

10:40

that probably the way that we

10:43

each answer that question stems not

10:45

from the big dig itself, but

10:47

from our general view of whether

10:50

we think government is competent and

10:52

the stories that we have and

10:54

the experiences that we have. And

10:57

we bring that what Walter Littman

10:59

would have called the stories in

11:01

our heads. to each individual challenge.

11:04

You mentioned Robert Moses, who is

11:06

just this inescapable figure in anything

11:09

to do with urban planning, transportation,

11:11

infrastructure, government works, period. I'm curious,

11:13

how important do you think he

11:16

is and the narrative around him

11:18

in kind of souring progressives on

11:20

that Hamiltonian side? I'm going to

11:23

give you a long answer to

11:25

this question. You know, during the

11:28

1968 Democratic National Convention, there were

11:30

these two warring sides. One was

11:32

inside the convention hall, led by

11:35

Richard Daly, the mayor of Chicago,

11:37

who essentially sicked the Chicago Police

11:39

Department on the protesters outside, led

11:42

by the Chicago Seven, Abby Hoffman

11:44

and Jerry Rubin, and these folks

11:46

who were very suspicious of centralized

11:49

authority. viewed through that prism of

11:51

those two sides, those inside the

11:54

convention hall and those marching outside,

11:56

those in... are the Hamiltonians and

11:58

those on the outside aren't just

12:01

protesting the war they have a

12:03

much more universal gripe about centralized

12:05

authority like they don't like the

12:08

war they don't like Robert McNamara

12:10

they don't like Lyndon Johnson they

12:13

don't like folks like Robert Moses

12:15

who is the most powerful figure

12:17

in New York City he's like

12:20

a Hamiltonian of central casting yeah

12:22

and This book, The Power Brooker,

12:24

that comes out in 1974, exposes

12:27

him for all the things that

12:29

he's done that seem to be

12:31

cutting New York off at the

12:34

knees. He's built these highways and

12:36

terrible places. He's built housing in

12:39

ways that aren't conducive to urban

12:41

life. He's threatened communities. He's done

12:43

terrible environmental damage, on and on

12:46

and on. Blocked public transportation projects.

12:48

There's a whole litany of things

12:50

that he's done. And the power

12:53

broker, which wants the Pulitzer Prize

12:55

in 1975, is designed to take

12:58

down his reputation, which had been

13:00

so sterling in previous years. My

13:02

view is that what Robert Carrow,

13:05

who writes the power broker, is

13:07

he's taking the argument that was

13:09

made on the outside of the

13:12

1968 DNC, he's taking the core

13:14

message, which is that there is

13:16

rot in the middle of the

13:19

American establishment. that needs to be

13:21

exposed and needs to be checked.

13:24

And he's putting it in this

13:26

beautifully told story about Robert Moses,

13:28

essentially presenting it in an erudite

13:31

thoughtful way. People don't remember, but

13:33

like the power broker is released,

13:35

like within weeks of Richard Nixon's

13:38

resignation. And during that period, there

13:40

are a whole series of cultural...

