Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Robert Ley's avatar

What this lovely column and the "Abundance Agenda" have not yet explained is which of the many rules and regulations they're either going to get rid of or have the bureaucrats ignore. See any problems there?

Life is more complicated than it was for the New Deal. We know more. We believe we should protect more and have therefore instituted many, many rules and regulations to do so. Somehow, try as they might, I do NOT see any Dems pissing off their environmental supporters by gutting environmental rules and regulations. So if we're not likely to get rid of very many of them, how about just using "good judgment"?

Per Prof. Fukuyama (from the post), if

"Bureaucrats need more authority to do their jobs properly, not less, and to substitute good judgment for detailed rule-following."

How much money and time do you want to spend going to court because the environment folks (see above) aren't happy that the bureaucrat "substitute(d) good judgment" and should have followed the damn rules! Do you see many bureaucrats at any level wanting to have their work go to court because someone thought their judgment wasn't very good? Not very likely, I'd say.

The devil's in the details, AGAIN. We've hamstrung ourselves. If you wanna' build fast, go to China. Some moderation might be possible but, sorry, I can't see how big shifts are gonna' happen. There is no free lunch. "We have met the enemy and he is us."

*Of course* I ignored my own rules: "The Facts Don't Matter. The story does!" The Dems could/should indeed make a good story about how much they're gonna' build and how they're going to just revitalize *everything*. GREAT story. It's about the emotions, about the story. The facts become problematic when the Dems end up not being able to produce what they said they'd produce. Seen any of those promised charging stations lately? Didn't think so. Ooooooops...

Expand full comment
Mitchell in Oakland's avatar

Jefferson himself exercised executive authority with the Louisiana Purchase. The difference was that his use of "Hamiltonian" means was focused on achieving Jeffersonian ends (acquiring space for a republic of yeoman freeholders).

Indeed, my one quibble with the "abundance" agenda is its proponents' tendency to advocate for high-density urbanism.

IMO, we should emulate the former California Governor, Pat Brown, who oversaw the rise of the UC system (much as Jefferson founded the University of Virginia!), the aqueducts, and the building of freeways and suburbs (where today, from places like Milpitas to Houston's [suburban] Chinatown, the most diverse array of mom-and-pop eateries can be found in strip malls [So much for "suburban monoculture"!]). It's "sprawl" only to those who look down on it!

As for so-called "agglomeration effects"? It's worth remembering that Silicon Valley (and many a rock band) started in a suburban garage (or, in the case of Xerox PARC, a suburban office park).

As for the (all-too-readily) reviled Robert Moses? For all the hype around "mass transit" and "walkability scores," I'd gladly abandon the congestion of The Bronx (and the precious urban poodle-walk) to live a short drive from Jones Beach!

As for our residual dense urban environments? Consider the pedestrianized "old towns" in mid-sized European cities like Zaragoza or Montpellier: basically, as theme parks with parking nearby or underground!

Each person's home a castle! A(n electric) car in every garage!

(For more on the same theme, see the writings of Joel Kotkin .)

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts