How do we design a better government?

The best metaphor is one which almost every American can relate to: a home. Imagine our current government as an old house, where termites have hollowed out the load-bearing beams, mold grows unchecked in the bathrooms, the roof leaks with every storm, and it all rests on a cracked foundation. Everyone you love is living inside of this decaying home, one built centuries ago, one teetering on the verge of collapse. Unless we build a new home, and unless we do it quickly, structural collapse and tragedy are inevitable. It is impossible to say which wall will fall first, or which storm will blow the house down, but it is obvious that a disaster is immanent. A house as rotten as ours cannot be repaired; and so it must be deliberately, carefully, professionally demolished before another, better home is built in its place. But building a house is not easy or quick, it is a task that requires specialists of all kinds working together for extended periods of time. You need architects, general contractors, electricians, plumbers, roofers, interior designers, foundation experts, and many other specialists who know exactly what to do within their niche of expertise. You cannot just hire a bunch of general contractors and expect to build a great home, you assemble a collection of specialists, each one tasked with a specific responsibility. We must build our government the same way we would build a home, by gathering specialists, incorporating the preferences of the owners, and setting a timeline for construction.

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew."
Abraham Lincoln

All Americans should be given the opportunity to contribute to the design of our next government, of our next home, but we cannot ignore the nuanced, multi-disciplinary nature of designing one. To account for the difficulty of this task, this manifesto proposes gathering some of the most capable, intelligent Americans alive today, assembling them to design a brand-new government, and livestreaming their discussions and debates to the rest of the American People in real time. In theory, this would be a two-part process. The first part, Convention Day, would be educational in nature. Broadly speaking, it would introduce all of our citizenry on the debates, systems, and discussions that are necessary in designing a government. The result would be to have some of the best professionals in the nation walking the rest of us through their field of expertise, passing the baton of national attention along, outlining the structure of our government piece by theoretical piece, explaining exactly why our government should be structured in a certain way. The American People would be encouraged to provide immediate responses, creating a massive amount of data regarding the public’s opinions, data which can be analyzed over the coming days, weeks, and months.

“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”
George Patton

The second step in this process would be divisive, deliberative, and would begin the following day. In this step, some of the nation’s foremost experts within a given field begin detailing their respective Ministries, once again broadcasting their discussions to the American People in real time. While the first part is general education, putting the entire country on the same page, the second step is designed to divide the American People according to what they care the most about. Not only would our Ministries be designed by some of our foremost intellectuals in each respective field, but we would also be able to direct and divide the American People and thereby harness the full force of our nation’s knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence. This proposal would bring together the leadership, expertise, and knowledge of our foremost intellects, and combine it with the aggregate wisdom and democratic legitimacy of the American People. It ensures that the overall structure of our government is in accordance with natural laws and the will of the American People. This proposal would also create an immense amount of data regarding public opinion on specific policies, positions, and details of our new government, data which can be used to further refine the structure and mechanics of our state. This plan should not only design a great government, it should also generate public support and acceptance of that government. Giving citizens the opportunity to influence and help organize their own government is an immensely attractive idea if executed correctly. Obviously, this step would last longer than a single day, but the first day would be the most important, as it would lay down the cornerstone foundations of each Ministry and would likely draw the largest audiences.  

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.”
H.P. Lovecraft

This plan, however, contains an obvious flaw: How do we choose who leads the design of our next government? The traditional methods of voting in politicians will likely ensure that extremely corrupt individuals are in charge of an extremely delicate, difficult, and consequential task, tasks which they are fundamentally unsuited for. Traditional methods, such as organizing a Convention of States through Article V of the Constitution, lack promise because of this conclusion (and Article V is only for amending, not outright replacement, and what we really need is a full replacement). But if we do not follow Constitutionally embedded pathways, and if these delegates are so important, how do we decide who they are?

“Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.”
Marcus Aurelius

The solution simple: I already did it. I sat down, filled out the roster of delegates, and organized their content into a narrative for the American People for Convention Day; and then, I outlined the roster of delegates that would specialize in the various niches necessary to design a great government. This decision will undoubtedly be controversial, but I stand by my reasoning in taking this liberty. Preselecting our delegates allows us to minimize the uncertainty surrounding this plan and ensures that we appoint qualified experts to these positions of immense responsibility and difficulty. Rather than lose time, unity, and momentum debating the delegates or the structure of Convention Day, this proposal presented as a take-it-or-leave-it opportunity to the American People. On one hand, you have the opportunity to participate in the greatest event in the history of this nation, on the other hand, you have the opportunity to continue watching our government continue to decay until it collapses on itself. On one hand, the starting draft, the structure of the Convention, and the roster of delegates are fixed before they reach the public’s awareness, but on the other hand, the public will be able to fully evaluate this proposal before endorsing it, and they will be able to influence the design of the final version of our next government simply and safely. This compromise between executive action, intellectual expertise, and democratic legitimacy is the best (likely the only) way to ensure that we actually create a better government. I cannot imagine another way to get the people who should be leading these discussions actually leading them than to preselect them.

All too often, democracy is hamstrung by the sheer impossibility of getting everyone to agree.”
Isaiah Berlin

There is precedent for this executive action if we look past the present into our history. It seems that every successful political and social movement of the past was led by an individual. Across centuries and continents, the pattern of massive social change catalyzed by an individual leader is remarkably consistent. For example, when faced by a crisis, the Greek city states and the Roman republic would appoint an individual to guide them through the crisis. They were often able to navigate those crises successfully because traditional democratic decision making had been suspended in favor of centralized decision making. Look at the drastic consolidation of power during the Civil War by President Lincoln, the foundation of our national parks and trust busting of Teddy Roosevelt, or the unprecedented initiative of FDR during the Great Depression and the Second World War. Decentralized social movements seem to always fizzle out, losing momentum through debates, disagreements, and discussions, as we can see with Occupy Wallstreet and the Arab Spring. Consider the French Revolution, whereby committees and congresses with noble aspirations led to a chaotic, blood-soaked period called the Reign of Terror, and contrast that chaos with the effect Napoleon had on stabilizing France and turning it into one of the world’s foremost powers. Individuals seem to be unique in their ability to bring together a population for successful revolutionary change.  

“Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.”
Napoleon Bonaparte

In light of the centralized, predetermined nature of this proposal, we must ensure that democracy plays a key role for the actual Convention. For starters, we must acknowledge that the creation of this new social contract would be far more democratic than the writing of the Constitution itself, as it would give millions of Americans the opportunity to actively influence the structure of their state by voicing their comments and concerns safely and in real time. Never before has the design of a social contract been democratized to this degree. So right off the bat, we are doing far better at integrating our democratic ideals than the writers of the Constitution themselves, as well as the authors of every other constitution on Earth.

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself… nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
Franklin Roosevelt

However, democratic ideals can become even more integrated. By holding a two-tiered vote, we can ensure that the government we design is both scientifically sound and democratically legitimate. The first vote would be conducted by the delegates at the end of the design process. It would be conducted in full public view, and if the vote among delegates passes, then implement a public referendum on adopting our new government. The veto power the American People have over this conversion cannot be overstated: it is paramount to the appeal and success of this enterprise. The referendum serves as a democratic safeguard, and given its importance, the logistics of actually organizing that referendum should be left to individuals who are extremely capable, experienced, and trustworthy. The four ex-Presidents, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the party leaders of the House and Senate would be stellar candidates for this job, bringing bipartisan comradery, undeniable legitimacy, and decades of experience at all levels and across all branches of our political system.

"To each, there comes in their lifetime, a special moment when they are figuratively tapped on the shoulder and asked to do something unique to their talents. What a tragedy if that moment finds them unprepared or unqualified for the work which would be their finest hour.”
Winston Churchill

In short and frankly, you can wait around for someone else to propose a slightly easier path to a slightly higher mountaintop before the exponentially devastating fires, floods, and famines really hit us, or you can follow me on the path I have charted to higher ground. Because yes, the roster of intellectuals may be imperfect, and yes, the proposed draft Constitution may be flawed, but I guarantee that you will never see a safer, easier way to solve the biggest problem in your life.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Texan proverb

Given this two-step strategy for designing our next government, the final piece to our puzzle is to provide a working blueprint that the experts and the nation can judge and analyze before committing to this peaceful revolution. The next essay in this manifesto contains a rough outline for a civilization that could bring an incalculable amount of happiness, prosperity, and desperately needed community to the American People; it explains why and how to create a society that maximizes freedom.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete."
Buckminster Fuller