13:43

Moments as well like Chinatown the

13:45

movie Chinatown comes out you may

13:47

remember is a story of like

13:50

a villainous developer who is stealing

13:52

water from the valley outside of

13:54

Los Angeles and bringing it to

13:57

the city. The movie network comes

13:59

out and like the Howard Beals

14:01

famous line, I'm mad as hell

14:04

and I'm not gonna take it

14:06

anymore, right? That's a calling out

14:09

of the establishment, right? Like that,

14:11

I'm mad as hell at the

14:13

establishment. And like, perhaps the apotheosis

14:16

of this comes in the 80s

14:18

and people may or may not

14:20

remember this famous apple. Super Bowl

14:23

ad the 1984 ad the 1984

14:25

ad right and like the apple

14:28

is is sort of absconding the

14:30

zeitgeist of the old Abby Hoffman

14:32

Jerry Rubin it's like a young

14:35

woman uses a javelin or a

14:37

it's a big hammer a sledgehammer

14:39

and mashes the screen and so

14:42

that we can all be free

14:44

right In all of these things,

14:46

the underlying story in our heads

14:49

is a Jeffersonian one, right? It

14:51

is that there is some powerful

14:54

figure above us, and what we

14:56

need to do is be released

14:58

from its tentacles, if we are

15:01

going to make the most of

15:03

our lives, no longer would liberalism,

15:05

the Democratic Party, no longer would

15:08

they really embrace the Hamiltonian notion

15:10

of solving problems. Do you know

15:13

the old line about The Velvet

15:15

Underground that not that many people

15:17

listened to them, but everybody who

15:20

did started a band? You ever

15:22

heard that? I have not. I

15:24

feel like there's something there similar

15:27

with the Power Broker. The book

15:29

is like 1,200 pages long. I

15:31

don't think that like the average

15:34

person has read it. There are

15:36

probably a lot of people who

15:39

own it and have not read

15:41

it. But it is so influential.

15:43

It seems to me in policy

15:46

circles and academic circles and in

15:48

like you said kind of distilling

15:50

this moment in this instinct into

15:53

just you know the most detailed

15:55

gripping account possible. Yeah, you know

15:58

today it almost goes without saying.

16:00

That we presume that there is

16:02

a shadowy force that is operating

16:05

beyond our own perception. And so

16:07

if the story in your head

16:09

is that there is a shadowy

16:12

entity that is out for you

16:14

and out for its own profit,

16:16

your natural impulse, everyone's natural impulse,

16:19

would be, let's put checks. and

16:21

balances around that shadow impulse so

16:24

that it can, so that this

16:26

entity cannot do what it intends

16:28

to do. So tell me about

16:31

the checks and balances. What are

16:33

the concrete policy changes that come

16:35

out of this era and how

16:38

do they change how government works?

16:40

So there are various and sundry,

16:43

but they are pervasive. They are

16:45

essentially hurdles at every step. We

16:47

created, for example, environmental hurdles. So

16:50

we created the... National Environmental Policy

16:52

Act in 1970, which is the

16:54

law that essentially mandates the environmental

16:57

impact statements for big projects. That

16:59

was a big part of the

17:01

story of the Big Dig. We've

17:04

created, you know, the Endangered Species

17:06

Act. We, the Clean Water Act,

17:09

the Clean Air Act, all of

17:11

these are designed in some cases

17:13

to empower a... bureaucracy like the

17:16

EPA to impose regulations, but in

17:18

many cases it creates causes of

17:20

action that allow individuals to challenge

17:23

decisions made by centralized authority. One

17:25

of the stories in my book

17:27

is the story of an effort

17:30

to build a transmission line through

17:32

Maine so that Massachusetts could green

17:35

its grid using hydropower produced in

17:37

Quebec and you needed some sort

17:39

of transmission line to bring that

17:42

power down. And among the things

17:44

that happened in the course of

17:46

the opposition to cutting that line

17:49

through the Northwoods of Maine, they

17:51

created a referendum whereby the people

17:54

were allowed to vote on whether

17:56

they thought that the power company

17:58

should be allowed to, you know,

18:01

take this sliver. of land through

18:03

the North Woods. Quite a contrast

18:05

with the Tennessee Valley Authority example.

18:08

Completely, completely a contrast. So in

18:10

most cases, the checks are not

18:12

created in the mind frame of

18:15

we're going to impose a Jeffersonian

18:17

check on this Hamiltonian establishment, right?

