March 24, 2020 • 42 mins
An extended (and off-air) conversation with Lanhee Chen about "Bureaucracy Disease" and how our bloated government agencies can steered in the right direction.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
doing our part to keep riders safe. We're cleaning like
nevill before, build greatly. You've found hassant, no mask, no
Metro need one. We have a few extras at Metro.
(00:22):
We're doing our part to keep the DC area moving.
Find out more at well mata dot com slash doing
our part so their guests we have on the show
on a regular basis where we think we need to
talk to this person for longer. There's not enough time here. Well,
here's the chance with one of our favorite guests. It's
extra large because four hours simply enough. This is Armstrong
(00:43):
and Getty extra large. Man. I don't know who that is,
but that guy's got good pipes. Pipes Listen, all who
have ears, friends, romans, countrymen. Finally a chance for an
extended chat with Lani j Chen, the David and Diane
Stiffy research fellow with the Hoover and Such, also the
director of Domestic Policy Studies and Lecture in the Public
Policy Program at Stanford University. So we've been wanting to
(01:06):
talk to you for a long time about government and
that sort of stuff and your knowledge base and uh,
and not particularly about at the time we're recording this
the biggest crisis of my lifetime, the coronavirus and everything else,
but some of it fits together. We've been wanting to
talk about bureaucracy, disease and a government this size and
whether it can react. And I don't know if you
(01:28):
saw the breakdown in the Wall Street Journal the other day,
in all the different ways the c d C and
the f d A and all different organizations have not
reacted to this very well. Too many regulations, too many layers,
too many rules. Um, is there anything that can be
done about that? Well, we get better at that, ever,
or is that just the product of a growing and
(01:48):
growing government. Well, we can get better at it. It's
going to require us to take a careful look at
what needs to be there and what doesn't. So you
guys have already hinted it. A few of the challenges
we have. One is you just look at healthcare as
an example. We've got so many different types of bureaucracy
that are involved. We've got so many different agencies and
(02:11):
make no mistake about it. There are functions that those
agencies serve which are important, so we don't want to
denigrate the functions that they play, but we we do
want to think about who actually has authority to do
things when something happens. And that's the challenge you have
when you have overlapping responsibilities. You have in healthcare, for example,
(02:33):
an agency that's designed to approve new drugs and new
therapeutics as the FDA. You have an agency that's designed
to be there to deal with the spread of disease
and control the spread of disease, that's the CDC. Then
you've got the Department of Health and Human Services, which
is theoretically over all of them, yet those agencies are
(02:53):
expected to operate somewhat independently. And then you have you know,
various other small agencies I'm forgetting about as well. So
we've got to figure out how to streamline all of this,
and it's going to take a sort of holistic approach,
and someone needs to come along and say, hey, let's
stop and let's do this, because what always happens in
(03:13):
government is the urgent crowds out the importance. So a
lot of steps we need to take and most certainly
a lot of changes that can be made. I have
a feeling there are some really fundamental forces at work here.
Our friend Tim Sandiford likes to talk about how in
general and government success is punished. I mean, if you
accomplish your goal having used only your budget, you have
(03:34):
budget taken away um and and failure is rewarded. You
get a bigger budget, you get more people. And there's
the question of defending turf every every Well, many bureaucrats
want nothing more than budget and people and turf, and
and if if that's their strongest impulse, then it's going
to be really hard to tear it down and rebuild it.
(03:57):
You're right so that that mind set is absolutely prevalent
in lots of parts of the federal government and state government,
and probably even city and local government. But the challenges
that how these bureaucrats measure success oftentimes is by how
much budget they get to your point, how many people
they have on their team, how big of a bureaucracy
(04:20):
they can create, what kind of process they can create
around that bureaucracy. And instead of measuring outcomes, we need
to be better about measuring outcomes. Our system of government
has to determine what is the effective best outcome we
want to get to, and then let's optimize for that
instead of saying what we really want is a bigger bureaucracy.
We really wanted a new government agency. I mean, I
(04:42):
think back to how much people like Elizabeth Warren celebrated
the creation of a government agency during the financial crisis,
and are there important things that that agency could be doing? Sure,
protecting consumers, that's an important thing, But did they ever
stop to ask for a minute, are there ways to
get there in the existing structure by making it leaner
(05:03):
and more efficient, versus, hey, let's just graft a whole
new federal agency onto other federal agencies that already exists.
So this kind of thinking, unfortunately, is prevalent in Washington.
And it's not just Democrats and progressives who think that way.
By the way, we got a lot of people who
are so called conservatives who are up there trying to
do many of the same things to create more and
(05:24):
more government. Because you get captured, you get captured by
Washington and the thinking of that place, and you end
up buying into the same kind of logic about what
it's going to take to get something done. I'm so
pessimistic that that will ever happen, though. Can you give
me an example of it ever happening in world history
where a giant bureaucracy actually uh shrinks and becomes leaner
(05:47):
and meaner and more effective unless it's forced to buy
a devastating war or maybe a virus. Well, that's exactly
what it is, right. There has to be some external
you know, that's the fancy political science word is exogenous.
There's got to be some kind of external shock or
external factor that changes how people do business or changes
(06:07):
creates the predicate for people to say, you know what,
this isn't working so well. And I would bet there's been.
I mean even now right people are saying we need
to create some kind of commission to go study you
know why it is that we didn't have tests or
coronavirus early on. And my thing is, you know, why
not take some organ that's already in the government. We
(06:30):
have something called the Inspector General's office in each agency.
Why not have an existing office whose responsibility is to
study where things go wrong. Let's have them study it
and say, really, what about this agency worked and what
didn't and not be afraid to put out there. You
know what they are parts of this agency that have
to get cut. There's certain people that have to get cut,
(06:50):
and yeah, maybe there's certain other parts of the agency
where we need more people and more funding. So you're
suggesting a department of f ups. I could I could
run that. I've got a fair and fair amount of experience.
That would be I was gonna say that be every
agency of the federal government. I mean, if you went
if you went through and looked at all of the
(07:10):
ways in which part of the federal government have or
have not worked, you would see you would be shocked.
If we actually studied it and looked at it, you
would be shocked. But we need to be doing that, right.
We need to be assessing what's working and what's not,
but doing it on a regular basis, not just when
we have a once in a lifetime global pandemic. Now
I'm to answer Jack's question. I know several of the
(07:31):
Nordic states that a lot of people look to as
socialist paradisees have actually scaled way back on government spending
since their experiments of the sixties and seventies. That might
be an example, but the problem anytime you look at
those states, is that they are small, they are homogeneous,
and and you know it's a limited number of families.
(07:52):
They all know each other. I mean the countries are
almost that small. Yeah, And and they have significant limits
on who can come into the country. They have significantly
I mean we we talk about having you know, a
lot of people say, oh, we need a more open
immigration system. I'm all foreign immigration system that tries to
get the best and the brightest here to to help
our economy and do all that sort of stuff. But
(08:15):
you talked about these Nordic countries. Neither are not an
immigrants paradise, right. They are extremely closed societies. They have
a a very strong they're guided by a strong sense
of cultural and national identity. Uh so it's relatively easy
for them to do the kinds of things that they do.
America is I mean, we are a diverse, messy, beautiful
(08:39):
country in that way, and and so it's gonna be
a lot harder for us to do what they do,
nor do we want to do what they do. What
a lot of people don't realize is the level of
control that has to be exercised by the government, The
level of control that has to be exercised by society.
It is significant, and culturally in these countries it is
more well accepted. A lot of people, for example, use
(09:01):
Singapore as an example of a country. They have great
policy outcomes, a very efficient bureaucracy. They are extremely data
and results driven, but they are essentially living in a
quasi dictatorship, and people there are okay with it because
it's a benign dictatorship. Right. That structure would never work
in America. We have way too many people and we're
(09:23):
way too independent minded. And that's a good thing. It
would help if anybody was ever held to account for
any you know, mistakes, whether they were it was incompetence
or um, you know, they did it for bad reasons.
For instance, the c d C clearly misled everybody on
whether or not they had the ability to test for
this thing. I mean, the articles out there about this.
(09:44):
I'll bet anybody money nobody loses their job, somebody might
get reassigned to a different division. Nobody's ever held to
account for any screw ups. Well, and I'll tell you
there's a political overlay here too, right, because it's easy
enough to get rid of the person at the top
whoever runs the agency political appointee, get rid of them.
But when you start to dig into the bureaucracy, there
(10:07):
surely are people within the bureaucracy who, to your point,
did not did not act either appropriately or well enough
or efficiently in this situation. But the minute you start
to dig in there, and the minute you start to
think about it, you get accused of wanting to attack
science or wanting to attack the civil service, when the
(10:28):
reality is, we have to be absolutely clear about why
mistakes happen, and we cannot be afraid to fix them.
