Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s less dysfunctional than most organizations 1/10th its size.
having worked at, or consulted at, several F500 orgs... I believe it. most could be politely described as "basket cases" or "cluster hugs" (hugs being the operative word). but they had so much inertia and so many assets that were effective on ground they couldn't be stopped. anything outside of core business drivers were a mess, but they could still make in rain in their core competencies. the level of corruption was…
A senator gets paid a tiny percent of what a c-suite exec does and there are much fewer of them. I know all sorts of small business owners who make more money than POTUS (though I suppose much fewer if you count speaking fees after retirement) or anyone in Congress. Etc.
I mean there’s corruption and graft and stuff, and plenty of waste, but for its size, I think our government is wonderful. The more I learn about other ones the more positively I feel about ours.
And here’s a way I like to think about things when there are big topics that are confusing. I ask “if you were wrong, would you still think you were right?” I often ask friends if Bing were better than Google (which I’ve never met anyone who thinks it is) would they know it? They say yes but then I ask them the last time they tried switching, or even know someone who did, and they realize that even if Bing was 20% better than Google they would still think it isn’t.
I think it’s the same with government. If ours were better than every other one in the world we’d mostly still think it wasn’t by sheer inertia and the marketing done by politicians to convince us it isn’t.
Im sure it isn’t the best in the world, but I think all the better ones are smaller wealthier countries that just have a much easier job.