I see this as an interesting idea, but given public distrust for the format, it would likely be a difficult sell. One of the main tools to combat the stimulus package was to point out parts that, taken out of context, could be seen as wasteful. The Governor of Lousiana’s dislike of knowing when a volcano will explode aside, I just think this would present insurmountable political issues.

I do think this is an interesting idea, although with regards to #5, I think those who would participate in this project would not be the apathetic targets we’d like to see engaged. Joseph makes an excellent observation here as well with regards to access. I was actually going to mention the X Prize as well, and the many similar projects that have spawned from it. However, there are two fundamental differences between that/the Netflix idea and what you propose:

-Private funding/company backing the project, as opposed to it coming directly from the top -Project had a specific goal

Take my comments perhaps as a cynical musing, but on a different note, similar things do exist. From working in a political office, the innumerous staff members of those 545 government officers you mention do look to the public for ideas and concepts. Obama was especially fond of doing this via his campaign site. However, a large public effort like this could only be positive for engaging people in the political process, and it would be interesting to see what kind of ideas it would bring up.

-- AaronShepard - 04 Mar 2009

I think the genius behind this approach is the use of society's collective resources while avoiding the politically-harmful brand of "socialism." Since this bottom-up approach provides a monetary incentive, society's work can be viewed as a form of rational-actor capitalism. Perhaps we want our law-makers to partake in this "script" to facilitate achieving the desired gains.

-- KeithEdelman - 04 Mar 2009

Joseph, thanks. I agree that some communities would not have the means to contribute directly, though one might hope enterprising do-gooders would be there to act as their mouthpiece. To me, the more pressing concern is the likelihood that the format would produce any actionable ideas/plans at all that can either compete with what we get from top-down government or address overlooked issues. The idea is a non-starter if it fundamentally can't do one of these things. (One could imagine insufficient interest, coordination, or proficiency.) Beyond that core conceptual hurdle lie many operational problems, like organizational management and oversight. (I’ve thought about these problems and would be happy to discuss if there’s enough interest.) A key advantage, though, is that, like an internet startup, it’s not expensive to try and doesn’t have to work perfectly right away.

Molissa, the juxtaposition of this and the financial bailouts has emotional resonance, which might make it politically viable, but a ‘social program bailout’ isn’t really the thrust of the idea for me. I’m thinking of starting in motion an alternative/complementary means of government. Social programs provide a relatively low-expertise, low-risk, feel-good ground for development.

In a country of 300 million increasingly heterogeneous people dealing with increasingly multifarious and technical problems, we have 1 president, 535 members of Congress, and 9 Supreme Court justices. Everything that gets done by the federal government ultimately flows through them. Do you, personally, feel well-represented by these people? Do you think they can handle the job? I get the feeling that it’s too much. Think of how complicated the Stimulus Bill is and how fast it was rushed into law. Look at Ben Bernanke’s face in a Congressional hearing when he has to repeat himself and answer badly framed questions ad nauseum. It seems to me they are straining for answers and “ceremonial adequacy” in equal parts. It would be nice if the people could take more of the burden on themselves.

-- GregOrr - 04 Mar 2009

I love the idea of balancing the corporate bail-out with a "bottom-up" social problem bail-out. While Joseph raises valid points about the limitation of the wiki format, particularly the problem of a skewed respondent population, I think it's especially valuable to start thinking about a way to rectify the massive sense of injustice felt by most of the U.S. population at the execution of the bailout.

On the other hand, perhaps it's counter-productive to think of things in those terms. Even a $700 billion community programs bailout would not rectify the injustices and imbalances that created the problems. Talking about a "good" bailout in this way makes me think of the conversations we've had trying to justify working at a big firm and what not. It begins to feel like a rationalization; throwing money at something in order to make ourselves feel less bad about whatever role our culture, class, or chosen profession played in the economic destruction we are now facing.

-- MolissaFarber - 03 Mar 2009

<--/commentPlugin-->