And uh, you know, the politics have become so toxic
and so part of it in our country that any
effort to do that is seen, Oh, well, you're you're
just You're just a trumper. You're just somebody out there
(10:49):
who you know, wants to try and advance a conservative
policy agenda. Look, I'm just trying to say, let's figure
out what went wrong and let's fix it. I don't
care who's responsible for it. Let's get to the to
the core of responsibility and let's fix the problem. But
it's hard to have that conversation given the politics of
where we are right now. Well, I agree with you,
completely that there are plenty of Republicans who want to
(11:11):
grow the government, just different parts of the government. Um,
But it seems to me it is mostly voters on
the left who seem to have this knee jerk defense
of government and government programs and and maybe it's because
of the lefty voters affection for unions or something like that.
But it boggles the mind of a lot of us
(11:33):
that so many people have as much faith as they
do in government bureaucracies and don't see the the waste
and the abuse, and the transigence and and and the
rest of it. I have you ever done a study
of that, I mean, really gone into people's worldview why
some are so charitable towards government, you know, misfunction. Yeah,
(11:58):
I haven't studied it myself. Health, but I will say
that that people who look at this generally conclude a
couple of things. So the first is that the belief
in government is born out of a mistrust of the
private sector or a belief that civil society, nonprofit institutions, churches,
charitable institutions UH in addition to the private sector, are
(12:22):
incapable or fundamentally have their UH incentives misaligned In a way,
and so government is in a much better place to
do it. I mean. A perfect example of this are
all of the people on the left who have embraced
single payer health care, who have embraced Medicare for all,
And what do you always hear them saying? You get
them saying we cannot trust the insurance companies. We cannot
(12:45):
trust private sector entities to deal with our health care system.
We cannot trust doctors who are who are out there
for their own profit, in their own gain. We have
to socialize all of this because government knows better. It
is just a It goes to a misunderstanding of what
has made America great. Not I mean not to get
(13:07):
this political. I don't. I don't mean to put it
in the Trump fame, but literally, what has made America
great over these years has been the existence of a
system that has lifted more people out of poverty and
more people out of a lack of opportunity than any
other economics, a system in the history of mankind, and
sort of saying we don't want that system. Instead, we
(13:29):
want to go to a system where government controls the
means of production, government controls how resources are allocated. And
I think it's born out of a genuine belief guys,
that that works better than the private sector. And that's
why I think a lot of people on the left
do have a instinctive answer for everything, which is, well,
if only the government would get involved, and only the
(13:50):
government would be in charge, if only you bureaucrats and
people who are quote dispassionate arbiters would be involved. I've
heard this over and over again, but but it just
blies a understanding of of really what is made America prosperous,
the end of human nature. I don't know what their
(14:11):
world experiences that has led them to believe this, because
my world experience has led me a different direction. Well,
it's the it's the world experience that leads people like
Bernie Sanders to say we need a Cuban style education system, right.
I mean, it is a It is either a misapprehension
of history or a wilful, deliberate effort to subvert an
(14:35):
understanding of history in favor of of of a particular agenda.
I mean, that's the only thing that can explain it.
Either you just don't don't know the history, don't understand it,
or don't want to. Oh yeah, it's wishful thinking. It's
a no, I'm sure we can get it right this time.
I'm sure this will work. That I think is just ridiculous.
(14:56):
But I wonder if it's this fundamental. A lot of
these questions comes down to the difference between people who
believe there should be equality of outcome versus those of
us who believe there should be equality of opportunity, and
and and if you know, because you're never going to
get equality of outcome out of the private sector, out
or out of any natural function of life. But why
(15:19):
why is that? Just as simple as you have you
been to the post office? Have you been to FedEx?
Have you noticed how they bust their acid fed x
to make sure you're a happy customer because you're a
happy paying customer. Have you noticed how at the post
office you regularly run into place They don't care if
you never come back. It doesn't make any difference to them.
In fact, they prefer you did leave. That means eloquent.
(15:40):
Is Lincoln's Gettysburg address and shorter? We only experience you need,
isn't it. Yeah? Well right, And so this is also
like the d m V, the perfect example of that. Right,
Why do people pay for triple A, ton't have to
wait in the line of the d m V. Right,
and and not that not that the triple A is
a is a paragon of efficiency and effectiveness, but compared
(16:02):
to the d m V and en sure does look
like it, right, I mean so so so it's a
great point, which is, if we believe in a society
where resources have to be distributed equally, if we believe
in equality of outcome, the folks who are in favor
of socialism or in favor of a communist system, you know,
they've got it right. That probably is the only way
(16:24):
to ensure the exact equivalent distribution of goods. And it
seems to me that there are some on the left
now who are more openly embracing that point of view,
who are saying, look, actually, yeah, we we we we
do need equality of outcome as opposed Yeah, I mean,
whereas if you look at if you look at at
(16:47):
the history of our country, and you look at what
the founders and what great political theorists over the years
have talked about, what you see is is a is
a coherence around wanting to have to ensure that people
have the same shot at success which is why you
put in place rules. Right, the only reason we have
laws and regulate that the only reason, one of the
(17:08):
biggest reasons you have laws and regulation is to make
sure that people are playing by the same rules. And
are we angry when people don't play by those rules? Absolutely?
Are we angry when there's croniasm, Yes, and we should be.
But but the answer has always been, let's give people
a fair shot to compete and then let's see what happens.
And that, by necessity, is going to mean that we're
going to have differences in outcome and and and is
(17:30):
it sad that there are differences in outcome? I don't
know that it's sad. I think it's reality. I think
it's the reality of the system we have, and I
think it's the best economic system that mankind has ever seen. Yeah,
I don't know. You know, I have two kids. If
one of them ends up making twice as much money
as the other one, I don't I'm not going to
feel like that's sad for the one who makes less.
(17:50):
It's just that the direction they went with the talents
they had in life decisions, right, Yeah, And I mean
you know that that that you know should when should
government act? Right, And the answer is, there are times
when government has to act because the uh, you know,
because the rules aren't fair. Okay, sure, government should act
(18:12):
to change the rules to make sure they're fair. Uh.
In times when the system gets overburdened by some things
that we haven't expected, and we expect our government to
step in. Why with the coronavirus situation, government steps in
and says, Okay, we're gonna put in place some regulations
to help keep people safe. That makes sense. But the
notion that in the everyday functioning, what we really need
(18:33):
is more government, I just fundamentally disagree with that notion.
And I just think history suggests that that will not
lead and not lead us to a great place. Well,
let's get back to the question of bureaucracy and dysfunction
and bloat in transigence and all that. There obviously need
to be a new There needs to be a new
(18:54):
set of incentives and disincentives laid over government or sprayed
into the buildings or something some sort of fumigation. Um.
What just on a basic level, if you were you know,
president or advisor to a president and and that president decided,
and my god, I'd vote for him for a third term.
(19:15):
If they did this, they said, listen, my main mission
is going to make is to make the federal government lean.
And mean, what sort of incentives and disincentives would you suggest?
What would that look like? Yeah, you know, I always
think it's great to go back to first principles. So
you start with the basic question, which is what do
we want government to do and where we where do
(19:37):
we want it to act? And set out a set
of priorities and goals and figure out how to assess
success against those goals, figure out how you need to
staff a team to reach those goals. And then take
a look at the reality and see what you have
and compare X with Y, and I guarantee you they'll
(19:58):
look nothing alike when you're talking about the US government. Yeah,
they they're not. You know, you're not going to see
a similarity between what's needed and what actually exists. And
then go out there and actually begin to make those changes.
And now part of the challenges, you know, we got
all sorts of rules in place about civil service protections
and who can and can't be fired. And I understand
we got all of that, and that part of it
(20:20):
might be we need to take a serious look at
civil service rules. Yes they are we really promoting the
best in the bright Yeah, that's that That's probably an
easy question. An I'm with FDR on that question. That's
one of the few questions i'm with him on. He
believed it was an athema to efficient. When you're ready
(20:41):
to ride Metro, we want you to know we're ready
for you. Here are just a few of the people
at Metro to tell you how we're doing our part
to keep riders safe. We're cleaning like Nevil before half
builded greatly. You're a found han sanitizing, no mask, no
Metro need one. We have a few extras at Metro.
(21:02):
We're doing our part to keep the DC area moving.
