Tag Archives: US Democracy

Dear Trump Supporters, Dear Undecided Citizens of the US

If you really want to make America great again, your strategy must be to vote for Harris and then to make the government work for all American people.

Voting for Trump in contrast threatens to utterly destroy America, and all the values America stands for in the world.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Presently the world is crazy and unhinged. New power relationships are emerging. Dictators all over the world are inflicting havoc and destruction, they are causing suffering and death for other and their own people. Whether we believe it or not, there is at least a risk that we actually are destroying the world. Basically, all people in the world need to work together to protect it.

Now the world is looking to America, a nation which has in the past had a leading role in maintaining peace, order, and democracy in the world. Still today, Europe is grateful and indebted to the US for having under the leadership of one of its greatest, longest serving, and most cherished presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt, played the leading role in liberating Europe from fascism. Many Americans gave their lives in this awesome battle for freedom and democracy. This to me is what the real America stands for.

Now your goal is “to make America great again”. That is a highly valuable goal. We, all citizens around the world, should be aiming to build great, healthy, and fair nations, we all should work together to make this world a better and more just place to be.

But what kind of leader does a nation need to become truly “great”?

It seems to me that the Founding Fathers of America themselves, when striving to build a new and prosperous nation, have already provided the clue to this question.

About 200 years ago, at the start of the US as a nation, Alexander Hamilton, a young active leader who eventually died in a duel because of his extremely high ethical principles, and Thomas Jefferson, who later became the third president of the United States, serving from 1801 until 1809, intensely discussed the qualifications required by the nation’s politicians and leaders. In connection with the election of a president for Columbia College, Hamilton states: “It is essential that he be a gentleman in his manner, as well a sound and polite scholar, that his moral character be irreproachable: that he possesses energy of body and mind, and be of a disposition to maintain discipline without undue austerity; and in the last place, that his politics be of the right sort.” If a president of a college must have such qualities, they would certainly be required for the president as the top leader of the nation. Thomas Jefferson in his writing puts forward the need to find officers to work in public administration and politics “whose talents, integrity, names, and dispositions, should at once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind, and ensure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public business”.

Anybody who wants to make America great again, a healthy, strong and sound nation, must look for leaders who possess these exact qualities. The fate of the nation depends on having a leader of high moral values.

Nobody is perfect. But if you look closely, you will see that Donald Trump does by no means at all fulfil the criteria specified by these two Founding Fathers. To the very contrary, if you look closely, you see that he is a man of the vilest character. Even many people who once were prepared to work under him confirm it. The one thing Donald Trump is extremely good at is manipulating people for his own aims. Please, look behind his façade, you do not want to be led astray by the pied piper. A down-to-earth gentleman from Maine, I know well, ninety-six years of age, a man of a generally traditional outlook on life who served in the Air Force and studied engineering on the GI bill, plainly and simply calls Donal Trump a “jerk”. Trust in the old man. Electing a person of such dubious and low character as Trump involves the greatest risk to utterly destroy the nation.

Clearly, a person who boasts about “grabbing” women by their genitals is despicable and no gentleman at all. One might consider such statements pub talk. But a person of that standard is by no means suited as a leader of a great nation, he is by no means suited as a role model for the young generation of a great nation. Do you really want the great United States, the first democracy of the world in modern times, with this astounding Declaration of Independence to be represented in the world by a person of such manners and abject, low character?

If we want to build great and sound nations, if we want to build a better and fair world, we need leaders of true and high integrity.

Jefferson emphasizes the need for leaders “whose talents, integrity, names, and dispositions, should at once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind, and ensure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public business”.

If you check these demands, it becomes clear that Donald Trump does not match any of them at all. Even if you were to disagree with this observation, the criterion “names”, i.e. the reputation of a person, would tell you that you cannot vote for him. If half of the US population and the citizens around the world looking on get into a state of the greatest panic in fear of Trump being elected, if they completely doubt his suitability and qualification, that would at least need to make you worried; you cannot elect him. That is what Jefferson says.

The large majority of US citizens loved Franklin D. Roosevelt. “By God, if it ain’t old Frank“, shouted a worker in a Detroit tank manufacturing firm, when Roosevelt surprisingly drove though the factory on a visit during WWII. “The President laughed with delight and waved his hat at the man”, describes Doris Kearns Goodwin the scene. Donald Trump divides the nation instead of unifying it. Such a conflict arising out of the election would weaken and harm the US. If you want to make America sound and healthy, you need a leader who unites the nation.

How then to make government work for the people?

This is the second crucial and decisive issue for the country, next to voting for a leader of high integrity.

Presently you may not trust government, you may not trust the so called establishment. But the solution cannot be to vote for a single person who promises us to believe that he is the great man who can fix everything for us. Our world of eight billion people is far too complex for this. New developments occur in the world which are hard to control and influence for any government. Anybody who promises us to be able to fix all our problems is instantly highly suspicious. He is either an absolutely dangerous fool or a criminal aiming to mislead us.

