Increasing complexity: A day in the life of the president

"Gridlock is not an American problem, it is an American achievement! When James Madison and 54 other geniuses went to Philadelphia in the sweltering summer of 1787, they did not go there to design an efficient government. That idea would have horrified them. They wanted a safe government, to which end they filled it with blocking mechanisms: three branches of government, two branches of the legislative branch, veto, veto override, supermajorities, and judicial review. And yet, I can think of nothing the American people have wanted intensely and protractedly that they did not eventually get. The world understands, a world most of whose people live under governments they wish were capable of gridlock, that we always have more to fear from government speed than government tardiness."<p>-George Will

If I have an issue with this article, it's that it reaches a crescendo of Obama-worship by the end (celebrating healthcare reform with a depiction of a White House martini-on-the-balcony scene worthy of a crap James Bond ending) - clearly, the price of access to Rahm Emanuel. Thus after painting a derogatory picture of 24/7 news media (not Vanity Fair's game) as a child badly in need of Ritalin, then playing down the general media's power (" The press may claim the vestigial title of Fourth Estate, but it is the lobbying industry that is now effectively the fourth branch of government"), Vanity Fair is actually trading its detachment and objectivity for access to the Oval Office; hardly demonstrative of the standards it bemoans the absence of in Washington... a poetic illustration of a different facet of Washington's ills, maybe, but really unimpressive.

I have to wonder whether the increasing difficulty of the presidency may have been one of the reasons for Bush's and now Obama's poor performance and reputation. It may indeed be too much work for anyone to do well.

That's an advantage of the Chinese system - you can run the system as a collaboration between a committee of Bureaucrats, and leave all the baby-kissing or earthquake-rubble-trapped-person-cheering-up to the premier.<p>Such complexity is too much for a single person - a group of technocrats is a better way to run such a huge and complicated machine.

The fundamental problem is the centralization of what should be distributed computation and decision making. The federal government busies itself with making rules that prohibit and distort voluntary exchanges between individuals and businesses. Many of the rules it considers or enacts in a fit of piqué or in response to the latest headline pose existential threats to businesses.<p>To survive, businesses have to lobby. The money is also nothing comparatively. Obama and co spent around 787 billion, just on the stimulus. That sort of money flying through the air can destroy you directly or flow into the pockets of your competitors. So against your better judgment and with a heavy heart you lobby. You would much rather that Washington geld itself so that you can get back to growing your business.