Philip Howard

In the 1960s, which was a very tumultuous decade, Americans woke up to all kinds of abuses of authority, racism, pollution, gender discrimination, abuse of disabled children, lies about the Vietnam War, you know. So we woke up to all these abuses and we needed to change our values. And we did. We created a civil rights law and environmental laws. Great. That's fine.

In the 1960s, which was a very tumultuous decade, Americans woke up to all kinds of abuses of authority, racism, pollution, gender discrimination, abuse of disabled children, lies about the Vietnam War, you know. So we woke up to all these abuses and we needed to change our values. And we did. We created a civil rights law and environmental laws. Great. That's fine.

Changing values is a good thing to do. But the geniuses at the time said, well, we don't want any more abuses of authority. Let's change the way decisions are made in the public sector. So they got this idea that law should not only set goals or principles of non-discrimination, for example, but should also tell people exactly how to meet the goals.

Changing values is a good thing to do. But the geniuses at the time said, well, we don't want any more abuses of authority. Let's change the way decisions are made in the public sector. So they got this idea that law should not only set goals or principles of non-discrimination, for example, but should also tell people exactly how to meet the goals.

Before that, you didn't have such a thing as a 1,000-page rulebook. The Interstate Highway Act was 29 pages long in 1956. 10 years later, 21,000 miles of road had been built. This new way of governing is that everybody would simply comply with detailed rules.

Before that, you didn't have such a thing as a 1,000-page rulebook. The Interstate Highway Act was 29 pages long in 1956. 10 years later, 21,000 miles of road had been built. This new way of governing is that everybody would simply comply with detailed rules.

You know, when you go through the day with these checklists in the workplace to make sure that there is a material safety data sheet for dishwashing liquid in case somebody drank too much of it. Literally, that's the actual story. All this kind of, you know, make sure there's oxygen in the air.

You know, when you go through the day with these checklists in the workplace to make sure that there is a material safety data sheet for dishwashing liquid in case somebody drank too much of it. Literally, that's the actual story. All this kind of, you know, make sure there's oxygen in the air.

And then things that are so self-evident that could be subsumed within a principle, you know, facilities, tools, and equipment shall be reasonably suited for the use intended. That's a perfectly good principle that people can, instead we have a thousand page rule book on it.

And then things that are so self-evident that could be subsumed within a principle, you know, facilities, tools, and equipment shall be reasonably suited for the use intended. That's a perfectly good principle that people can, instead we have a thousand page rule book on it.

And then where there couldn't be rules, we got the idea that there should be neutral processes where people could prove the validity of their choices. So that's where we got this idea that you couldn't terminate any public employee unless you proved in a hearing that the employee was no good or so much worse than everybody else. How do you prove that... A teacher bores students or whatever.

And then where there couldn't be rules, we got the idea that there should be neutral processes where people could prove the validity of their choices. So that's where we got this idea that you couldn't terminate any public employee unless you proved in a hearing that the employee was no good or so much worse than everybody else. How do you prove that... A teacher bores students or whatever.

I mean, how do you prove it? How do you prove who's a bad writer? How do you prove who doesn't try hard? How do you prove who doesn't get along with co-workers? How do you prove any of this stuff? You know, they're matters of judgment. That's the job of the supervisor.

I mean, how do you prove it? How do you prove who's a bad writer? How do you prove who doesn't try hard? How do you prove who doesn't get along with co-workers? How do you prove any of this stuff? You know, they're matters of judgment. That's the job of the supervisor.

And then the third leg of this stool of paralysis was the idea of giving people the individual right to complain about anything they didn't like. And so we created a system that's basically paralytic. And the rule books have gotten thicker and the procedures have gotten more lengthy and the rights have become rights for everyone. So we created a government where nobody can make decisions.

And then the third leg of this stool of paralysis was the idea of giving people the individual right to complain about anything they didn't like. And so we created a system that's basically paralytic. And the rule books have gotten thicker and the procedures have gotten more lengthy and the rights have become rights for everyone. So we created a government where nobody can make decisions.

Yes. It consists of thousands of specific requirements that are debated in scores of public hearings and meetings that are then challenged in court in litigation proceedings that themselves take three or four years and where no one on behalf of the public has the authority to make the trade-off judgments about whether it's a good project or not and should be approved.

Yes. It consists of thousands of specific requirements that are debated in scores of public hearings and meetings that are then challenged in court in litigation proceedings that themselves take three or four years and where no one on behalf of the public has the authority to make the trade-off judgments about whether it's a good project or not and should be approved.

And the arguments turn on legal compliance and legal terms instead of what's good for the public, which should be political choice. So I don't think you can fix this system. I think you have to replace it. You have to replace it with one that acknowledges what we tried to abandon in the 1960s, which is the need for human choice.

And the arguments turn on legal compliance and legal terms instead of what's good for the public, which should be political choice. So I don't think you can fix this system. I think you have to replace it. You have to replace it with one that acknowledges what we tried to abandon in the 1960s, which is the need for human choice.