I feel like the "issue" some people have with centralized power is that elections actually matter, and there's no getting around that.
Giving the executive the power to do stuff seems to be better than this current approach of no one accomplishing much of anything at all, or at extremely high cost crowding out other valuable projects. If there is a problem, then we can always turn the ship around, so long as it's set up so that decisions getting made are reversible (demolishing wildlife habitat willy nilly seems like a bad idea).
The general welfare and "common good" used to be often used expressions because people understood that oftentimes individual sacrifice would be needed for the community to benefit as a whole. That everyone was willing to participate in that meant that overall you'd win more than you would lose if we elect people of character to be in charge.
Getting your stuff done, and then making it impossible to undo by the next person is fundamentally anti-democratic. The better approach is to go after a policy so good and so courteous to the opposition that they can't help but not repeal it - Obamacare/PPACA being case and point.
The fundamental issue underlying this question is not whether NEPA (or other regulatory processes) should be streamlined, but rather that our government should be reformed in order to prevent the kind of authoritarian abuses we witness every day. But, although the specific question this article posits—how to empower citizens in decision making—is secondary, it can nevertheless be harnessed as a path forward to that end goal. As I have suggested in other comments, the Democratic party would benefit greatly by hosting a web site that actively solicits that very input. Imagine a party that doesn't rule from on high, but continuously reaches out to ask voters how THEY feel on specific issues. What platform they want. What legislation they want. What reforms they want. That is a formula for success that would empower voters, provide the majority party with clear mandates, and then facilitate the kind of reforms we need.
I feel like the "issue" some people have with centralized power is that elections actually matter, and there's no getting around that.
Giving the executive the power to do stuff seems to be better than this current approach of no one accomplishing much of anything at all, or at extremely high cost crowding out other valuable projects. If there is a problem, then we can always turn the ship around, so long as it's set up so that decisions getting made are reversible (demolishing wildlife habitat willy nilly seems like a bad idea).
The general welfare and "common good" used to be often used expressions because people understood that oftentimes individual sacrifice would be needed for the community to benefit as a whole. That everyone was willing to participate in that meant that overall you'd win more than you would lose if we elect people of character to be in charge.
Getting your stuff done, and then making it impossible to undo by the next person is fundamentally anti-democratic. The better approach is to go after a policy so good and so courteous to the opposition that they can't help but not repeal it - Obamacare/PPACA being case and point.
Appreciate this take but feel the deeper issue is progressivism in America is hostile to economic growth on principle
The fundamental issue underlying this question is not whether NEPA (or other regulatory processes) should be streamlined, but rather that our government should be reformed in order to prevent the kind of authoritarian abuses we witness every day. But, although the specific question this article posits—how to empower citizens in decision making—is secondary, it can nevertheless be harnessed as a path forward to that end goal. As I have suggested in other comments, the Democratic party would benefit greatly by hosting a web site that actively solicits that very input. Imagine a party that doesn't rule from on high, but continuously reaches out to ask voters how THEY feel on specific issues. What platform they want. What legislation they want. What reforms they want. That is a formula for success that would empower voters, provide the majority party with clear mandates, and then facilitate the kind of reforms we need.