The thought of people voting for Trump reminds me of people in Germany suffering in the terrible economic crisis of the 1930s. They voted for Hitler, a person who painstakingly practiced his way of seducing the people in front of a mirror and who in rousing speeches made people believe that he could fix all their problems. People did put their hopes in him, but as a result of the chaos and utter destruction he unleashed over the world, much of humanity suffered and more than fifty million people died. Currently the world is under threat. We cannot afford such havoc. We need cooperative leaders and most importantly government systems of the highest capacity to bring the world back on track. We as citizens must demand governments of such high performance and quality.

What is the way to make America great again?

Dear Trump supporters, dear undecided US citizens,

To make America great again, vote for a leader of high integrity, and then work with that leader to make the American government work truly and effectively for all American people.

Let history, Hitler and his madness to make Germany the most powerful nation on earth be a terrible warning sign for you. Such madness will destroy America.

If you want to make America great again, vote for Harris and Walz, a man of the people. You must change from being actual or potential Trump supporters to being Harris/Walz supporters.

Give them a chance, strike a deal with them!

Tell them, if we vote for you, then you must promise to make the American government the best government America ever had in its history. A government which truly works for all American people.

Ask Harris, whether she promises to make her government the best America has ever had in its history.

Then vote for Harris and Walz.

This is the right strategy to make America great again.

It is decisive for America and for America’s standing and leadership role in the world.

Biden’s crucial failure: So far, no success in stabilizing US democracy

Leave a reply

Now, in the remaining months before the election, an instant democracy turn-around program is of decisive relevance. Further measures to stabilize US democracy on the long-run are also indispensable.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

To make it clear upfront: The thoughts in this essay are not an encouragement to vote for what I perceive to be a dangerous demagogue. To the contrary. They are a call on the Biden government to now rectify some fundamental flaws in policy making. Most democratic governments suffer from these deficits. Securing democracy in the US and globally requires that we mend them.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“Tonight, I come to talk about crisis and opportunity, about rebuilding the nation, revitalizing our democracy, and winning the future for America.” Under the impression of the chaos in government under the Trump presidency and the upheaval he caused after losing the election in 2020, Joe Biden declared “revitalizing democracy” the prime task of his government in pretty much the first sentence of his address to Congress at the outset of his term in April 2021. [i]

One must appreciate that Joe Biden stood against a demagogue like Trump and maintained the US as a democracy, even if certainly not a perfect one, over the last three years. One can only hope that he manages to repeat this achievement in a now likely second electoral competition for the Presidency against Trump in November 2024.

Still, by now, about seven months before the new election, it becomes disturbingly evident that Biden and his government spectacularly and critically failed to deliver on what three years ago they themselves declared to be their prime responsibility in office. According to polls in the spring, 45 percent, nearly or around half of the electorate are still in favor of Donald Trump.[ii] The outcome of the upcoming election is unclear and now, even more so than in previous elections in which Trump stood, the US is at risk of decaying into a chaotic and destructive dictatorship. The Trumpist action plan for a takeover of the state formulated in the “Project 2025” document evokes disturbing images of the ferocious wiping out of all opposition by the NAZIs in Germany in the 1930s.[iii]

Why have the many democracy endeavors which the Biden government undertook over these three years, the “Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal”, the repeated international “Summits for Democracy”, and the overall expense of “approximately $9.5 billion… to support democracy, human rights, and good governance globally”, not produced any results, neither nationally nor globally? [iv] And what needs to happen now to protect democracy in the US?

Faulty Policy Approach

The range of reasons for the failure of the Biden democracy project appears rather large. It seems to begin with the wrong philosophy behind the approach. In his speech to Congress Joe Biden declared: “We have to prove democracy still works — that our government still works and we can deliver for our people”.[v] What, however, if the political and economic circumstances were to make delivering what people expect difficult or even impossible? Then there is the imprecise overall definition of the policy aim ranging from “defending democracy, fighting for it, strengthening it, renewing it” to “revitalizing it”, when the overall goal after the last election clearly must have been and now urgently must be “stabilizing” US democracy.

Moreover, the design of the project strategies appears incoherent. The outline of the Summit for Democracy called for input on three main areas, “Defending against authoritarianism”, “Addressing and fighting corruption”, and “Advancing respect for human rights”. These aspects are without doubt somehow connected to healthy democracies at home and around the world, but they clearly do not exert a direct impact on the goal of “stabilizing” democracy. Sound strategies depend on a precise analysis of all factors affecting the achievement of the policy goal. Any effort to “stabilize democracy” clearly depends on ensuring trust in the democratic system, at least as a key aspect. From this thought follows the necessity to ensure that the factors warranting trust in the political system are in place, including certainly the solid construction of the political system. One aspect in the policy design of the Biden government also appears to be that national and international efforts are fused, enhancing the lack of clarity in the strategy design. A further problem appears to be a certain mingling of the role of Joe Biden as a head of state responsible for ensuring the stability of US democracy and as a competitor against Trump in a seemingly never-ending election campaign, with both roles demanding different strategic approaches.

Finally, there seem to be deficiencies in the communication with the public on the democracy efforts. The website on the Summit for Democracy is far too convoluted for any citizen to take any information in on how democracy is to be made to work for the people.[vi] One will not want to emulate Trump, but with his populist style of communication he appears to reach people far more effectively.