18:20

It is we want to save

18:22

this species from being... rendered extinct

18:24

by a project. We want to

18:27

save the Vista looking out across

18:29

the coast that's uninterrupted with a

18:31

bunch of wind turbines. We want

18:34

to ensure that there's no pollutant

18:36

emitting factory put up in a

18:39

residential neighborhood. Like these are like

18:41

generally the checks are designed for

18:43

good reason. But once they become

18:46

so voluminous that like it's almost

18:48

impossible to clear all the hurdles,

18:50

it becomes almost impossible to get

18:53

anything done. When I was working

18:55

on the big dig, one of

18:57

the questions I would ask, almost

19:00

everyone I interviewed who was involved

19:02

with the project on inside and

19:05

outside, was whether they felt there

19:07

was a fundamental tension between, you

19:09

know, a project trying to be

19:12

democratic and inclusive, and on the

19:14

other hand, effective and efficient. And

19:16

I found that a lot of

19:19

people, especially when I would ask

19:21

activists about this question, you know,

19:24

folks who had fought the highways,

19:26

who had fought those fights, they

19:28

did not want to see it

19:31

as a zero-sum game, that, you

19:33

know, that there's not simply a

19:35

choice we have to make, a

19:38

tradeoff we have to make between

19:40

effective government and democratic government. Do

19:42

you think there is a fundamental

19:45

tension and that we do have

19:47

to balance those things? The

19:51

short answer is yes. The

19:53

longer answer is that we,

19:55

certainly on the left, Have

19:57

a fantasy that if you

19:59

talk to everybody and everyone

20:01

else talks to everyone else

20:03

That we will be able

20:05

to find some solution that

20:07

everyone can agree to That

20:09

if you simply bring you

20:11

know, it's sort of remarkable

20:13

if you probably did this

20:15

when you were doing the

20:17

big dig if you go

20:20

to all the big think

20:22

tanks and download all of

20:24

their White papers on infrastructure

20:26

and how to do infrastructure

20:28

better The first recommendation is

20:30

almost invariably approach the community

20:32

earlier in the process. The

20:34

notion is that if you

20:36

just tell people that we're

20:38

going to drive a high-speed

20:40

rail line through your downtown.

20:42

early enough, they can find

20:44

some sort of accommodation or

20:46

that they can be bought

20:49

off with a new ice

20:51

skating rink that the high-speed

20:53

rail developer is going to

20:55

build for them or somehow

20:57

they will at least have

20:59

felt consulted and therefore a

21:01

seed. But the truth is

21:03

that in most cases, like

21:05

there is no obvious place

21:07

to put the high-speed rail

21:09

line. Every place has an

21:11

interest in not being changed.

21:13

No one wants their property

21:15

be taken. No one wants

21:18

to live near the factory.

21:20

No one wants to live

21:22

near the homeless shelter. No

21:24

one wants to have the

21:26

highway be too close or

21:28

too far from their little

21:30

hamlet. And so I don't

21:32

know whether in all cases

21:34

we need to think of

21:36

it as a tradeoff between

21:38

effective government and democratic government,

21:40

but there are tradeoffs to

21:42

be made. And we need

21:44

some system where... Not everyone

21:47

benefits, some people suffer and

21:49

the whole society benefits, we

21:51

need some system for being

21:53

able to balance those two

21:55

priorities. It's interesting to me

21:57

that this reevaluation of how

21:59

we build the sort of

22:01

environmental regulation, citizen input, is

22:03

happening. now. You know, so

22:05

your book came out this

22:07

month. Ezra Klein and Derek

22:09

Thompson published a book called

22:11

Abundance the same month, exploring

22:13

similar themes. And I think

22:16

it's much bigger than that.