Find out more at well mata dot com slash doing
our part for all your foodies out there. I'm unwrapping
a McDonald steak, egg and cheese bagel. Look at this
steak and the juice running down the side. Get a
little bit on a wrapper here, m and then the
(21:23):
fluffy egg and real cheese folded over the side, looking
just so good. Mmm mmm, griled onions and about a
bagel too. Thumbs up. A McDonald steak, egg and cheese
bagel for breakfast. Love it m more bump up. I
participate in McDonald's government governance. But anyway, and I'll tell
(21:43):
you another challenge we have, which is beyond the civil
service rules, we have public sector employee unions in the
United States, which to me, uh, you know, I think
you talk. We can have a conversation about unions and
and the good that they've done in our society. And
surely there was a point at which they were being
very productive and important. And I think in the private sector,
(22:04):
I can understand the desire to represent a set of
workers and have that relationship be governed by a set
of rules. But why is it that we have such
a huge role for public sector unions. We are essentially
saying that we have developed a system so that the
people who are working for the government can bargain against
(22:27):
the government. You've got people who are in there essentially
represented with interests that are that are adverse to the
taxpayer interests. That to me makes no sense at all.
The power and the scope and the reach of public
sector unions is has reached a point of the US.
But we've got to address it well, particularly because in California,
(22:48):
is a great example of this that the diffuse interests
of the voters are are are not nearly as powerful
in the actual hearing rooms as the union representatives. And
so you have the best and brightest and smartest there
in the hearing room arguing like crazy for one point
of view, and then there's just this vague no you know,
(23:09):
the idea that the voters really want to get their
pocketbooks protected, and there's just an imbalance. And then as
it gets even worse in California, you have union lawyers
supported by the government unions, the public employee unions, winning
the offices and then negotiating with the people they replaced
(23:29):
for the public employee union deals. It's just it's it's
mobbed up. Yeah, well that's I mean, this is exactly
the challenge you you've identified it, which is that you
get this incestuous system that comes into place and it's
not clear who's actually representing the interests of the representative right,
because you have public officials who get captured by interests
(23:52):
like like the public sector unions. So if public sector
unions are a huge donor to Democrats in California for
state wide office, what do you end up with you
end up with statewide office holders who are remarkably uh
responsive the union bosses, but not particularly responsive to the taxpayer.
And that to me is a huge problem, right when
(24:14):
you're talking about people who are supposed to When you
ask who is supposed to protect the interests of taxpayers,
the answer is the people who are the people who
are elected by taxpayers, but they're not doing their job.
We have a big problem here. We have a system
that essentially is perpetuating itself. And to get back to
the original issue, you guys raise around bureaucratic bloat and
(24:35):
around why it is that our bureaucracy doesn't function better.
The answer is because no one's holding them to account,
certainly no one that's supposed to be holding them to account.
We send the same old people in California, for example,
back to Sacramento. But you can go to any state capital,
or you can even go to Congress and see this.
We send the same people back over and over again,
(24:56):
and they are insistent on preserving the status quo, which
clearly is not working. I got a question out of nowhere, um,
and we have this opportunity with the podcast to ask
you this. I like asking smart people this question because
I like to read, but I want to read the
right stuff. What are a couple of your favorite, like
all time books? Um, to make a person smarter about
(25:17):
all this sort of stuff, government, society, culture or whatever.
You know. It's funny my my kids make fun of
me because they say I don't read that much, because
they don't want to see me reading books, because I'm
always reading, you know, news or stuff that comes up online.
I'm always have to tell my son, I'm staring at
my phone. I'm reading a book. I just want you
to know that because you know, because I grew up.
You know, you see your parents reading books, and you're
(25:38):
gonna maybe become a reader. They see me staring at
my phone. I could be on Facebook, I could be
playing candy, but I'm I'm I'm reading. But anyway, back
to your book. Yeah, I you know, um, there are
pieces of fiction over the years that have been very
influential in my life. And I'll tell you I don't
want to freak anyone out, but my favorite book growing
(25:59):
up was a book called four by George Orwell, which
everybody you know, hopefully everybody's read, right, And the reason
why it's so important to have read that book is
because it gives you a sense of just how overwhelming
government can be. And I, by the way, people will
will I often get the question, how did you become
a conservative or how did you decide that you were
(26:20):
conservatively disposed? And a lot of it has to come
with reading that book and reading more and more about
societies where where government does play a big rule. And
uh so that book was actually quite influential. So four
is one. It's not it's not a particularly tough read,
but I think it's a really important read. Uh and
(26:41):
uh and it's one that's been influential well. And it's
fairly depressing too, So if you're feeling overly cheery that
it's a good one. Yes, yes, no, no, no, I
I completely agree. Um. I've also recent I'll just say recently,
I've gotten quite a to a theologian named Dallas Willard, who, uh,
(27:04):
you guys may or may not be familiar with him,
but he's somebody who you know is a is a
theologian who has been very influential in uh in a
certain line of a Protestant thinking, in particular now Presbyterian thinking.
Uh And and he has had a whole bunch of
really interesting books over the years. Some of them are
(27:24):
quite dense. He's quite a dense writer. But one that
I've really enjoyed recently is called Life Without Lack, which
talks about, uh, you know, essentially, how to lead life
fully and how to feel full when we can oftentimes
look around us and think, gosh, I'm missing that, or
I don't have this, I don't have that or the other.
Uh and and and and so that one in particular
(27:46):
has has stuck out recently. But and you know, he
got my attention with that one because I'm in that
world a lot, and I don't know that name, so
I'll check that out. Yeah, we appreciate the recommendation. Hey,
if I can just circle back to orwell real quickly.
Um And in comment that, I was probably twelve when
I read Animal Farms somehow or other, I think I
came across it. There was a neat illustration of a
(28:07):
pig on the front, and so I thought a story
about pigs, but talking pigs. Um. It was like a
religious awakening for me. I mean it just I still
can feel the electricity, um that ran through my veins
as I read this thing. And I wondered if you
read a Brave New World. Of course, Yeah, I had
(28:30):
a feeling you had I think about you know, it's
a it's a classic question who got it more right
or Well or Huxley. I think China is a pretty
good example of a regime taking just enough from more
Well and just enough from Huxley. You know, the point
of Brave New World is that people weren't really oppressed
(28:51):
so much as they were drugged and amused into apathy
and cooperation. Um that there's you know, it takes both
to oppress a society unless you're going to go full on,
you know, oppressive regime. Yeah, that is a that is
an amazing observation. Actually, and let me tell you why
China is a great, great example of what you're talking about.
(29:16):
The the thing that is most noticeable to me about
where China is now. And you know, we'll put coronavirus
aside for a minute, because I think coronavirus was was
a little bit of a blip in terms of where
China is going were broadly, but the story that they've
told people, and I think this is a story that
people genuinely believe that economic prosperity and the listing of
(29:40):
people out of poverty in China is enough to justify
the oppression the government has put in place. In other words,
the deal that the Chinese government has with people is
this deal. You can be a little bit more prosperous,
and you can have food on your table, and you
can have a society that looks modern and has all
(30:03):
the comforts of modern society. But the only way you
can have that is if you're willing to deal with
what the government has put in place in terms of
rules and regulations and requirements. And in China, those rules
include things like constant monitoring. They include things like, um,
the government being able to see and know what you're
(30:23):
doing all the time. They include things like not being
able to access a lot of the internet right And
people have been willing to take that deal, and they
feel like, well, you know, my government is taken care
of me. I'm doing a little bit better now, and
so maybe they're right. The only way that I can
be this way is if they have complete control over
(30:46):
over every part of my life. And I think it's
a really good observation that it's it is a it
is a mix in some ways between the four World
and the Brave New World world, because it because it's
this deal that that and these government is put in place.
One question on the news of the day that I
hope doesn't age poorly. I don't think it will when
(31:06):
people hear this in the future. We're right in the
midst of the biggest stimulus bill in the history of
the world. I don't know what's gonna end up being
somewhere close to two trillion dollars. Should we be horrified
that people are stuffing in all kinds of of things
that have nothing to do with coronavirus and business, or
should we just accept it as just part of the
(31:27):
way the system works. I don't think we should accept it.
I think we should be willing to call it out.
I think we should be willing to say that this
is not an opportunity to jam in there your pet project.
This is not an opportunity to say, hey, you know what,
maybe we should put restrictions on what kinds of people
can be named to the board of directors of companies.
(31:48):
I've seen that that's something you know that Elizabeth Lawn wants.
