Analysis: The End of Government as We Know It

Home Forums Miscellaneous Analysis: The End of Government as We Know It

This topic contains 8 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Amanda Parker 6 years, 9 months ago.

  • Author
  • #178185

    Peter Sperry

    An interesting article. I am not sure I agree with everything but we are definately in a transition period.

    But what are we transitioning to? What sort of values will “new government” uphold? Where will government employees fit in? Will the individual be more empowered or smothered by the mob? What will be the foundation of government authority (if authority is the right word?) and who will control it?

    Analysis: The End of Government as We Know It

    By Ron Fournier

    April 22, 2013

    A year ago, I wrote about the decline of American institutions through the eyes of Johnny Whitmire, an unemployed construction worker, who lost his home due to systematic failures of his bank and employers as well as city, state and federal governments. “You can’t trust anybody or anything anymore,” Whitmire said, standing outside the $40,000 home he ceded to his mortgage company.

    In a new book, “The End of Big: How the Internet Makes David the New Goliath,” author Nicco Mele argues that such cynicism is not only warranted, it’s the inevitable result of social and political changes wrought by what he calls “radical connectivity.”

    That is, our ability to send vast amounts of data instantly, constantly and globally—breathtaking new tools that “empower the individual at the expense of existing institutions and ancient social structures.” These include government, businesses, entertainment, military, schools, media, religion, and other big institutions designed to protect and sustain people like Whitmire.

    “Our institutions have in fact failed us,” writes Mele, a Harvard Kennedy School faculty member and technology expert who worked for both Howard Dean and Barack Obama.

    In a must-read for political and policy junkies as well as futurists, Mele argues that the Democratic and Republican parties must urgently embrace the bottom-up ethos of radical connectivity — or perish. He also says arguments over the size of government are outdated, because the real question is how we redefine governing for the digital age.

    “When big government gets too powerful, we risk authoritarianism and an erosion of individual autonomy. Whittle it away, though, and you get something else—chaos,” Mele writes. “Should present trends go unchecked, it is easy to imagine a nightmare scenario of social breakdown facilitated by radical connectivity.”

    Sound extreme? Consider, as does Mele, the harsh lessons of history. After describing the fall of seemingly immutable European monarchies at the turn of the 20th century, Mele writes:

    “We’re at the beginning of a similar epochal change in human history. Scan the headlines every morning—through your Facebook and Twitter feeds—and you can feel history shifting under your feet. Every day I find more and more evidence that we are in the twilight of our own age, and that we can’t quite grasp it, even if we sense something is terribly amiss. This transformation transcends any one realm of life—it’s all-encompassing, even if, as we’ve seen, it proceeds unevenly and paradoxically. Our twentieth-century institutions, which seem as foundational or ahistorical as hereditary monarchy, are on the cusp of collapse—or, if not outright collapse, of irrelevancy and anachronism.”

    “Something is terribly amiss”—a summation that especially resonates after a week of momentous events that both challenged and exposed ill-equipped institutions of government: The Boston City Marathon; ricin-laced letters sent to Washington; the explosion of a lightly regulated fertilized plant in Texas; and the demise of gun-safety legislation drafted in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. The quick identification of the Boston suspects was a victory for old-school police work, both helped and hindered by social media, smartphones, security cameras, and other assets of a digitally woven world.

    Polls consistently show our faith in institutions in steep decline. In particular, trust in Washington is at near-record lows because the current model is a “vending machine government,” a phrase Mele borrows from technologist Tim O’Reilly to describe public frustration. Politicians make promises, we pay taxes, and our participation is limited to “shaking the vending machine.”

    Instead, Mele writes, government should be considered a “platform” upon which individuals, organizations, and companies can build services and offerings that suit the times—flexible, transparent, and accountable.

    “Essentially, government as a platform presume that government should provide an underlying infrastructure and then let us build on top of that infrastructure in a wide variety of ways,” Mele writes. “It does not necessarily mean smaller government—but it does mean the end of Big Government, with many smaller units of government.”

    It also means new a new ethic of leadership. Mele would convene a constitutional convention (Thomas Jefferson imagined one every generation) to struggle with the questions of radical connectivity. “The reality of history has had precious few examples of democracy,” Mele said. “We’re a rarefied category—one that could use some more experimentation if it is to survive the digital age.”

    After devoting chapters to specific institutions—media, political parties, the entertainment industry, government, the military, and big business—Mele offers some broad solutions. They include demanding more thoughtful, inspirational leadership.