22:18

I think to some extent

22:20

the series we did on

22:22

the big dig felt kind

22:24

of swept up in this

22:26

same energy. Which is something

22:28

that I don't think I

22:30

really perceive going into the

22:32

project, and it really, one

22:34

of the surprises of putting

22:36

that out in the world

22:38

was realizing just how ready

22:40

and excited people on the

22:42

left were to celebrate this

22:45

big, you know, supposed boondoggle

22:47

of a project. And so

22:49

I'm curious, why now? Why

22:51

is this in the air

22:53

now? I

22:56

think from a purely political

22:58

standpoint, this is salient today

23:01

because we're losing. I think

23:03

that the notion that government

23:06

doesn't work, and that's a

23:08

notion that is shared on

23:10

the right and the left,

23:13

is a terrible presupposition for

23:15

the Democratic Party that wants

23:18

to argue to people that

23:20

government is a solution to

23:23

problems to problems. If

23:25

you're able to set aside the

23:28

desire to ascribe Donald Trump's emergence

23:30

on the scene as one born

23:32

from pure prejudice and bigotry and

23:34

xenophobia and sexism and all the

23:37

lousy things that are associated with

23:39

him and sort of wonder why

23:41

is it that all these people

23:43

who see that, who have been

23:46

told that, who have been barised

23:48

with messages about how terrible he

23:50

is, still voted for him. I

23:52

think the underlying notion is. that

23:55

here's a strong man who will

23:57

push through. all these systems that

23:59

don't work, that haven't worked for

24:01

working class families, but frankly, don't

24:04

work for a lot of middle

24:06

class families. And if that's the

24:08

case, then the crucial element that

24:11

progressives haven't yet grappled with is

24:13

how do we present a government

24:15

that actually can deliver? And once

24:17

you realize that we progressives have

24:20

been the ones who are really

24:22

responsible for many of the hurdles,

24:24

that prevent government from acting effectively,

24:26

you don't have to spend your

24:29

time thinking about Donald Trump. You

24:31

realize that if we created these

24:33

problems, we can work our way

24:35

out of them, which isn't as

24:38

a guess that we need to

24:40

return to the era of Robert

24:42

Moses and David Lilenthau doing things

24:44

without anyone having any recourse to

24:47

challenge them. But it is to

24:49

say that like, if we're the

24:51

ones that are stopping the transmission

24:53

line from going through Maine so

24:56

that Massachusetts can green its grid,

24:58

then we... If we change our

25:00

tune, we can probably walk some

25:02

of that back. There is something

25:05

very empowering in realizing that we

25:07

are responsible for our own frustration.

25:09

And to be clear, the problems

25:11

you're identifying are not just with

25:14

physical infrastructure. Right? I mean, this

25:16

also affects health care policy. Could

25:18

you like expand on how this

25:20

idea of procedure affects other areas?

25:23

of government service? So let's work

25:25

through welfare. Sure. Because it's, I

25:27

think, a great example. When the

25:30

program that we now know as

25:32

TANF began in the New Deal

25:34

as aid to dependent children, the

25:36

goal was to create a federal

25:39

welfare system that empowered single mothers

25:41

not to have to go to

25:43

work. The way that we were

25:45

going to do that is that

25:48

we were going to give money

25:50

through social workers to people who

25:52

were cases. in the system. So

25:54

the federal government would provide states

25:57

with money. That money would be

25:59

doled out by social workers. Generally,

26:01

middle class women who would go

26:03

and meet poor women who were

26:06

raising children and give them money

26:08

if they were following the rules.

26:10

But there was a lot of

26:12

discretion given to these social workers.

26:15

And so if a social worker

26:17

was kind, she might throw in

26:19

a few extra dollars if her

26:21

car broke down or whatnot. If,

26:24

on the other hand, she thought

26:26

that the woman wasn't properly following

26:28

some moral code, that she had

26:30

a boyfriend when she shouldn't, that

26:33

she was drinking too much, that

26:35

she was an addict or whatnot,

26:37

she could withhold support. And you

26:39

get to the 1970s and people

26:42

are looking at this and they're

26:44

like, this is awfully weird. Like,

26:46

there's something off-putting about the notion

26:49

that you're essentially... sicking a new

26:51

mother through the government on to

26:53

these women. It feels oppressive, coercive.

26:55

Like there were what they called

26:58

midnight raids where the social workers

27:00

would knock on the door of

27:02

someone's home who was on the

27:04

door and see if there was

27:07

a man in the house. And

27:09

the Jeffersonian reform impulse was to

27:11

make the welfare system AFDC automatic.

27:13

So if, or ministerial, if a.

