Does America need an Arab Spring? It’s a question that may seem absurd after the turmoil following the revolutions of 2011. Yet, it’s the question that has increasingly come to dominate American politics.
In recent years, a series of “outsider” movements— democratic “revolutions” in their own right— have aimed to transform Washington: the 2008 Obama campaign, the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, etc.
Each of these movements has made their impact, but none has focused primarily on the institutional reforms necessary to “fix Washington”.
With a new Republican Congress entering office, expect even more outsider rhetoric. And expect the same results: some overarching policy changes drowned in a D.C. of dysfunction and gridlock.
America needs a democratic version of the “Young Turks”— the insider movement that emerged during the declining Ottoman Empire to revitalize the institutions of its state.
It’s time for a different model. America needs a democratic version of the “Young Turks”— the insider movement that emerged during the declining Ottoman Empire to revitalize the institutions of its state. (To be clear, the historical Young Turks were an authoritarian movement involved in, among other crimes, the Armenian genocide. But the term has since become synonymous with insider reform movements more generally.)
More: The real power of America's angst
In fact, Washington may already have the beginnings of such a movement: When it comes to bureaucracy, the outward dysfunction has masked considerable dynamism. There is an ongoing, largely hidden struggle within the walls of government between those who want reform and those who are tied to the status quo.
Call the reformers America’s “Young Turks.”
The need for such a movement to revitalize Washington is clear. For a 21st century society— defined by the speed and flatness of the Internet— the U.S. Government still has:
(1) a Bureaucracy built for the 20th century— equipped for an economy dominated by GM and GE and a global order defined by the Cold War;
(2) a Court system built for the 19th century— with a Supreme Court that seems as if it wants to re-litigate everything back to the Civil War, complete with its own “Border State";
(3) a House of Representatives that embodies the best thinking of the 18th century, only now without the gentility;
(4) a Senate seemingly copied or borrowed from that of 17th century Poland's — in which every member had his own veto, filibustering its government until the country was swallowed up by its neighbors;
(5) and a campaign system so antiquated, gerrymandered, and corrupted by money that it is veritably Byzantine.
All of these systems need fundamental reform. Public faith in the institutions of government has dropped precipitously. The costs of institutional decay are well-documented.
Yet, this increasing distrust of government currently gets channeled into reforms that only exacerbate its problems. From the right, the so-called “Young Guns” in Congress blindly cut budgets, often denigrate public servants, and saddle the executive branch with politically-motivated mandates that only add to its dysfunction.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have pursued a piecemeal approach when what is needed is transformational change. They are in danger of losing the narrative about government by implicitly defending its status quo when they should— in line with progressives’ own roots— be leading the public sector’s modernization.
Enter our “Young Turks.” Led in no small part by a generation that believes the government must be revamped to reflect larger social and global trends, America’s Young Turks seek to invert Washington’s excessively hierarchical, risk-averse culture in favor of those at the front lines of public service. In this they are often allied with supportive leadership against an “Iron Middle” of middle management that fiercely protect its powers.
If properly encouraged, this incipient movement offers a chance to confront our underlying governance crisis. Actors within the system have institutional knowledge and potential staying power— areas where outsider movements traditionally fall short— to address failings they confront on a daily basis.
What can America’s Young Turks accomplish?
Most Washington analysts and pundits are preoccupied with highlighting flaws within the White House or with Congress. But many of the Obama Administration’s failings— and that of other Administrations— have been bureaucratic ones: the initial rollout of healthcare.gov, the VA crisis, successive Secret Service scandals, etc.
In the case of the Bureaucracy, the basic causes of dysfunction are easy to diagnose. Across its core building blocks— its management of workers, resources, and information— the Bureaucracy has been bogged down by a complex set of rules, and then further hampered by an overzealous Congress. Meanwhile, incentives within the Bureaucracy are misaligned so that managers hoard these very same resources— workers, money, information— rendering their institutions highly inflexible.
Listen: Ambassador Samantha Power on how to reform U.N. peacekeeping
To see how this works in practice, just look at one of these areas: personnel policy.
In a knowledge economy, government— like any institution— depends on attracting, training, empowering, and retaining talented workers (either on a long-term or short-term career path). Yet, the government labor market is ruled by antiquated civil service laws increasingly incompatible with a modern workforce. Enacted with the understandable goal of eradicating corruption, this system has ossified— protecting insiders and contributing to the rise of a parallel contractor state.
Put simply: in government you can’t hire who you need to hire, fire who needs to be fired, or promote based on merit. Yet from the right, the government reform agenda is focused on strict oversight— encapsulated in their crusade against “waste, fraud, and abuse”. In personnel terms, the consequences of these policies are simple (and often petty): salary freezes, tougher working conditions, procurement policy that is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The predictable result is that good workers leave, get beaten down, or become institutionalized. Morale plummets and the government bleeds talent, particularly among the young.
A better solution: unleash the triple-binding of government whereby information, workers, and resources are all tied down in an labyrinth of regulations.
Despite its oversight role, with its limited staff, Congress frequently has difficulty seeing agencies’ inner dynamics. To compensate, the Hill should better incentivize reformers within bureaucracies to identify waste and reward them for their efforts.
This would include creative ways to fix the government labor-market and new mechanisms for budgeting that allow for the flexible deployment of resources. More fundamentally, it would involve training and empowering those at the front lines of public service to react to problems they confront, including by delegating them appropriate discretion. Despite its oversight role, with its limited staff, Congress frequently has difficulty seeing agencies’ inner dynamics. To compensate, the Hill should better incentivize reformers within bureaucracies to identify waste and reward them for their efforts.
Can a Young Turk movement actually work?
It already has— in the Pentagon.
The Pentagon entered the post-9/11 world still fundamentally designed to fight the Soviet Union— with all the myriad afflictions of incumbent government organizations (albeit with a far greater budget): slow, central decision-making, lack of innovation, and so on.
Yet in reacting to the counterinsurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military pushed down authority and decision-making to junior officers, encouraging them to innovate, and empowering them with resources and high-level support. This built on the intellectual work of previous reformers in the late 1990s, like Marine General Charles Krulak’s concept of the “Strategic Corporal”— which advocated increased independence to low-level unit leaders.
These reforms were not a panacea for all strategic or bureaucratic woes. They also occurred against the backdrop of immediate necessity: a thinking foe that was inflicting daily casualties.
Yet, as the American government increasingly concentrates on “nation-building at home”, these lesson should apply to other parts of the government. Indeed, the bureaucratic warfare that unbridled reformers within the Pentagon is exactly the same sociological pattern we see in the emerging Young Turk movement.
As the Obama Administration enters its final two years, the Young Turks in the rest of government— in education, healthcare, diplomacy, or crisis response— need the same type of support they eventually received in the Pentagon. Without it, the American government may simply slog through another decade of unfulfilled promise.
Tags:
-
Ari Ratner