Chapter 8

Governing Government

Section 8.1:

The U. S. Founding Fathers could never have anticipated today's technological complexities such as global nuclear war, the Unibomber's manifesto, the communication capabilities of the Internet, or the O. J. Simpson television trial. Yet, they established a remarkable form of government, one that can accommodate and respond effectively to changes, even to rapidly emerging technical and social changes. Changes over a few decades may not seem very rapid, but most of us recognize that the current rate of change is quite astounding, especially in the technology arena.

The U. S. Constitution includes an amendment process for keeping up with changes, but this requires timely use of that process. It took women 72 years of effort to get the 19th Amendment passed, allowing women to vote. If we need new amendments to keep government on track to serve the interests of the people, the sooner we get to it the better. The question that we have to ask is "How?"

Most of us suspect that the common sense approaches of the colonists might not be adequate to deal with many of today's problems, even somewhat routine problems. Most colonists would have difficulty trying to figure out how to pay income taxes or, because of environmental laws and regulations. how to get permission to build a log cabin on their waterfront property. Indeed, we find such tasks frustrating as well, and we avoid confrontations with the complexities and mandates of environmental laws, and many of us hire tax professionals to do our income taxes.

Taxpayers do not just pay income taxes, they have to do them. It is now a major undertaking just to calculate how much is to be paid, and many people and companies have to do the calculations several times each year. Government has gotten so large that paying for it is a major problem, a problem that would probably surprise and confound the Founding Fathers.

Likewise, our modern version of common sense might not suffice for dealing with many routine colonial problems. While we could probably figure out how to pay taxes in bales of tobacco, few of us could build our own home, especially in a wilderness, with no power tools, pre-cut lumber, steel nails, and no prefabricated shingles. They also had to concurrently produce enough food for their families to survive, often requiring a group effort. It was tough on the colonists, and many of them starved to death or died of diseases. Those who survived did so because of hard work and a constant application of common sense.

Technidigm-2000 concepts help us to understand the rather obvious differences between our capabilities and those of the Founding Fathers. Human experience and education are not very effective when used out-of-context. Yet, our eighteenth century counterparts and we operate under the same constitutional framework with the same basic principles and personal objectives.

The differences are simply in the social system contexts within which those principles and goals exist. Just as automobiles wear out and have to be repaired or replaced, we have to keep adjusting our social systems to deal concurrently with degradations and with advances in knowledge. These are largely cyclic changes in system performance and context. They occur over time, requiring us to assess system output, apply the needed feedback, and get back on track relative to our less volatile principles and goals.

Moreover, we have a continuing stream of new government programs, new systems that require more resources, piled on top of previously implemented programs that are already exceeding available funds. Indeed, many new government systems are legislated into existence every year, supposedly addressing our needs but violating fundamental principles.

If we are willing to ignore the need for government efficiency and to go further into debt every year, we can satisfy our immediate need for resources for the array of old and new government programs by legislating the earnings of our children into our pockets today. Besides issues of principles and resources, going into debt in this manner raises additional Technidigm-2000 concerns for context and timing. Thus, even if we assume that every government program is on-the-level, there are several Technidigm-2000 issues that need to be addressed by applying level four leadership. Such complex problems can not be solved at level one.

When the United States was smaller and less populated, government programs and their systems were easier to start up, fund, and manage. A larger, more populous nation naturally required a larger government. Each government program likewise became larger, more expensive, and more difficult to manage.

Computers facilitate program growth more readily than they encourage better program management. By the time a new government program is defined, approved, funded, staffed, proceduralized, equipped, and started up, a lot can change. Without a foundation in basic principles, clear objectives, and adequate feedback mechanisms, a government program can grow out of control and fail, wasting the resources committed to it.

The program's context can also change if a new administration is elected. When elections change context, the new management team is likely to start making radical changes, believing that the voters have provided the necessary feedback in the form of a mandate for change. This is not an efficient form of feedback, but it is the kind of feedback that results when government programs are so out of control that the voters decide to make a major change in the country's direction.

Voter-mandated changes in direction is a little more complicated than simply changing the control of Congress or the presidency from one political party to the other. The government program objectives often remain the same, but the desired approach to achieving those objective changes. Perhaps the underlying principles and feedback mechanisms change with the new government leadership.

The difficulty arises when the defeated politicians try to persuade the voters that the new principles include new objectives as well. It is difficult enough for most people to understand the differences between principles and objectives. Off-the-level politicians can take advantage of this by creating an impression that both are changing. Without a Technidigm-2000 frame of reference to separate objectives from principles, it is easy to persuade people that the new approach "goes too far."

The point of this discussion is that the proper creation and efficient management of government systems is a daunting task, especially in a political arena that has no constraints or rules. The entire process needs to be better understood by everyone concerned. Technidigm-2000 promotes that understanding.

We can not rely on anyone but ourselves to undertake the task of creating a better government, and we had better get on with it -- the sooner the better!