27:16

person could check these boxes if

27:18

they had an income that they

27:20

could prove was below this level,

27:22

if they had this many dependent

27:25

children, if they etc, etc, if

27:27

they had tried to enroll their

27:29

kid in school. If they, if

27:31

they met these criteria, they would

27:34

get a benefit of some sort.

27:36

The social workers were essentially replaced

27:38

by case workers. This is the

27:40

Jeffersonian solution. People who have no

27:43

incentive to really help people. They're

27:45

just trying to make sure that

27:47

the paperwork is right. And like

27:49

the image that we have from

27:52

like ghostbusters of like of an

27:54

EPA bureaucrat who like it just

27:56

wants to follow the rules, it's

27:58

not thinking about the greater good.

28:01

The image that we have of

28:03

the welfare system is a Jeffersonian

28:05

welfare system where the rights are

28:07

endowed in the individuals who are

28:10

getting puny checks and no real

28:12

support from a system that doesn't

28:14

really work. And so, you know,

28:17

there are advantages and advantages to

28:19

both approaches, and you have to

28:21

find a balance that is workable.

28:37

So I want to draw in

28:39

the story of the state lottery,

28:42

which I realize on the surface

28:44

might seem like an odd connection.

28:47

But I think there's a bit

28:49

of irony here, I guess, that

28:51

I'm interested in, in that on

28:54

the one hand, we're talking about

28:56

the big dig, this clearly beneficial

28:58

project that was not run very

29:01

smoothly and was very expensive and

29:03

troubled in all these ways. And

29:05

then on the other hand, you

29:08

have the lottery, a government project

29:10

of somewhat questionable. value and benefit

29:12

that is operated very smoothly and

29:15

efficiently and effectively. And so at

29:17

a high level, the question I

29:19

have is, why do some parts

29:22

of the government work better than

29:24

others? Yeah, I mean, the criticism

29:27

that Alan Errenhol made of the

29:29

book in Washington Monthly was that

29:31

the title, Why Nothing Works, like

29:34

clearly some things do work. It's

29:36

very hard to say that the

29:38

Social Security Administration, doesn't work. You

29:41

know will it be fully funded

29:43

forever like those are those are

29:45

topics that are sure they did

29:48

so what is it that social

29:50

security and the lottery and I

29:52

don't know if there are other

29:55

things you put in that bucket.

29:57

What do they have in common?

29:59

Is there no immediate detriment to

30:02

anybody that they can feel and

30:04

see? Yeah. I wonder if I'm

30:07

just thinking out loud here, but

30:09

there's something about the balance between

30:11

the harms and the benefits. In

30:14

an infrastructure project, like the big

30:16

dig, the harms are extremely concentrated.

30:18

If you are the person who

30:21

lives next to that on ramp

30:23

that is going to be built,

30:25

you know that you are being

30:28

harmed. Whereas the benefits are very

30:30

diffuse. everybody, the thousands of people

30:32

who commute through the city, the

30:35

thousands of people who ride the

30:37

train, whatever it is. In the

30:40

case of something like the lottery,

30:42

the harms are much more diffused.

30:44

There are people who develop gambling

30:47

addictions scattered throughout the state that

30:49

are not an especially organized or,

30:51

you know, powerful constituency. And on

30:54

the other hand, you have benefits.

30:56

that are very real, obviously for

30:58

the handful of people who become

31:01

millionaires, but maybe more importantly for,

31:03

I don't know, the Senate president

31:05

who has a little extra money

31:08

to play with, or for the

31:10

mayor of a small town who

31:12

gets a check from the state

31:15

every year from the state lottery.

31:17

There are these, the benefits are

31:20

very concentrated and tangible in a

31:22

way that creates... a political constituency,

31:24

whereas in the infrastructure the harms

31:27

are very concentrated and tangible in

31:29

a way that energizes opposition or

31:31

energizes a constituency. Do you think,

31:34

does that make sense? Yeah, it

31:36

makes a lot of sense. How

31:38

much of it is just about

31:41

attention then, you know, social security?