I mean, this is not an opportunity to get every
straight cat and dog in this is an opportunity to
make sure it goes back to the original conversation we're having, guys,
which is what's our goal. What are we trying to
do here? Who are we trying to help? Let's help
those people, and then let's get out. Let's stop talking
about the rest of this stuff, because this is what
(32:09):
always ends up happening. And then you've got people on
the outside who are self proclaimed fiscal conservatives saying, hey,
three trillion, four trillion, we need more stimulus. Now, it
just does not make any sense to me that you
would that you would have a UM. People never want
to waste the crisis. I guess as rama Manuel has said,
(32:30):
and that's precisely what you're seeing here. But it doesn't
make it right. Well, I thought there were crisis is
big enough that you wouldn't have time to think about that.
But maybe I was wrong. Yeah, you underestimated people. Uh. Hey,
I believe it or not, these things are not scripted.
So I'm gonna ask jack Um, do you have more
on that you want to talk about or can I
ask on here a little bit about his his gig
at Stanford. Um the uh, it's a truism at this
(32:53):
point that American universities lean way way left. And you
see a lot of attitudes among college kids that I
find at uh you given what you believe? Are you
just a pariah at Stanford? Do you have to run
from doorway to doorway and and fend off blows? Or
how how are the youngsters these days? Are they open
to uh hearing opposing viewpoints? What's what's a snapshot of
(33:16):
the college experience for you these days? Yeah? You know,
for me at least, it's pretty um, it's always a
pretty good set of experiences, because what I find is that, well,
let's start with the students. I mean, the students clearly
are very left and they have some very out there
points of view. But if they're going to come and
(33:37):
take a class of mind, they understand that they're probably
going to be introduced to some concepts that other members
of the faculty won't introduce them to, and some come
seeking that out. So I end up with with some
students in my classes who are deliberately looking for that
alternative point of view. I have some who are looking
for a good argument, which I'm always happy to have.
(33:58):
I have some who just come because they're curious in
the subject matter, but aren't particularly politically inclined one way
or the other. And and so I end up with
a pretty good diversity of students that I end up
with pretty good conversation in my classes. In particular. More broadly,
I will say the challenge I have that I see
on campus is not so much with the students. It's
(34:19):
with the other faculty, and that there are a number
of folks around the university who are an important positions,
who you know, who deal with students all the time,
who have a very strong point of view and don't
believe that any alternative point of view holds any any merit. Now,
I'm not speaking about everybody there. Lord, how can you
(34:39):
get to a to a position of education at that
level and have that attitude. Well, they're they're they're so
deeply steeped and they're so good at what they do
that they don't necessarily believe that there's any alternate possibility
an explanation right there. That they've been in what they're
doing for so long that they just subscribe to that
(35:02):
point of view, and they automatically. I mean, what bothers
me is not so much people have strongly held believes
I'm all for that. What bothers me is when they
when they say, look, you feel differently from me, and
I'm going to ascribe bad intentions to you that essentially,
I'm going to say, the reason that you disagree with
me is because you don't believe in science, or you're
a bad person just in general or right correct, or
(35:23):
you're heartless, or yeah, you're a racist. Sure, I mean
what which which I always find humorous when when you know,
when when I hear that, but I you know, that's
that's where it's a little bit tougher for me. And
I feel like that is something I see I'm seeing
more and more of on campus, which is people who
are so deeply set in their views that they're unwilling
(35:43):
to consider that there might be an alternative. Sorry, no, no,
I as to say, I've I've I've got a lot
of colleagues who are are quite left and as I said,
we're willing to entertain the alternative, and we have great conversations.
But it's the ones who are so set in their
views that those are the one that I find more difficult.
I read a contemporary wise person say the other day,
(36:05):
and I have a feeling this wisdom goes back to
the ancient Greeks or beyond that. When you lose your
capacity to say, but I might be wrong, you've lost
an incredibly important part of your humanity, and that's those
people scare me. Yeah. Well, I mean, this is the
problem with with with American colleges and universities more broadly,
(36:26):
is that you do have a lot of people. I
mean just look at Twitter, right that back and forth
you see over Twitter on on on things, and you've
got people who are absolutely a hundred percent convinced that
they are right and and and they will never be wrong. Now,
in some areas, if they're talking about something they've researched
for their whole life, I believe that they're probably right.
(36:47):
But when it comes to questions around uh, you know
what the best way is for society to move forward,
or questions about where we are politically, those get a
little grayer for me. And I'm more been happy to
admit that I may not know the right answer. If
I can a lot of situations, I probably don't know
the right answer, and I'm doing my best to guess.
But I always try to tell people that, and I
(37:08):
always try to say, look, I believe very well. I
could could be right, could be wrong, and you're right.
I think when we lose our capacity to do that,
it's a sad thing. It's a very sad day. You
know the problem with smug contemptuousness is that it's kind
of fun, all right, it's a good time, and if
you're surrounded by other people who agree with you, can
they can feel really good? Oh yeah, it can snowball
too until you can't stop yourself. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Well,
(37:33):
maybe someday we can talk about the future of college education,
because that is a really interesting topic to all of us,
particularly as I pay for my third kid to get
through that process. And this is not the classic sitcom
level humor about you know, writing checks. It's the idea
that the dissemination of knowledge costs, you know, thirty to
(37:55):
sixty dollars per year and you have to go to
a big place with brick buildings seem is fairly ridiculous
to me at this point in history. Not that there
is no role for you know, a socratic seminar type thing,
and intellectual leadership by a learned human and directing learning.
I think that's all incredibly important, But I just it's
become something ridiculous, partly because of the flood of government money.
(38:17):
But again, maybe that's a for another time. And we
didn't even touch on the presidential campaign, which seems to
be completely on hold, at least at the time we're
recording this in the middle of the comic virus thing
going on. But uh, Joe Biden, it's it's gotta be
good news for Joe Biden, right that he gets to
hunker down and not have to talk very much. I
(38:37):
think it's good news, but it's not going to be
good news, uh once we once a couple of weeks passes,
because people are going to forget about it, right, And
I think staying out of the public light, being able
to kind of prepare a message or you know, rest
or do whatever he wants to do. I don't know.
I think those are positives. But I think you're seeing
(38:58):
a little bit of consternation from his camp that he
can't get more involved in this coronavirus conversation. Right. He's
trying to get out there, and we've seen as a
little bit as we record this, where he's trying to
get out and and and appear almost like the shadow
president who's got his own ideas and got his own thoughts.
It just it's just not been effective. He just has
not been able to put himself into the conversation. And
(39:22):
I suspect that while it's nice to be able to
lay low for a little bit, once this continues to
go on, as we drag into April and May, he's
going to want to figure out ways to get into
the limelight. And I think that's going to be something
he's gonna want to do because it's easy to forget
we've got a presidential campaign what we do. Yeah, it's
funny how the universe it seems cycle after cycle says no,
(39:46):
the election is going to be about this, and it's
almost like you're on some sort of game show. What
was that cooking show where they told you the last
second the secret ingredient you had to Yeah, it's very
much like the Iron Chef. McCain and Obama were set
up to be an argument about the Iraq War, than
the crisis happens and it's got nothing to do with
it anymore. Yeah. Yeah, it seems to happen every time
a lot he it's always stimulating. We don't want to
(40:08):
steal too much of your time. But I hope we
can do it again. Absolutely thankful guys, our pleasure. A
little too smart for my taste, Yeah, oh yeah, I'll
ask him to dumb it down next time. Well, we
covered so much ground. I have a feeling he could
go deep quite a few of the I'm sure, Oh yeah,
(40:29):
especially when I asked him a question. But uh, stop it. Um,
I would love to. I could maintain, I think, a
lifelong interest in the question of how do you rearrange
incentives and disincentives to make government perform more efficiently? I
couldn't because I'm too pessimistic about it. I just I
just can't imagine. Well, I would die better, No, no
(40:51):
question about that. I just just from being in in
private bureaucracies, big companies and seeing the government. It just
I've never seen it go the other way. It just
it grows and grows and gets more centralized and gets
thicker and slower, less responsive. Yeah. I'm thinking about the
(41:12):
trends in media with a lot of consolidation and and
and thinning the workforce and the rest of it. But
I'm not sure it's that's not the model we're looking for.
That's that's that's starvation, not stuff about increasing efficiency, reforming
the rules of civil service. If you don't start there,
then that I'm walking out of the room, because if
(41:33):
that's not on the table, it'll never happened until people
can lose their jobs. Well, and serious reform of public
employee union rules too. Yeah, if we don't have those two,
we have nothing nothing. You're right, it's an excellent point,
extra large. When you're ready to ride Metro, we want
you to know we're ready for you. Here are just
(41:55):
a few of the people at Metro to tell you
how we're doing our part to keep riders safe. Cleaning
like noble before, but half built a great clean You've
found half sanitizer stations all over the Metro. No mask,
no Metro need one. We have a few extras at Metro.
We're doing our part to keep the d C area moving.
