Why Can’t We Get Big Things Done Anymore?
At one point in American history, we built things—big things. Highways, power grids, Social Security, the Tennessee Valley Authority. Whether you agree with all of them or not, these were massive projects that reshaped the country. But lately, it feels like we’ve lost that ability. Government seems stuck, big ideas stall out, and progress moves at a crawl.
So, what happened?
Marc Dunkelman, a fellow at Brown University and author of Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress – and How to Bring it Back, has spent years studying this question. His conclusion? We live in an era of “vetocracy”—a system where there are too many ways to stop things from happening and not enough ways to make them happen.
The Internal Conflict of Progressivism
Dunkelman argues that modern progressivism is caught in a contradiction. On one hand, progressives believe government should step in and solve big problems, like climate change or infrastructure. On the other hand, they also fear government overreach and want to limit its power in certain areas—such as policing or personal freedoms.
It’s a tension that has existed in American politics for over a century. Dunkelman traces it back to two competing traditions:
1. The Hamiltonian View – Government should be strong and active in solving problems.
2. The Jeffersonian View – Government should be kept in check because it can be unresponsive, corrupt, or oppressive.
Both of these impulses have shaped progressivism over time. But since the 1960s, the Jeffersonian impulse—to limit government power—has gained dominance, creating a paradox where people demand action but also build in mechanisms that make action nearly impossible.
The Result? Paralysis
Think about it:
• People want the government to tackle climate change—a massive problem requiring bold action.
• At the same time, they want government to stay out of women’s reproductive rights—a stance that assumes a small, limited government.
Dunkelman points out that most people don’t even notice this contradiction, but it creates a deep inconsistency in how we expect government to function. And when a government is constantly checked, second-guessed, and stripped of authority, it loses its ability to do anything well.
Why This Opened the Door for Trump
According to Dunkelman, when government fails to deliver on big promises, voters don’t necessarily turn against government itself—they turn against the people running it.
This dysfunction has fueled the rise of figures like Donald Trump, who ran on the idea that traditional institutions weren’t just ineffective but fundamentally broken. If government can’t build things, fix things, or solve problems, voters start looking for a different kind of leader—someone who claims they can break the deadlock, by any means necessary.
How Do We Fix This?
Dunkelman suggests that instead of letting vetocracy paralyze every major decision, we need to give communities a voice, but not a veto. Too often, every small interest group can block progress without having to propose a workable alternative.
In other words, we need a system where people can be heard without being able to shut everything down. Because if we keep making government incompetent, how can we expect people to trust it with big problems?
It’s a frustrating reality—but also an opportunity. If the national government is stuck, maybe progress needs to start locally. Maybe smaller-scale action is where momentum can build. But one thing is clear: if we want to start getting big things done again, we need to rethink the way decisions are made.