    He praises President Obama’s 2008 campaign for harnessing the power of the individual and radical connectivity to build a bottom-up movement. “Unfortunately, this impressive fusion of top-down leadership and distributed individual action across the network seemed to wilt once Obama actually came to occupy the White House,” he wrote.

    “The reason for that is clear: The institutions of Washington, D.C.—namely the executive branch and the Democratic National Committee—are not nearly as flexible and malleable as political campaigns are.”

    That assessment made me think of Whitmire who told me a year ago that he had voted for Obama in 2008 but had grown disappointed. “It’s not all his fault. He’s got a lot aligned against him,” Whitmire said at the time. “The system is set up for our leaders to fail.”

    Coincidentally, while I was writing this book review, Whitmire e-mailed me to say his mortgage company, out of the blue, “gave me my house back and released the lien off it for some reason … after everything they put me through.”

    Whitmire is not sure why. Mortgage company paperwork mentions a federal loan-forgiveness program, he said, but Whitmire suspects he got special treatment because of media attention.

    He is grateful. But he is skeptical, too: His credit is still a mess, he is still unemployed, and “our government still doesn’t much work. Hopefully, there’s other people in my situation who got their houses back after the government and banks did them wrong,” he said in a telephone interview from his new-old home. “But, somehow, these days, you’ve just got to doubt it. Sadly, I doubt it.”

    As Mele might say: Until we end big, there will be no end of doubt.

    (Image via Tim Mainiero/


    By Ron Fournier

    April 22, 2013

  • #178201

    Amanda Parker

    I have a family member who would likely agree with most of this article, except to say that it doesn’t go far enough. He is so distrustful of government he believes that we really ought not to have one. While many of his views are extreme, when I engage him in discussion he says some insightful things. One example that this article reminded me of had to do with public works projects.

    For example, instead of a local jurisdiction raising taxes to improve a multitude of services, why not let the public decide when and how to spend their money. Technology could be utilized to fund public works projects “kickstarter-style”. Let members of a certain town get together, raise awareness and raise donations for, let’s say, the repaving of a Main St. in great need of repair. Perhaps a matching program with the local government to say projects get funded from the current pot of funds if citizens raise a percentage. This type of platform if far more participatory (and yes, local) so it may allow for government organizations to do more with more–and keep public trust.

  • #178199

    Henry Brown

    The only thing that I would add, the place we are headed will be largely influenced by what input “we” provide…. Yes it is going to be less than a smooth road but “good things only come through effort”…. And there will be massive setbacks(classic case in point Transparency in Congress ) but gotta continue trying

  • #178197

    Mark Hammer

    It’s not this guy, is it?

  • #178195

    Amanda Parker
    Participant, I wish 🙂

  • #178193

    Steve Ressler

    I just read the book “The End of Big” on the plane – it’s a good read

  • #178191


    I love the fact that the impact and implications of Gov 2.0/OpenGov is finally hitting the radar of Gov Execs.

    To explore how technology is changing the ways democracies function and to help them bring their responses into the digital age, senior tech leaders, innovators, policymakers and scholars from around the world will convene in Silicon Valley today for a two-day conference, “Governing Democratically in a Tech-Empowered World.” More info here:

  • #178189

    One wonders what will be the tipping point.

  • #178187

    Peter Sperry

    I beleive the tipping point occurs when several current trends intersect.

    1. Exponential growth in machine and artificial intelligence based productivity displaces all but very high skilled creative individuals from the work place, leaving them as consumers and citizens but not producers.

    2. Exponential growth in machine and artificial intelligence based productivity reduces costs of consumer goods on global basis to the point extreme poverty is eliminated and first tier of Mazlow’s higherarchy can, and is, met through needs based transfers by nongovernment organizations and minimal government social programs.

    3. Current demographic trends level off and global population peakes at about 10 billion before falling back down to between 6-8 billion.

    4. Exponential growth in communications and mobile connectivity allows overwhelming majority of global population to inteact as a single integrated community.

    These are the megatrends impacting our world today. Their effect on government will be profound. Many (most) public services will migrate from nation state governments to NGOs or the broader private sector. Nation state based governments will be required to focus more on their core functions as arbitrators of disputes, facilitators of public decision making and final authorities regarding use of deadly force.

    The greatest challange to government will be maintaining legitimacy based on more than raw power in the face of conflicting demands from consumers who no longer produce very much and mega producers desiring to maintain control over how much of their output is redistributed, to whom and on what basis.

    Very difficult demand but off the charts interesting intellectual challanges. Depending on your point of view, the future could bring the dark ages of civil society or the golden age of public policy analysis. Or both.

    I am looking forward to it and am only sorry I am probably not young enough to live through the entire transition period and see what comes out the other side.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.