Find out more at WEMTA dot com slash doing our
(42:17):
part
When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
doing our part to keep riders safe. We're cleaning like
nevill before, build greatly. You've found hassant, no mask, no
Metro need one. We have a few extras at Metro.
(00:22):
We're doing our part to keep the DC area moving.
Find out more at well mata dot com slash doing
our part so their guests we have on the show
on a regular basis where we think we need to
talk to this person for longer. There's not enough time here. Well,
here's the chance with one of our favorite guests. It's
extra large because four hours simply enough. This is Armstrong
(00:43):
and Getty extra large. Man. I don't know who that is,
but that guy's got good pipes. Pipes Listen, all who
have ears, friends, romans, countrymen. Finally a chance for an
extended chat with Lani j Chen, the David and Diane
Stiffy research fellow with the Hoover and Such, also the
director of Domestic Policy Studies and Lecture in the Public
Policy Program at Stanford University. So we've been wanting to
(01:06):
talk to you for a long time about government and
that sort of stuff and your knowledge base and uh,
and not particularly about at the time we're recording this
the biggest crisis of my lifetime, the coronavirus and everything else,
but some of it fits together. We've been wanting to
talk about bureaucracy, disease and a government this size and
whether it can react. And I don't know if you
(01:28):
saw the breakdown in the Wall Street Journal the other day,
in all the different ways the c d C and
the f d A and all different organizations have not
reacted to this very well. Too many regulations, too many layers,
too many rules. Um, is there anything that can be
done about that? Well, we get better at that, ever,
or is that just the product of a growing and
(01:48):
growing government. Well, we can get better at it. It's
going to require us to take a careful look at
what needs to be there and what doesn't. So you
guys have already hinted it. A few of the challenges
we have. One is you just look at healthcare as
an example. We've got so many different types of bureaucracy
that are involved. We've got so many different agencies and
(02:11):
make no mistake about it. There are functions that those
agencies serve which are important, so we don't want to
denigrate the functions that they play, but we we do
want to think about who actually has authority to do
things when something happens. And that's the challenge you have
when you have overlapping responsibilities. You have in healthcare, for example,
(02:33):
an agency that's designed to approve new drugs and new
therapeutics as the FDA. You have an agency that's designed
to be there to deal with the spread of disease
and control the spread of disease, that's the CDC. Then
you've got the Department of Health and Human Services, which
is theoretically over all of them, yet those agencies are
(02:53):
expected to operate somewhat independently. And then you have you know,
various other small agencies I'm forgetting about as well. So
we've got to figure out how to streamline all of this,
and it's going to take a sort of holistic approach,
and someone needs to come along and say, hey, let's
stop and let's do this, because what always happens in
(03:13):
government is the urgent crowds out the importance. So a
lot of steps we need to take and most certainly
a lot of changes that can be made. I have
a feeling there are some really fundamental forces at work here.
Our friend Tim Sandiford likes to talk about how in
general and government success is punished. I mean, if you
accomplish your goal having used only your budget, you have
(03:34):
budget taken away um and and failure is rewarded. You
get a bigger budget, you get more people. And there's
the question of defending turf every every Well, many bureaucrats
want nothing more than budget and people and turf, and
and if if that's their strongest impulse, then it's going
to be really hard to tear it down and rebuild it.
(03:57):
You're right so that that mind set is absolutely prevalent
in lots of parts of the federal government and state government,
and probably even city and local government. But the challenges
that how these bureaucrats measure success oftentimes is by how
much budget they get to your point, how many people
they have on their team, how big of a bureaucracy
(04:20):
they can create, what kind of process they can create
around that bureaucracy. And instead of measuring outcomes, we need
to be better about measuring outcomes. Our system of government
has to determine what is the effective best outcome we
want to get to, and then let's optimize for that
instead of saying what we really want is a bigger bureaucracy.
We really wanted a new government agency. I mean, I
(04:42):
think back to how much people like Elizabeth Warren celebrated
the creation of a government agency during the financial crisis,
and are there important things that that agency could be doing? Sure,
protecting consumers, that's an important thing, But did they ever
stop to ask for a minute, are there ways to
get there in the existing structure by making it leaner
(05:03):
and more efficient, versus, hey, let's just graft a whole
new federal agency onto other federal agencies that already exists.
So this kind of thinking, unfortunately, is prevalent in Washington.
And it's not just Democrats and progressives who think that way.
By the way, we got a lot of people who
are so called conservatives who are up there trying to
do many of the same things to create more and
(05:24):
more government. Because you get captured, you get captured by
Washington and the thinking of that place, and you end
up buying into the same kind of logic about what
it's going to take to get something done. I'm so
pessimistic that that will ever happen, though. Can you give
me an example of it ever happening in world history
where a giant bureaucracy actually uh shrinks and becomes leaner
(05:47):
and meaner and more effective unless it's forced to buy
a devastating war or maybe a virus. Well, that's exactly
what it is, right. There has to be some external
you know, that's the fancy political science word is exogenous.
There's got to be some kind of external shock or
external factor that changes how people do business or changes
(06:07):
creates the predicate for people to say, you know what,
this isn't working so well. And I would bet there's been.
I mean even now right people are saying we need
to create some kind of commission to go study you
know why it is that we didn't have tests or
coronavirus early on. And my thing is, you know, why
not take some organ that's already in the government. We
(06:30):
have something called the Inspector General's office in each agency.
Why not have an existing office whose responsibility is to
study where things go wrong. Let's have them study it
and say, really, what about this agency worked and what
didn't and not be afraid to put out there. You
know what they are parts of this agency that have
to get cut. There's certain people that have to get cut,
(06:50):
and yeah, maybe there's certain other parts of the agency
where we need more people and more funding. So you're
suggesting a department of f ups. I could I could
run that. I've got a fair and fair amount of experience.
That would be I was gonna say that be every
agency of the federal government. I mean, if you went
if you went through and looked at all of the
(07:10):
ways in which part of the federal government have or
have not worked, you would see you would be shocked.
If we actually studied it and looked at it, you
would be shocked. But we need to be doing that, right.
We need to be assessing what's working and what's not,
but doing it on a regular basis, not just when
we have a once in a lifetime global pandemic. Now
I'm to answer Jack's question. I know several of the
(07:31):
Nordic states that a lot of people look to as
socialist paradisees have actually scaled way back on government spending
since their experiments of the sixties and seventies. That might
be an example, but the problem anytime you look at
those states, is that they are small, they are homogeneous,
and and you know it's a limited number of families.
(07:52):
They all know each other. I mean the countries are
almost that small. Yeah, And and they have significant limits
on who can come into the country. They have significantly
I mean we we talk about having you know, a
lot of people say, oh, we need a more open
immigration system. I'm all foreign immigration system that tries to
get the best and the brightest here to to help
our economy and do all that sort of stuff. But
(08:15):
you talked about these Nordic countries. Neither are not an
immigrants paradise, right. They are extremely closed societies. They have
a a very strong they're guided by a strong sense
of cultural and national identity. Uh so it's relatively easy
for them to do the kinds of things that they do.
America is I mean, we are a diverse, messy, beautiful
(08:39):
country in that way, and and so it's gonna be
a lot harder for us to do what they do,
nor do we want to do what they do. What
a lot of people don't realize is the level of
control that has to be exercised by the government, The
level of control that has to be exercised by society.
It is significant, and culturally in these countries it is
more well accepted. A lot of people, for example, use
(09:01):
Singapore as an example of a country. They have great
policy outcomes, a very efficient bureaucracy. They are extremely data
and results driven, but they are essentially living in a
quasi dictatorship, and people there are okay with it because
it's a benign dictatorship. Right. That structure would never work
in America. We have way too many people and we're
(09:23):
way too independent minded. And that's a good thing. It
would help if anybody was ever held to account for
any you know, mistakes, whether they were it was incompetence
or um, you know, they did it for bad reasons.
For instance, the c d C clearly misled everybody on
whether or not they had the ability to test for
this thing. I mean, the articles out there about this.
(09:44):
I'll bet anybody money nobody loses their job, somebody might
get reassigned to a different division. Nobody's ever held to
account for any screw ups. Well, and I'll tell you
there's a political overlay here too, right, because it's easy
enough to get rid of the person at the top
whoever runs the agency political appointee, get rid of them.
But when you start to dig into the bureaucracy, there
(10:07):
surely are people within the bureaucracy who, to your point,
did not did not act either appropriately or well enough
or efficiently in this situation. But the minute you start
to dig in there, and the minute you start to
think about it, you get accused of wanting to attack
science or wanting to attack the civil service, when the
(10:28):
reality is, we have to be absolutely clear about why
mistakes happen, and we cannot be afraid to fix them.