31:43

It just operates and nobody pays

31:45

attention to the day-to-day operations of

31:48

it. The lottery, people don't pay

31:50

attention to it. As soon as

31:52

that construction barrier goes up, you

31:55

pay attention to it. Or even

31:57

before, when the design plan goes

32:00

out and you see... the 14-story

32:02

housing building in your neighborhood, people

32:04

pay attention to it. Is that

32:07

sort of what divides the parts

32:09

of government that are able to

32:11

function kind of more smoothly in

32:14

the parts that hit all these

32:16

roadblocks? I mean, I think the

32:18

other way to look at this

32:21

is to say Social Security was

32:23

fairly controversial when it was established,

32:25

less so because it was the

32:28

height of the New Deal. Roosevelt

32:30

didn't have much opposition. But like

32:33

you go back and look at

32:35

the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, like

32:37

the American Medical Association opposed these

32:40

programs. And like there was talk

32:42

of socialism and there was a

32:44

lot of fear of what this

32:47

would do to the private marketplace

32:49

for health care, etc., etc. And

32:51

like the big dig was very

32:54

controversial when it happened, but then

32:56

when it became part of the

32:58

landscape, people... Embraced it and so

33:01

the I think there is some

33:03

notion that once the system is

33:05

up and running Like you aren't

33:08

nearly so caught up in the

33:10

opposition that you had when it

33:13

when things change right? It almost

33:15

makes me wonder as a thought

33:17

experiment like if if every time

33:20

the state lottery rolled out a

33:22

new product. Like if they were

33:24

gonna start offering keno games in

33:27

bars and places that sell alcohol,

33:29

if they had to have like

33:31

a citizen impact statement, and it

33:34

was subject to litigation, I wonder

33:36

what that process would look like,

33:38

if it would draw a lot

33:41

of attention or not, I'm not

33:43

sure. I mean, that's what's fascinating

33:46

about this Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian tension, is

33:48

that. We're not

33:50

of one mind about it. Throughout our

33:52

history, we've had different views in different

33:54

realms about whether we want to raise

33:56

power up into central authority or push

33:58

it down to individuals. When

34:01

you look out across the

34:03

federal bureaucracy, state bureaucracy, are

34:05

there bright spots for you?

34:07

Are there areas of government

34:09

that you think do work

34:11

very smoothly or very effectively?

34:14

Yeah, I mean, you're seeing

34:16

now this broad-based attempt by

34:18

the Trump administration to take

34:20

down these research institutions. In

34:22

many cases, that research has

34:24

worked out entirely to our

34:26

benefit. I mean, you know,

34:28

we should have given Trump

34:30

more credit. Maybe he would

34:32

be in a different frame

34:34

of mind, but warp speed

34:36

brought us vaccines, like those

34:38

are miracle drugs. And they

34:41

were done by centralized agencies

34:43

where they have a certain

34:45

mechanism for deciding who gets

34:47

funding and how much. And

34:49

sometimes they're going to make

34:51

terrible decisions by the same

34:53

token, like, you know, our

34:55

public health is... Much improved

34:57

in general because of decisions

34:59

made by centralized experts who

35:01

understand the science and are

35:03

making discretionary Choices about where

35:05

funding should go. So like

35:08

that's actually a pretty good

35:10

case like the NIH the

35:12

NIH The NIH the DARPA

35:14

which is the defense's industries

35:16

sort of research arm, you

35:18

know when the food and

35:20

drug administration was established at

35:22

the beginning of the 20th

35:24

century like those bills bills

35:26

or very controversial at the

35:28

time because no one had

35:30

ever thought to give the

35:33

federal government that kind of

35:35

regulatory power over the things

35:37

that we eat. And to

35:39

this day, like the degree

35:41

to which we have safe

35:43

food in our grocery stores,

35:45

like that's a result of

35:47

federal regulation. We're not having

35:49

community meetings about whether the...

35:51

FDA has approved the sale

35:53

of eggs from this circumstance,

35:55

right? There we have invested

35:57

power in. centralized experts and

36:00

we depend and celebrate when

36:02

they get things right or

36:04

we or they get things

36:06

right so frequently that we

36:08

we don't even really question

36:10

whether we would want to

36:12

take the authority away from

36:14

them. Mm-hmm. As you just

36:16

mentioned, we're in a moment

36:18

now where the federal government

36:20

is being transformed and some

36:22

parts of it are simply

36:24

being turned off and I

36:27

wonder I feel like there's

36:29

a natural reaction to that

36:31

from folks on the left

36:33

to defend the institutions, right?

36:35

To defend the rules and

36:37

the procedures as they were.

36:39

And I'm wondering if that

36:41

poses a challenge to the

36:43

kind of argument that you're

36:45

making about the need to

36:47

reform the way government works.

36:49

I'm just wondering how you

36:51

think about... the impulse to

36:54

defend the institutions and to

36:56

make them better? Well, I

36:58

certainly am not supportive of

37:00

just a sledgehammer approach to

37:02

reform me the federal government.

37:04

And it seems to me

37:06

that we should be doing

37:08

it in a thoughtful way,

37:10

but you're right that like

37:12

when Elon Musk sends out

37:14

an email asking people to

37:16

justify what they did that

37:18

week they did that week,

37:21

Progressive shouldn't be against that.

37:23

Maybe a burden for those

37:25

people to have to justify

37:27

what they did, but they

37:29

should be able to justify

37:31

what they did that week.

37:33

You don't want to be

37:35

defending the notion that there

37:37

are bureaucrats who have jobs

37:39

who are not actually producing

37:41

for the public interest. They're

37:43

being paid with taxpayer dollars

37:46

for a reason. So like

37:48

the notion that we wouldn't

37:50

constantly be trying to improve

37:52

and reform bureaucracies so that

37:54

they're more effective. That should

37:56

be our point of view.

37:58

Their point of view is

38:00

that government is generally bad.

38:02

trying to undermine it so

38:04

that people are not getting

38:06

the benefit of having a

38:08

proactive, thoughtful, effective public sector.

38:10

Like, they don't believe in

38:13

the public sector. They want

38:15

to give more power to

38:17

the private sector. That's not

38:19

a progressive point of view.

38:21

But that doesn't mean that

38:23

progressives should be in favor

38:25

of ineffective government. That should

38:27

be, in fact, more offensive

38:29

to us than it is

38:31

to them. Like there should

38:33

be more examples of us.

38:35

taking a scalpel to ineffective

38:37

bureaucracies and firing people who

38:40

aren't doing their job and

38:42

evaluating whether this program is

38:44

more effective at fighting property

38:46

than this program. And so

38:48

we're going to eliminate the

38:50

second program and invest more

38:52

in the first. That should

38:54

be constantly on our minds.

38:56

How can we squeeze more

38:58

out of the lemon of

39:00

what the taxpayers have given

39:02

us so that they are

39:04

seeing, feeling, and touching? really

39:07

an effective institution. We should

39:09

be the stewards of good

39:11

government, not Elon Musk. To

39:13

close, I'm curious, looking ahead,

39:15

is there a policy area,

39:17

a project where you feel

39:19

like the left needs to

39:21

take up that more emboldened,

39:23

muscular, creative energy? Where do

39:25

you see the potential for

39:27

that? So there's this famous

39:29

story where Robert Carrow who's

39:32

written this book about Robert

39:34

Moses. He says, you know,

39:36

every time I go to

39:38

a cocktail party, someone comes

39:40

up to me, often someone

39:42

of the real estate variety,

39:44

and says to me, isn't

39:46

it time we had another

39:48

Robert Moses? And Carrow responds,

39:50

you know, I not being

39:52

someone who wants to get

39:54

into an argument. Simply say

39:56

no and walk away. And.

