Radical American Governance

How do we size up America? We may look towards the people who live here. We may look towards the institutions such as College and College Football. We may look towards the buildings that contribute to our notion of a ‘skyline’. The foodstuffs which are unique to each region and municipality.

But with a scientific eye we may look upon America as a test bed for policy ideas. From Federal as one test case to State as 50 test cases to County (not gonna quantify it) to City.

We have ample opportunities to asses issues with the State and and the people composed of it to try something better. Ample! But this opportunity is qualified heavily by the American Boomer Political Truth and perhaps a greater truth in self determined governance in that Truth.

Fewer folks want to try something bold and have it not work or lead to another unacceptable theorized outcome. In reference to Minneapolis’ pursuit of ‘another kind of public safety and law enforcement servant’, they are taking a radical step only after being presented with prima facie maliciousness and negligence that commanded and yielded a radical change…proposal.

Proactive radical governance seems like the stuff of dreams (or in my case a particularly delightful Sativa) and surely it could never work, right?

Well, let me present to you a very American way to potentially, maybe, no promises, get proactive policy or at the very least, less homogenized policy that speaks to each American test bed where it is applied with some prior models tested out as reference. Let’s see how the Minneapolis Model goes and then maybe vote on it here?

How do you get people to try something radical when the perceived potential reward is manifested some weeks/months/years later and perhaps only marginally? How do you get over the hump of the unknown where the worst case scenario of Tankies rounding up landlords to send to gulags is seriously considered as a potential outcome?

Bribery.

How do you get folks who are worried about the impact on themselves and those like them on board with trying something that puts their mode of living at stake? You temporarily offset that fear of peril, either real or imagined, through giving people an offset. A bribe by any other name.

Let’s pull it together in the view of Minneapolis.

There is a city council proposal to try a different form of public safety and law enforcement. What will it be like? What will the peril be? How do we deal with this specific situation such as domestic violence and/or mass shooter? How much will it cost?

First, such radical policy proposals must be put to public vote. No compromised city council person or persons can defy the will of the people to try it out. In making it a public vote, we now have personal and collective investment and agency in making the choice for radicalism.

Second, we clad radical policy proposals with an offset that goes directly to the voting public. This could be cash money and I like cash money because it is fungible. It is not a 5 dollar off Uber ride in the midst of Chicago’s Worst going HAM against the people. It is not a celebratory festival on X date for radicalism because that presents a self selected reward of varying importance to the public. Although with the money we all get for electing to be test subjects, we could do one and I’d be down and festivals aren’t even my jams any longer.

Third, it confuses and satisfies people who verily seem to need near term results to spur them to take a risk. I am no stranger to craving short term reward mechanisms especially as I interact with games but…let’s think about qualifying why someone would vote for a radical policy:

“Why’d you for or against vote for X?”

“I think it’s worth a shot!” or “I did it for the bucks” and some personal mediation between the two where we can establish the marginal impact of the offset on its own size. “It’s worth a shot at X price.” That’s the armchair market and economics enthusiast in me shining through.

There’s a runoff benefit to this idea in that, if people get a near term, tangible benefit for voting for a radical policy, they might very well show up if they have been indifferent or apathetic towards their participation in democracy in the first place. This idea of mine doesn’t speak to the separate issue of voting rights themselves and methods of voting and the State enforced disenfranchisement of voters and each of those issues needs its own form of addressment.

Now you might be here going, “why does it have to be radical policy and not just policy” and to me, the reason is there’s not a perceptible sense of risk or loss for non radical policy. Reform is predicated on there being something intrinsic to the composition of policy or institution that can not be done away with. Reform suggests that we are ‘X% of the way there at all times’ without even the capacity to imagine that we are walking down an erroneous marginally better and above all else comfortable path. Policing in America and security theater in itself are two key examples of walking down a path that can’t be reformed because the erroneous perceived benefits of that path are elevated and provide comfort — to some.

Now is about the time you start thinking about Lisa Simpson pointing out the fallacious reasoning of a rock keeping tigers from roaming Springfield to an obtuse Homer who insists that rock is the reason for no tigers currently roaming Springfield — and wants to buy it off Lisa. To take the situation one step further in the public perception, we would be called dangerous lunatics for demanding rocks be removed from our municipality because what if tigers get out of control.

This is not fully fleshed out and there is the very real possibility of co-option of such a method by Power. The policies would have to comport to Constitutional Law (which Abolish the Police does), and not be community fan service for a community that collectively wants in-groups and out-groups within their city. This necessitates pulling the strings of agency on legislators and judges who create and mediate on law. Voting for them. Which you might already be doing if you’re in the booth or thumbing through the ballot on a Sunday afternoon while thinking about what to do with your offset.

There is also the quandary of what to do with situations like Amazon and HQ2 who tried to buffalo for handouts in New York despite not needing them and using the potential of jobs as the reward for voting. The potential of jobs, unqualified to the voter, in type, quality, scope or availability even unto themselves or people they know. With no redress for the externality it causes. Amazon and HQ2 are a Prime example of Power playing the People off one another and isn’t unique but the first time I can recall seeing a ‘national prostrate to Bezos pagaent’ and celebrated as ‘how it should be’. Debasing your own city for the benefit of someone who doesn’t need it, for a benefit you may only tangentially receive…yeah. That is another issue for another day.

This is just a starting point of consideration but it tries to spur involvement, interest, investment and soothes fears with material transaction which is very modern America. I may want to try the Minneapolis Model at some point.