And uh, you know, the politics have become so toxic
and so part of it in our country that any
effort to do that is seen, Oh, well, you're you're
just You're just a trumper. You're just somebody out there
(10:49):
who you know, wants to try and advance a conservative
policy agenda. Look, I'm just trying to say, let's figure
out what went wrong and let's fix it. I don't
care who's responsible for it. Let's get to the to
the core of responsibility and let's fix the problem. But
it's hard to have that conversation given the politics of
where we are right now. Well, I agree with you,
completely that there are plenty of Republicans who want to
(11:11):
grow the government, just different parts of the government. Um,
But it seems to me it is mostly voters on
the left who seem to have this knee jerk defense
of government and government programs and and maybe it's because
of the lefty voters affection for unions or something like that.
But it boggles the mind of a lot of us
(11:33):
that so many people have as much faith as they
do in government bureaucracies and don't see the the waste
and the abuse, and the transigence and and and the
rest of it. I have you ever done a study
of that, I mean, really gone into people's worldview why
some are so charitable towards government, you know, misfunction. Yeah,
(11:58):
I haven't studied it myself. Health, but I will say
that that people who look at this generally conclude a
couple of things. So the first is that the belief
in government is born out of a mistrust of the
private sector or a belief that civil society, nonprofit institutions, churches,
charitable institutions UH in addition to the private sector, are
(12:22):
incapable or fundamentally have their UH incentives misaligned In a way,
and so government is in a much better place to
do it. I mean. A perfect example of this are
all of the people on the left who have embraced
single payer health care, who have embraced Medicare for all,
And what do you always hear them saying? You get
them saying we cannot trust the insurance companies. We cannot
(12:45):
trust private sector entities to deal with our health care system.
We cannot trust doctors who are who are out there
for their own profit, in their own gain. We have
to socialize all of this because government knows better. It
is just a It goes to a misunderstanding of what
has made America great. Not I mean not to get
(13:07):
this political. I don't. I don't mean to put it
in the Trump fame, but literally, what has made America
great over these years has been the existence of a
system that has lifted more people out of poverty and
more people out of a lack of opportunity than any
other economics, a system in the history of mankind, and
sort of saying we don't want that system. Instead, we
(13:29):
want to go to a system where government controls the
means of production, government controls how resources are allocated. And
I think it's born out of a genuine belief guys,
that that works better than the private sector. And that's
why I think a lot of people on the left
do have a instinctive answer for everything, which is, well,
if only the government would get involved, and only the
(13:50):
government would be in charge, if only you bureaucrats and
people who are quote dispassionate arbiters would be involved. I've
heard this over and over again, but but it just
blies a understanding of of really what is made America prosperous,
the end of human nature. I don't know what their
(14:11):
world experiences that has led them to believe this, because
my world experience has led me a different direction. Well,
it's the it's the world experience that leads people like
Bernie Sanders to say we need a Cuban style education system, right.
I mean, it is a It is either a misapprehension
of history or a wilful, deliberate effort to subvert an
(14:35):
understanding of history in favor of of of a particular agenda.
I mean, that's the only thing that can explain it.
Either you just don't don't know the history, don't understand it,
or don't want to. Oh yeah, it's wishful thinking. It's
a no, I'm sure we can get it right this time.
I'm sure this will work. That I think is just ridiculous.
(14:56):
But I wonder if it's this fundamental. A lot of
these questions comes down to the difference between people who
believe there should be equality of outcome versus those of
us who believe there should be equality of opportunity, and
and and if you know, because you're never going to
get equality of outcome out of the private sector, out
or out of any natural function of life. But why
(15:19):
why is that? Just as simple as you have you
been to the post office? Have you been to FedEx?
Have you noticed how they bust their acid fed x
to make sure you're a happy customer because you're a
happy paying customer. Have you noticed how at the post
office you regularly run into place They don't care if
you never come back. It doesn't make any difference to them.
In fact, they prefer you did leave. That means eloquent.
(15:40):
Is Lincoln's Gettysburg address and shorter? We only experience you need,
isn't it. Yeah? Well right, And so this is also
like the d m V, the perfect example of that. Right,
Why do people pay for triple A, ton't have to
wait in the line of the d m V. Right,
and and not that not that the triple A is
a is a paragon of efficiency and effectiveness, but compared
(16:02):
to the d m V and en sure does look
like it, right, I mean so so so it's a
great point, which is, if we believe in a society
where resources have to be distributed equally, if we believe
in equality of outcome, the folks who are in favor
of socialism or in favor of a communist system, you know,
they've got it right. That probably is the only way
(16:24):
to ensure the exact equivalent distribution of goods. And it
seems to me that there are some on the left
now who are more openly embracing that point of view,
who are saying, look, actually, yeah, we we we we
do need equality of outcome as opposed Yeah, I mean,
whereas if you look at if you look at at
(16:47):
the history of our country, and you look at what
the founders and what great political theorists over the years
have talked about, what you see is is a is
a coherence around wanting to have to ensure that people
have the same shot at success which is why you
put in place rules. Right, the only reason we have
laws and regulate that the only reason, one of the
(17:08):
biggest reasons you have laws and regulation is to make
sure that people are playing by the same rules. And
are we angry when people don't play by those rules? Absolutely?
Are we angry when there's croniasm, Yes, and we should be.
But but the answer has always been, let's give people
a fair shot to compete and then let's see what happens.
And that, by necessity, is going to mean that we're
going to have differences in outcome and and and is
(17:30):
it sad that there are differences in outcome? I don't
know that it's sad. I think it's reality. I think
it's the reality of the system we have, and I
think it's the best economic system that mankind has ever seen. Yeah,
I don't know. You know, I have two kids. If
one of them ends up making twice as much money
as the other one, I don't I'm not going to
feel like that's sad for the one who makes less.
(17:50):
It's just that the direction they went with the talents
they had in life decisions, right, Yeah, And I mean
you know that that that you know should when should
government act? Right, And the answer is, there are times
when government has to act because the uh, you know,
because the rules aren't fair. Okay, sure, government should act
(18:12):
to change the rules to make sure they're fair. Uh.
In times when the system gets overburdened by some things
that we haven't expected, and we expect our government to
step in. Why with the coronavirus situation, government steps in
and says, Okay, we're gonna put in place some regulations
to help keep people safe. That makes sense. But the
notion that in the everyday functioning, what we really need
(18:33):
is more government, I just fundamentally disagree with that notion.
And I just think history suggests that that will not
lead and not lead us to a great place. Well,
let's get back to the question of bureaucracy and dysfunction
and bloat in transigence and all that. There obviously need
to be a new There needs to be a new
(18:54):
set of incentives and disincentives laid over government or sprayed
into the buildings or something some sort of fumigation. Um.
What just on a basic level, if you were you know,
president or advisor to a president and and that president decided,
and my god, I'd vote for him for a third term.
(19:15):
If they did this, they said, listen, my main mission
is going to make is to make the federal government lean.
And mean, what sort of incentives and disincentives would you suggest?
What would that look like? Yeah, you know, I always
think it's great to go back to first principles. So
you start with the basic question, which is what do
we want government to do and where we where do
(19:37):
we want it to act? And set out a set
of priorities and goals and figure out how to assess
success against those goals, figure out how you need to
staff a team to reach those goals. And then take
a look at the reality and see what you have
and compare X with Y, and I guarantee you they'll
(19:58):
look nothing alike when you're talking about the US government. Yeah,
they they're not. You know, you're not going to see
a similarity between what's needed and what actually exists. And
then go out there and actually begin to make those changes.
And now part of the challenges, you know, we got
all sorts of rules in place about civil service protections
and who can and can't be fired. And I understand
we got all of that, and that part of it
(20:20):
might be we need to take a serious look at
civil service rules. Yes they are we really promoting the
best in the bright Yeah, that's that That's probably an
easy question. An I'm with FDR on that question. That's
one of the few questions i'm with him on. He
believed it was an athema to efficient. When you're ready
(20:41):
to ride Metro, we want you to know we're ready
for you. Here are just a few of the people
at Metro to tell you how we're doing our part
to keep riders safe. We're cleaning like Nevil before half
builded greatly. You're a found han sanitizing, no mask, no
Metro need one. We have a few extras at Metro.
(21:02):
We're doing our part to keep the DC area moving.