40:00

I think that the

40:02

thing that I took

40:04

from that was that

40:06

there are would be

40:08

Robert Moses's everywhere. Like

40:10

New York is not

40:12

short of middle-aged men

40:14

with gumption, right? But

40:17

what's changed is the

40:19

environment in which those

40:21

people operate. So I

40:23

think that there are

40:25

progressives of all stripes

40:27

who are eager, willing...

40:29

maybe frothing at the

40:31

mouth to do big

40:33

things, to improve public

40:36

health, to improve infrastructure,

40:38

to build more housing,

40:40

people who want to

40:42

take care, to take

40:44

the best advantage of

40:46

the clean energy revolution,

40:48

like who want to

40:50

save the climate. On

40:52

all these fronts, I

40:54

think that there's enormous

40:57

possibility and enormous excitement,

40:59

but that reforms... designed

41:01

to stop bad projects

41:03

from happening are now

41:05

precluding good ones from

41:07

getting off the ground.

41:09

Thanks so much. Thanks

41:11

for having me. You

41:13

made me love you.

41:15

I didn't want to

41:18

do it. I didn't

41:20

want to do it.

41:22

I didn't want to

41:24

do it. the

41:28

time you knew

41:30

it. I guess

41:33

you always knew

41:35

it. You made

41:37

me happy sometimes.

41:39

You made me

41:41

sad. But there

41:43

were times dear.

41:45

You made me

41:47

feel so bad.

41:49

Mark Dunkleman is

41:51

the author of

41:53

Why Nothing Works.

41:55

Who and how

41:57

to bring it

41:59

back. And that

42:01

is it for our run

42:03

of interview episodes this season.

42:06

However, we will be back

42:08

in your feed next week

42:10

to share a story from

42:13

our friends at NPR's Through

42:15

Line that zeros in on

42:17

a truly key figure in

42:20

the everlasting push and pull

42:22

between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian thinking.

42:24

It's a great story, so

42:27

stay tuned for that. And

42:29

also just stay tuned to

42:31

this feed. We will be

42:34

back with another series sometime

42:36

in the next year. And

42:38

the best way to know

42:41

about it is to subscribe

42:43

and follow wherever you're listening

42:46

right now. You can also

42:48

follow me on socials. Probably

42:50

the best place to hear

42:53

about new projects I've got

42:55

is on Blue Sky at

42:57

Ian Cost. I don't think

43:00

there's another Ian Cost on

43:02

there, so you'll find me.

43:04

This episode was edited by

43:07

Lacy Roberts. May Lay is

43:09

the project manager and the

43:11

executive producer is Devin Maverick

43:14

Robbins. My co-producer for the

43:16

whole scratch and win series

43:18

is Isabelle Hibbert. Scratch and

43:21

win is a production of

43:23

GBH News and distributed by

43:25

PRX. Yes, I do. Indeed,

43:28

I do. You know I

43:30

do. So give me, give

43:32

me, give me, give me

43:35

what I cry for. You

43:37

know you got the brand

43:39

of kisses that I die

43:42

for. You know you made

43:44

me. You know you made

43:47

me. You know you made

43:49

me. all

43:59

the time. you know, it. Thank

44:01

you. Hey, I want to make sure

44:03

that you know, this series you're listening to

44:05

right now is part of an ongoing feed,

44:08

I want to make

44:10

sure that you know

44:12

this series you're listening

44:14

to right now us

44:16

part of an ongoing

44:18

feed stories from the

44:20

past to help us

44:22

understand our present. all Our

44:25

first season is all

44:27

about infrastructure. The second

44:29

season is about gambling. and

44:31

we've got more seasons planned. planned. So So

44:33

if you want to stay on top of

44:35

what the team and I are doing,

44:37

go ahead and follow or subscribe to this

44:39

podcast wherever you listen. We've got

44:42

some really exciting stories coming up, and I

44:44

hope you'll stay with us. Thanks.

44:46

us. Thanks.