Not Everyone is Trying to Screw You Over

Megan McArdle wrote a nice post at the Atlantic questioning the over the top criticism of Reed Hastings of Netflix and other leaders who make seemingly terrible decisions. Her post is mainly regarding business leaders, but the same logic applies to politicians and other public leaders.

It’s not a popular position to take at the moment, but the majority of elected representatives and public leaders really are generally smart, competent, and want the best for their constituents. Simply because a President, Senator, Judge, etc makes a decision that you believe is hugely idiotic, doesn’t mean the decision maker is pulling the strings on some complex web of corrupt and backdoor negotiations intended to screw you over.

Most elected representatives have built lives around public service and have sacrificed monetarily and personally by running for a position that comes with great scrutiny.

Of course there are cases of horribly corrupt politicians and staff out to gain personally at the expense of the public. And skepticism is to be encouraged in all venues, especially policy making. It is the duty of an informed public to cast a critical eye on decision-making leaders.

But assuming the worst out of every public leader without seeing an issue from multiple points is doing a disservice to the elected individual, the public he is charged to serve, and the process itself. Sometimes, there are no good decisions to be made, but it doesn’t mean someone is out to screw you over.

Why is Congress broken?

Because it can’t close deals.

Deal making best succeeds behind closed doors. Whether it’s Congressional leaders negotiating a federal budget, diplomats constructing sensitive international treaties, or bankers and lawyers hammering out details on a corporate acquisition, successful deal making benefits from the ability of each party to act in a manner free from hyper-sensitive public judgment.

When every move is scrutinized by an ill informed and restless public, the final outcome of a deal becomes a secondary objective to winning the “communication battle” played out in the media 24/7. Each move by each party is analyzed and treated as if it’s the final result instead of a small step in the process. It’s like ESPN talking heads ready to hand the World Series to the Red Sox in June.

We demand transparency from our government for a variety of legitimate reasons, but using a microscope in real-time to analyze complex negotiations ultimately damages our legislative branch’s ability to make deals and causes the paralysis we see.

Controlling the flow of information successfully is a trait that all large organizations share. Think about Apple. Everything you know about Apple, they want you to know. Even companies that preach openness and transparency like Facebook and Google are masters of keeping their strategic advantages behind closed doors.

Congress should do the same. Legislating is ultimately about parties with different viewpoints coming together to make deals that solve problems. Minute by minute analysis by a partisan media fed to a partisan public only muddies that process and makes successful outcomes less likely.

To be more effective, Congress should be less transparent. The process of deal making is supposed to be ugly, but as long as the final product comes out somewhat palatable, Americans will be happy. Let the vultures pick apart the details after the fact.

NYT Magazine

The redesign of the New York Times Magazine reminds Kottke of Monocle. Ugh. No one eagerly anticipates the hours wasted on each Monocle issue more than me, but feeding Tyler Brule’s ego is not to be condoned. 

I’m looking forward to this newest iteration, but mainly because Abstract City is becoming Abstract Sunday and Deborah Solomon’s loathsome interviews will be long gone.