Find out more at well mata dot com slash doing
our part for all your foodies out there. I'm unwrapping
a McDonald steak, egg and cheese bagel. Look at this
steak and the juice running down the side. Get a
little bit on a wrapper here, m and then the
(21:23):
fluffy egg and real cheese folded over the side, looking
just so good. Mmm mmm, griled onions and about a
bagel too. Thumbs up. A McDonald steak, egg and cheese
bagel for breakfast. Love it m more bump up. I
participate in McDonald's government governance. But anyway, and I'll tell
(21:43):
you another challenge we have, which is beyond the civil
service rules, we have public sector employee unions in the
United States, which to me, uh, you know, I think
you talk. We can have a conversation about unions and
and the good that they've done in our society. And
surely there was a point at which they were being
very productive and important. And I think in the private sector,
(22:04):
I can understand the desire to represent a set of
workers and have that relationship be governed by a set
of rules. But why is it that we have such
a huge role for public sector unions. We are essentially
saying that we have developed a system so that the
people who are working for the government can bargain against
(22:27):
the government. You've got people who are in there essentially
represented with interests that are that are adverse to the
taxpayer interests. That to me makes no sense at all.
The power and the scope and the reach of public
sector unions is has reached a point of the US.
But we've got to address it well, particularly because in California,
(22:48):
is a great example of this that the diffuse interests
of the voters are are are not nearly as powerful
in the actual hearing rooms as the union representatives. And
so you have the best and brightest and smartest there
in the hearing room arguing like crazy for one point
of view, and then there's just this vague no you know,
(23:09):
the idea that the voters really want to get their
pocketbooks protected, and there's just an imbalance. And then as
it gets even worse in California, you have union lawyers
supported by the government unions, the public employee unions, winning
the offices and then negotiating with the people they replaced
(23:29):
for the public employee union deals. It's just it's it's
mobbed up. Yeah, well that's I mean, this is exactly
the challenge you you've identified it, which is that you
get this incestuous system that comes into place and it's
not clear who's actually representing the interests of the representative right,
because you have public officials who get captured by interests
(23:52):
like like the public sector unions. So if public sector
unions are a huge donor to Democrats in California for
state wide office, what do you end up with you
end up with statewide office holders who are remarkably uh
responsive the union bosses, but not particularly responsive to the taxpayer.
And that to me is a huge problem, right when
(24:14):
you're talking about people who are supposed to When you
ask who is supposed to protect the interests of taxpayers,
the answer is the people who are the people who
are elected by taxpayers, but they're not doing their job.
We have a big problem here. We have a system
that essentially is perpetuating itself. And to get back to
the original issue, you guys raise around bureaucratic bloat and
(24:35):
around why it is that our bureaucracy doesn't function better.
The answer is because no one's holding them to account,
certainly no one that's supposed to be holding them to account.
We send the same old people in California, for example,
back to Sacramento. But you can go to any state capital,
or you can even go to Congress and see this.
We send the same people back over and over again,
(24:56):
and they are insistent on preserving the status quo, which
clearly is not working. I got a question out of nowhere, um,
and we have this opportunity with the podcast to ask
you this. I like asking smart people this question because
I like to read, but I want to read the
right stuff. What are a couple of your favorite, like
all time books? Um, to make a person smarter about
(25:17):
all this sort of stuff, government, society, culture or whatever.
You know. It's funny my my kids make fun of
me because they say I don't read that much, because
they don't want to see me reading books, because I'm
always reading, you know, news or stuff that comes up online.
I'm always have to tell my son, I'm staring at
my phone. I'm reading a book. I just want you
to know that because you know, because I grew up.
You know, you see your parents reading books, and you're
(25:38):
gonna maybe become a reader. They see me staring at
my phone. I could be on Facebook, I could be
playing candy, but I'm I'm I'm reading. But anyway, back
to your book. Yeah, I you know, um, there are
pieces of fiction over the years that have been very
influential in my life. And I'll tell you I don't
want to freak anyone out, but my favorite book growing
(25:59):
up was a book called four by George Orwell, which
everybody you know, hopefully everybody's read, right, And the reason
why it's so important to have read that book is
because it gives you a sense of just how overwhelming
government can be. And I, by the way, people will
will I often get the question, how did you become
a conservative or how did you decide that you were
(26:20):
conservatively disposed? And a lot of it has to come
with reading that book and reading more and more about
societies where where government does play a big rule. And
uh so that book was actually quite influential. So four
is one. It's not it's not a particularly tough read,
but I think it's a really important read. Uh and
(26:41):
uh and it's one that's been influential well. And it's
fairly depressing too, So if you're feeling overly cheery that
it's a good one. Yes, yes, no, no, no, I
I completely agree. Um. I've also recent I'll just say recently,
I've gotten quite a to a theologian named Dallas Willard, who, uh,
(27:04):
you guys may or may not be familiar with him,
but he's somebody who you know is a is a
theologian who has been very influential in uh in a
certain line of a Protestant thinking, in particular now Presbyterian thinking.
Uh And and he has had a whole bunch of
really interesting books over the years. Some of them are
(27:24):
quite dense. He's quite a dense writer. But one that
I've really enjoyed recently is called Life Without Lack, which
talks about, uh, you know, essentially, how to lead life
fully and how to feel full when we can oftentimes
look around us and think, gosh, I'm missing that, or
I don't have this, I don't have that or the other.
Uh and and and and so that one in particular
(27:46):
has has stuck out recently. But and you know, he
got my attention with that one because I'm in that
world a lot, and I don't know that name, so
I'll check that out. Yeah, we appreciate the recommendation. Hey,
if I can just circle back to orwell real quickly.
Um And in comment that, I was probably twelve when
I read Animal Farms somehow or other, I think I
came across it. There was a neat illustration of a
(28:07):
pig on the front, and so I thought a story
about pigs, but talking pigs. Um. It was like a
religious awakening for me. I mean it just I still
can feel the electricity, um that ran through my veins
as I read this thing. And I wondered if you
read a Brave New World. Of course, Yeah, I had
(28:30):
a feeling you had I think about you know, it's
a it's a classic question who got it more right
or Well or Huxley. I think China is a pretty
good example of a regime taking just enough from more
Well and just enough from Huxley. You know, the point
of Brave New World is that people weren't really oppressed
(28:51):
so much as they were drugged and amused into apathy
and cooperation. Um that there's you know, it takes both
to oppress a society unless you're going to go full on,
you know, oppressive regime. Yeah, that is a that is
an amazing observation. Actually, and let me tell you why
China is a great, great example of what you're talking about.
(29:16):
The the thing that is most noticeable to me about
where China is now. And you know, we'll put coronavirus
aside for a minute, because I think coronavirus was was
a little bit of a blip in terms of where
China is going were broadly, but the story that they've
told people, and I think this is a story that
people genuinely believe that economic prosperity and the listing of
(29:40):
people out of poverty in China is enough to justify
the oppression the government has put in place. In other words,
the deal that the Chinese government has with people is
this deal. You can be a little bit more prosperous,
and you can have food on your table, and you
can have a society that looks modern and has all
(30:03):
the comforts of modern society. But the only way you
can have that is if you're willing to deal with
what the government has put in place in terms of
rules and regulations and requirements. And in China, those rules
include things like constant monitoring. They include things like, um,
the government being able to see and know what you're
(30:23):
doing all the time. They include things like not being
able to access a lot of the internet right And
people have been willing to take that deal, and they
feel like, well, you know, my government is taken care
of me. I'm doing a little bit better now, and
so maybe they're right. The only way that I can
be this way is if they have complete control over
(30:46):
over every part of my life. And I think it's
a really good observation that it's it is a it
is a mix in some ways between the four World
and the Brave New World world, because it because it's
this deal that that and these government is put in place.
One question on the news of the day that I
hope doesn't age poorly. I don't think it will when
(31:06):
people hear this in the future. We're right in the
midst of the biggest stimulus bill in the history of
the world. I don't know what's gonna end up being
somewhere close to two trillion dollars. Should we be horrified
that people are stuffing in all kinds of of things
that have nothing to do with coronavirus and business, or
should we just accept it as just part of the
(31:27):
way the system works. I don't think we should accept it.
I think we should be willing to call it out.
I think we should be willing to say that this
is not an opportunity to jam in there your pet project.
This is not an opportunity to say, hey, you know what,
maybe we should put restrictions on what kinds of people
can be named to the board of directors of companies.
(31:48):
I've seen that that's something you know that Elizabeth Lawn wants.
I mean, this is not an opportunity to get every
straight cat and dog in this is an opportunity to
make sure it goes back to the original conversation we're having, guys,
which is what's our goal. What are we trying to
do here? Who are we trying to help? Let's help
those people, and then let's get out. Let's stop talking
about the rest of this stuff, because this is what
(32:09):
always ends up happening. And then you've got people on
the outside who are self proclaimed fiscal conservatives saying, hey,
three trillion, four trillion, we need more stimulus. Now, it
just does not make any sense to me that you
would that you would have a UM. People never want
to waste the crisis. I guess as rama Manuel has said,
(32:30):
and that's precisely what you're seeing here. But it doesn't
make it right. Well, I thought there were crisis is
big enough that you wouldn't have time to think about that.
