New Deal: World Phase
The New Deal Falls Sick
F.D.R.’s Disputed Legacy

Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education uses a nearly identical diagram for her field, with the parts labeled analogously (something like Consensus Science, Controversial Science, and Fringe Science). Certainly the supporters of science would say that “the system works” although, and I use the expression advisedly, God knows the scientific method isn’t much like the processes of American government.

I would characterize “status quo bias” as “existing-institutions bias.” Most American media are dramatically unlikely to endorse the idea that entire bureaucratic structures, or conventional political notions, ought to be done away with or replaced by something new (the original for this being “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”). They are not even likely to endorse disregard for existing institutions and prevailing attitudes.

My impression is of at-most-mildly-critical coverage of bailouts potentially adding up to trillions of dollars, plus offhand speculation about some kind of rerun of the New Deal*. Not exactly out-of-the-box thinking, given both the right to revolution, as described ca. 1776, and the ubiquitous tools of mass collaboration, as available ca. 2009. There is plenty of irony to go around here.

Note that my intent is not to loose mere nihilism upon the world. A sphere of consensus is almost certainly both inevitable and necessary if any large number of human beings is to effectively manage risk (the original for that being “to secure these [unalienable] rights”). I like your transparency idea, a lot. But I would also like more journalists to internalize Jefferson.

* How strong was existing-institutions bias in the 1930s?

Talk about audience atomization overcome!

Thanks, Andy.