Our Big Government Misconception

Idealistic television shows like The West Wing portray government as a place for grand ideas and big think. But the reality is that working in government is radically different than most people expect. In short, it is less grand strategy, and more interagency-process. But if government can become a vehicle for change, it seems that our perception of government must change as well.

We asked four experts: What is a fundamental misunderstanding we have about government?

Julian E. Zelizer, Ford Academic Fellow at New America.

One of the biggest mistakes people make about Washington is that this is a city where life all happens “within the Beltway.” In many ways, the dynamics of the city are just the opposite. Politicians and policymakers are constantly feeling the pressure of external opinion. Interest groups who set up shop in D.C. are constantly lobbying the case for constituencies throughout the country, ranging from environmental activists to Wall Street financiers.

The constant rhythm of the election cycle, with midterms every two years and presidential contests every four, brings with it a need to think through the electoral implications of every decision; it seems that everyone in Washington can’t stop campaigning. The proliferation of polls makes even the most minute changes in public opinion a constant point of discussion, while the 24 hour Internet media creates space for ongoing and incessant reporting.

So when people dismiss everyone who lives “Inside the Beltway” they miss how much the worldview of the players in D.C are shaped by what’s going on outside the city borders.

Hollie Russon Gilman, Civic Innovation Fellow at OTI, and former Open Government and Innovation Advisor at the White House.

Technologies don’t transform government – people do.

For a public that has, in the past decade, become increasingly enchanted by and dependent upon technology, it’s easy to believe that government would be more effective if it became more like Netflix or Amazon; in other words, we could say goodbye to sclerotic politics if only we deployed digital technology to disrupt the government the same way it transformed commerce or social interaction. However, government is fundamentally different from these other realms. Government’s purpose is to serve the public, which does not and cannot happen at the click of a button. That’s because democracy on demand is simply not democracy at all. Democracy is messy and slow, by design. The instant gratification, from one click ordering to the “ping” of an email, is at odds with the public institutions that govern.

This is not to say that technology cannot help transform government. It can – if it supplements people and reflects institutional realities.

In government, the long-standing knowledge of public servants will always be more valuable than the next “killer app.” These are the people who have the knowledge of institutions, functions, and most importantly -- people. This is invaluable. Understanding precisely how an agency operates sheds light on previous challenges and avenues for reform.

Technology can be one tool – in a broader tool kit for governance innovations.

More: Why freakanomics is not economics

Ari Ratner, Fellow at New America, and former Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment.

Government is fundamentally a human institution. It is led by human beings and comprised of human beings. And it has the propensity for all the foibles and feats that flow from that basic fact— from the petty protection of ego to selflessly advancing the common good.

Yet, it is a common trope in American political discourse to talk about government as de-humanized.

We bemoan a Washington “disconnected” from “real America”, and speak about government entities as if they were actual human beings: “the Hill thinks this” or “the White House thinks that”.

At its extremes, this discourse devolves into conspiracy theories in which government control extends far beyond a level the government is actually capable of, as anyone who has worked in its ranks can testify. Of course, the fear of a Leviathan state has deep roots in American history. This fear has been compounded by the very real abuses that the American government has sometimes perpetrated at home and abroad. It is heightened, moreover, in an era when people’s lives seem increasingly shaped by forces out of their control.

Nevertheless, this misconception of government hinders the prospect of reforming it. Washington is not “cut off” from America so much as it reflects—and perhaps magnifies— the realities of our society, including our persistent socioeconomic, racial, and gender inequities.

Like any institution created by human beings, human beings can improve government— if only we center its reform to fit the needs of both the people it serves and the people who serve it.

Ben Miller, Senior Policy Analyst in the Education Policy Program at New America, and former senior policy advisor in the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development in the U.S. Department of Education.

Two things stand out as fundamental misconceptions about what it’s like to work in government. The first is that stereotypes that give government a bad reputation—slow, inflexible, overly rule-driven—are because of intentional choices to make it so. The Paperwork Reduction Act is a perfect example of how this happens. A 1980s law that has probably done more than any other bill to make government inefficient, the Paperwork Reduction Act basically requires any proposal to ask more than a few parties for information to first send the document to the Office of Management and Budget along with estimates of the burden associated with filling out the form. Generating these estimates take a lot of unnecessary time and the whole process adds weeks if not months to any process like announcing competitions, soliciting feedback, making new forms. And changing anything that’s been approved once is so onerous that it dissuades continuous improvement.

Various rules around procurement create similar slowdowns as agencies have to meet certain types of benchmark goals, regardless of whether the contract merits it. This is why a small business entity runs a national database of student loan information with data on 30+ million Americans. None of these things happened accidentally—they were intentional choices made to make government work less well, often passed by people for whom this was the end goal.

The second is that stereotypes of career government employees don’t match reality. I was consistently impressed during my time in government by creative thinking from people who had been there for decades, long hours worked, and a willingness to help address major issues even over holiday weekends. They had a strong sense of public service and commitment. Now if only we didn’t create so many rules that work at cross-purposes to that goal.