Editor’s Note: This is Part One in our series on better governance and better citizenship. Next up: Empowering Local Solutions to Poverty.
Let’s be honest: the federal government has been trying to “fix” poverty and education for decades, and more often than not, it’s made a mess of things. Not because the people in charge don’t care — many do — but because Washington has a bad habit of believing one-size-fits-all solutions can solve problems as diverse as the country itself.
When Washington Gets It Wrong
War on Poverty
Take LBJ’s War on Poverty back in the mid-1960s. Billions poured into public housing high-rises across America.
The idea was noble: give the poor a decent place to live. The result? Buildings like Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis that became unlivable within 15 years. Crime, gangs, despair — all concentrated under one roof.
Not only did the federal program make no provisions for care and maintenance, but people were isolated and provided none of the programs or support needed to make real change in their lives.
In other words, there was no partnership with local public/private organizations that actually knew what these families needed. Instead, Washington offered a one-off, top-down solution that ended the moment the buildings were finished.
No Child Left Behind
Or look at No Child Left Behind. It started with the best intentions: hold schools accountable, raise standards. But the way Washington did it? Endless standardized tests. Teachers reduced to drill sergeants, kids treated like score-producing machines. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan later admitted the obsession with testing was “sucking the oxygen out of the classroom.” Parents hated it, teachers hated it, and in the end, student learning didn’t soar — it narrowed.
And don’t even get me started on Scared Straight. That program was supposed to keep teens out of trouble by taking them into prisons to see the hard truth. The data? It actually increased juvenile crime. But politicians kept funding it anyway because it looked good on TV.
Why Federal Programs Keep Failing
Here’s the heart of the problem: Washington runs on feelings, slogans, and political incentives — not evidence.
- Programs that fail don’t get shut down; they get bigger budgets.
- Politicians rarely admit they were wrong.
- And the people those programs were supposed to help? They’re left holding the bag.
It’s not that government has no role. It’s that it keeps trying to play the wrong role.
The Role Washington Should Play
The federal government should not be the architect. It should be the advisor, the data hub, the funding partner.
Think of it as a national Solutions Lab:
- Collect the data on what actually works, whether it’s a mentorship program, a job-training model, or a new kind of school.
- Analyze the data using the best tools we’ve got — AI, researchers, statisticians.
- Publish the truth so states, cities, and nonprofits know what succeeds and what flops.
- Fund the winners and hold them accountable with real, transparent metrics.
That’s it. No dictating from on high. No cookie-cutter mandates. Just truth, support, and accountability.
Lessons from Business & Research: Smaller Is Smarter
We’ve seen Musk’s “big balls, no brains” approach, and what a nightmare that created. We need scalpels, not chainsaws.
This isn’t just about politics — it’s about how big organizations really succeed or fail. There’s a growing body of research showing that smaller, well-structured teams outperform larger, clunkier ones in innovation, agility, and accountability. Republican’s vague idea that “government should be smaller” has to be paired with how much smaller, under what structure, with what accountability, if it’s going to mean anything.
-
Scientific innovation studies (looking at millions of papers, patents, projects over decades) show that small teams are much more likely to produce “disruptive” work — breakthroughs that change the game — whereas large teams tend to refine or build on already known ideas. arXiv+1
-
Research on team size vs innovation (Disruption Index studies) finds a negative relationship between team size and long-term innovation: as team size increases, disruptive contributions tend to drop off. arXiv
-
In the military, there are numerous articles about “small-unit excellence” (squads, fireteams, units company size or below) being more effective in complex, fluid situations (e.g. counterinsurgency). Leadership, autonomy, trust, cohesion, and adaptive command structures matter more when units are smaller and empowered. Army University Press+2Armed Forces Journal+2
Washington should learn from this: smaller, focused units work better than sprawling bureaucracies. It’s not about dismantling everything — it’s about structuring agencies so they have clear, compact work teams, with decision-makers closer to the action and fewer layers between people and outcomes. Shrinking the federal role doesn’t weaken it — it makes it stronger and more effective, if you do it in line with what the research shows.
Data as Our Compass
Business leaders already live by the mantra: what gets measured gets managed. Parents know kids learn best when they’re taught, not tested to death. Communities know which programs are helping and which ones are wasting time.
If Washington retools itself as a trusted source of data, funding, and transparency, we all win. The government gets smaller but smarter. Communities get the freedom and resources to do what works for them. And politicians who thrive on lies and conspiracy theories? They lose ground, because data cuts through the noise.
This isn’t pie-in-the-sky. Harvard economist Raj Chetty has shown that kids who grow up with friends across class lines are far more likely to rise into the middle class themselves. That’s not ideology. That’s evidence.
And Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, in books like Don’t Trust Your Gut and Everybody Lies, reinforces the same lesson: our instincts are often dead wrong. The data tells a truer story about what actually works in human behavior. That’s exactly the kind of perspective Washington needs to embrace.
Lessons from the Marines: Adapt to Win
The Marine Corps has a simple formula for winning: move fast, stay flexible, and improvise relentlessly. In battle, waiting for perfect orders is a recipe for defeat. Marines adapt to the fight in front of them, change tactics on the fly, and seize opportunities as they appear.
That mindset is exactly what our government needs. Washington today is the opposite — slow, rigid, bogged down in paperwork and politics. But if the Marines can be nimble in life-or-death combat, there’s no reason our federal government can’t be nimble in solving problems like education, poverty, and small business growth.
Built-In Accountability: The AAR
The other thing the military gets right? Accountability through the After Action Review (AAR). After every mission, Marines and soldiers sit down to ask four simple questions:
- What was supposed to happen?
- What actually happened?
- What went right?
- What went wrong and needs to change?
It’s not about blame. It’s about learning, improving, and never repeating the same mistake twice.
A Radical Idea
Now imagine if every major federal program had a mandatory AAR built into its life cycle — and the results were made public. No more hiding behind slogans. No more doubling down on failure. The facts would be on the table, and politicians wouldn’t be able to spin them away.
That’s the kind of feedback loop we need: fast, flexible adaptation, backed by uncompromising accountability. Combine that with data as our compass, and suddenly you have a government that can actually learn, adjust, and improve — just like the Marines do when the stakes are highest.
And even better, programs that don’t work can be killed and the money spent where we know real results are happening.
Building a Smarter Citizenry
And let’s not forget teaching critical thinking skills. If we bake logic, debate, and media literacy into every school curriculum from Grade One to Grade 12, future voters will be a lot harder to fool. Finland’s been doing it for years, and it works.
Want to hear more about this idea? I have a post specifically about teaching our kids critical thinking skills, so they are no longer susceptible to manipulation by politicians, corporations, or media.
Trust, Not Control
At the end of the day, this is about trust. The American people need a government that doesn’t just throw programs at them, but one that actually listens, learns, and adapts. The Marine Corps mantra is Fast, Flexible, Improvise. A government that admits when something doesn’t work and shifts resources to what does.
That’s the government we need for the 22nd century.
Not an overlord.
Not a dictator.
A partner.
Call to Action
“America needs a government that listens, learns, and adapts. If you believe in data-driven change and local empowerment, join the conversation and share this post. Together, we can build a 22nd-century government that’s a partner, not an overlord.”
Next up in this series: Empowering Local Solutions to Poverty — how communities, nonprofits, and small businesses succeed where Washington fails, and how the right kind of federal partnership helps them thrive.
0 Comments