But maybe I was wrong. Yeah, you underestimated people. Uh. Hey,
I believe it or not, these things are not scripted.
So I'm gonna ask jack Um, do you have more
on that you want to talk about or can I
ask on here a little bit about his his gig
at Stanford. Um the uh, it's a truism at this
(32:53):
point that American universities lean way way left. And you
see a lot of attitudes among college kids that I
find at uh you given what you believe? Are you
just a pariah at Stanford? Do you have to run
from doorway to doorway and and fend off blows? Or
how how are the youngsters these days? Are they open
to uh hearing opposing viewpoints? What's what's a snapshot of
(33:16):
the college experience for you these days? Yeah? You know,
for me at least, it's pretty um, it's always a
pretty good set of experiences, because what I find is that, well,
let's start with the students. I mean, the students clearly
are very left and they have some very out there
points of view. But if they're going to come and
(33:37):
take a class of mind, they understand that they're probably
going to be introduced to some concepts that other members
of the faculty won't introduce them to, and some come
seeking that out. So I end up with with some
students in my classes who are deliberately looking for that
alternative point of view. I have some who are looking
for a good argument, which I'm always happy to have.
(33:58):
I have some who just come because they're curious in
the subject matter, but aren't particularly politically inclined one way
or the other. And and so I end up with
a pretty good diversity of students that I end up
with pretty good conversation in my classes. In particular. More broadly,
I will say the challenge I have that I see
on campus is not so much with the students. It's
(34:19):
with the other faculty, and that there are a number
of folks around the university who are an important positions,
who you know, who deal with students all the time,
who have a very strong point of view and don't
believe that any alternative point of view holds any any merit. Now,
I'm not speaking about everybody there. Lord, how can you
(34:39):
get to a to a position of education at that
level and have that attitude. Well, they're they're they're so
deeply steeped and they're so good at what they do
that they don't necessarily believe that there's any alternate possibility
an explanation right there. That they've been in what they're
doing for so long that they just subscribe to that
(35:02):
point of view, and they automatically. I mean, what bothers
me is not so much people have strongly held believes
I'm all for that. What bothers me is when they
when they say, look, you feel differently from me, and
I'm going to ascribe bad intentions to you that essentially,
I'm going to say, the reason that you disagree with
me is because you don't believe in science, or you're
a bad person just in general or right correct, or
(35:23):
you're heartless, or yeah, you're a racist. Sure, I mean
what which which I always find humorous when when you know,
when when I hear that, but I you know, that's
that's where it's a little bit tougher for me. And
I feel like that is something I see I'm seeing
more and more of on campus, which is people who
are so deeply set in their views that they're unwilling
(35:43):
to consider that there might be an alternative. Sorry, no, no,
I as to say, I've I've I've got a lot
of colleagues who are are quite left and as I said,
we're willing to entertain the alternative, and we have great conversations.
But it's the ones who are so set in their
views that those are the one that I find more difficult.
I read a contemporary wise person say the other day,
(36:05):
and I have a feeling this wisdom goes back to
the ancient Greeks or beyond that. When you lose your
capacity to say, but I might be wrong, you've lost
an incredibly important part of your humanity, and that's those
people scare me. Yeah. Well, I mean, this is the
problem with with with American colleges and universities more broadly,
(36:26):
is that you do have a lot of people. I
mean just look at Twitter, right that back and forth
you see over Twitter on on on things, and you've
got people who are absolutely a hundred percent convinced that
they are right and and and they will never be wrong. Now,
in some areas, if they're talking about something they've researched
for their whole life, I believe that they're probably right.
(36:47):
But when it comes to questions around uh, you know
what the best way is for society to move forward,
or questions about where we are politically, those get a
little grayer for me. And I'm more been happy to
admit that I may not know the right answer. If
I can a lot of situations, I probably don't know
the right answer, and I'm doing my best to guess.
But I always try to tell people that, and I
(37:08):
always try to say, look, I believe very well. I
could could be right, could be wrong, and you're right.
I think when we lose our capacity to do that,
it's a sad thing. It's a very sad day. You
know the problem with smug contemptuousness is that it's kind
of fun, all right, it's a good time, and if
you're surrounded by other people who agree with you, can
they can feel really good? Oh yeah, it can snowball
too until you can't stop yourself. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Well,
(37:33):
maybe someday we can talk about the future of college education,
because that is a really interesting topic to all of us,
particularly as I pay for my third kid to get
through that process. And this is not the classic sitcom
level humor about you know, writing checks. It's the idea
that the dissemination of knowledge costs, you know, thirty to
(37:55):
sixty dollars per year and you have to go to
a big place with brick buildings seem is fairly ridiculous
to me at this point in history. Not that there
is no role for you know, a socratic seminar type thing,
and intellectual leadership by a learned human and directing learning.
I think that's all incredibly important, But I just it's
become something ridiculous, partly because of the flood of government money.
(38:17):
But again, maybe that's a for another time. And we
didn't even touch on the presidential campaign, which seems to
be completely on hold, at least at the time we're
recording this in the middle of the comic virus thing
going on. But uh, Joe Biden, it's it's gotta be
good news for Joe Biden, right that he gets to
hunker down and not have to talk very much. I
(38:37):
think it's good news, but it's not going to be
good news, uh once we once a couple of weeks passes,
because people are going to forget about it, right, And
I think staying out of the public light, being able
to kind of prepare a message or you know, rest
or do whatever he wants to do. I don't know.
I think those are positives. But I think you're seeing
(38:58):
a little bit of consternation from his camp that he
can't get more involved in this coronavirus conversation. Right. He's
trying to get out there, and we've seen as a
little bit as we record this, where he's trying to
get out and and and appear almost like the shadow
president who's got his own ideas and got his own thoughts.
It just it's just not been effective. He just has
not been able to put himself into the conversation. And
(39:22):
I suspect that while it's nice to be able to
lay low for a little bit, once this continues to
go on, as we drag into April and May, he's
going to want to figure out ways to get into
the limelight. And I think that's going to be something
he's gonna want to do because it's easy to forget
we've got a presidential campaign what we do. Yeah, it's
funny how the universe it seems cycle after cycle says no,
(39:46):
the election is going to be about this, and it's
almost like you're on some sort of game show. What
was that cooking show where they told you the last
second the secret ingredient you had to Yeah, it's very
much like the Iron Chef. McCain and Obama were set
up to be an argument about the Iraq War, than
the crisis happens and it's got nothing to do with
it anymore. Yeah. Yeah, it seems to happen every time
a lot he it's always stimulating. We don't want to
(40:08):
steal too much of your time. But I hope we
can do it again. Absolutely thankful guys, our pleasure. A
little too smart for my taste, Yeah, oh yeah, I'll
ask him to dumb it down next time. Well, we
covered so much ground. I have a feeling he could
go deep quite a few of the I'm sure, Oh yeah,
(40:29):
especially when I asked him a question. But uh, stop it. Um,
I would love to. I could maintain, I think, a
lifelong interest in the question of how do you rearrange
incentives and disincentives to make government perform more efficiently? I
couldn't because I'm too pessimistic about it. I just I
just can't imagine. Well, I would die better, No, no
(40:51):
question about that. I just just from being in in
private bureaucracies, big companies and seeing the government. It just
I've never seen it go the other way. It just
it grows and grows and gets more centralized and gets
thicker and slower, less responsive. Yeah. I'm thinking about the
(41:12):
trends in media with a lot of consolidation and and
and thinning the workforce and the rest of it. But
I'm not sure it's that's not the model we're looking for.
That's that's that's starvation, not stuff about increasing efficiency, reforming
the rules of civil service. If you don't start there,
then that I'm walking out of the room, because if
(41:33):
that's not on the table, it'll never happened until people
can lose their jobs. Well, and serious reform of public
employee union rules too. Yeah, if we don't have those two,
we have nothing nothing. You're right, it's an excellent point,
extra large. When you're ready to ride Metro, we want
you to know we're ready for you. Here are just
(41:55):
a few of the people at Metro to tell you
how we're doing our part to keep riders safe. Cleaning
like noble before, but half built a great clean You've
found half sanitizer stations all over the Metro. No mask,
no Metro need one. We have a few extras at Metro.
We're doing our part to keep the d C area moving.
Find out more at WEMTA dot com slash doing our
(42:17):
part
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com