Structural Deficits in Government Policy Making

Two reasons behind these deficits in strategy making appear to be a lack of methodological know-how for policy making, evident from the flawed design of the democracy project, and the lack of an effective Government Performance Management System, which would have insured an effective policy design.

A further fundamental structural shortcoming causing these deficits is the apparent failure to set-up government as a permanently learning system, a set-up which would include an effective system of open consultation with the public both on governance and policy design. Practically all democratic governments in the world appear to suffer from this lack of openness. They operate as “closed shops” in which government decision and policy making largely happens in a small circle of ministers, advisers, and possibly, public officials and is often based on personal convictions of the decision makers, rather than on comprehensive consultation and rational decision-making methods.

As Michael D. Shear and Shane Goldmacher observed in the New York Times already in December 2020, more than three years ago, the members of the then incoming Biden government were largely selected on the basis of their years, if not decades of cooperation with Joe Biden. They looked like a “team of buddies”. Reflecting on the benefits, but also the risks of such a tightly woven staff network, they wrote: “Even some allies in the Democratic Party say they worry that Mr. Biden’s reliance on the same people threatens to undermine his ability to find solutions to the country’s problems that go beyond the usual ones embraced by the establishment in Washington.” Observers were suggesting, “With building his team based on credentials”, he would miss the “opportunity to introduce fresh blood and new thinking…”. They felt: “Tackling the big problems in America…is going to require a lively debate…It doesn’t have to be a room full of people you like.” [vii]

These warnings have come true, as the remarkable failure of the democracy endeavours of the Biden government show, so far at least. In an essay the author of the considerations presented here already made suggestions in January 2021 on what the Biden government needed to do to be successful in its approach to stabilizing US democracy.[viii] Later in the year he spent days trying to get through to the US government, both the White House and the Department of State, to offer know-how on systemic problem structuring methodologies to help ensure the success of the “Summit for Democracy” and of the other democracy efforts of the Biden government. No result. No way to get through to the government, even on a question of such existential relevance for the nation. If one suggests that a policy concept cannot work in the way it is structured, people in government appear to build defense walls around their approach, rather than checking such suggestions out. That is partly natural human behaviour. To overcome such inherent resistance an independent quality control system in government is required which ensures that policy approaches are sensible and work. Especially if democracy is at stake, a responsible government must actively look for and include any potentially relevant know-how.

The US – Not A Democracy Anymore?

As also the case in this essay, we keep talking about the US as a democracy. A fundamental reason for the lack of success in stabilizing US democracy, however, must finally be the fact that, many observers suggest that this is wrong. Rather than being a democracy, the US political system would be a system controlled by money.

In a detailed assessment of the matter political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page state already in 2014: “…when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose”. Later in their essay they conclude: “… we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” [ix] The former Vice President Al Gore formulates such observations even more unreservedly. In his 2013 book “The Future” he writes: “…Not since the 1890s has U.S. government decision making been as feeble, dysfunctional, and servile to corporate and other special interests as it is now”, and: “The US no longer has a well-functioning self-government…American democracy has been hacked.” [x]

When Joe Biden declares: “We have to prove democracy still works…” he completely ignores such crucial perceptions about the essence of US democracy. Yet stabilizing US democracy undoubtedly requires the trust of the people, and the people will only then trust in the US political system, if it truly is a democracy serving wider society. Fixing this structural deficit in US democracy clearly is an enormous task for any government. But who wants to stabilize US democracy cannot sweep this fundamental issue under the carpet. People will always notice and distrust the system if what they get is not the real thing.

Clearly any government which takes its responsibility in serving society seriously, must examine and discuss suggestions like the ones presented here on why it failed in reaching its prime policy goal. It is, as we realize, of critical, perhaps existential relevance for democracy and a nation.

What now?

Due to the failure of the Biden government to stabilize US democracy over the last three years, the US now, half a year before the new presidential election is more than before on cliff’s edge of turning into a dictatorship. To avert the risk an instant short-term democracy turn-around program appears now desperately required. Moreover, US democracy should be set on a stable footing for the long run.

1. An Instant Democracy Turn-Around Program to Stabilize US Democracy in As Much As Possible Before The Election

What would be the purpose of such an instant democracy stabilization programme?

The first goal evidently would be to avert the risk of the US turning into a destructive dictatorship.

The basic mean required to achieve this goal would be to offer more sensible alternatives to the public for reaching their goals and for turning the US into an effective democracy serving wider society.

To convince the people one would have to gain their trust.

To achieve this, one would have to address all existing problems in society and the state in an honest way, from poverty and inequality to migration, race, and certainly the climate, to the problems of US democracy itself.

One would have to discuss the joint goals of American society, the pros and cons of what “Making America Great Again” means, and the need to instead perhaps simply agree on “building a co-operative, healthy, and strong society” as a joint goal.

One then would have to discuss the central need to make the political system including government as effective as only possible to achieve this goal. In this context one would have to point to the factors which make a government effective, the need for both, effective government processes and for persons of high integrity and high professional qualifications in government and the Civil Service.

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, as two of the founding fathers of the US, already provided clues on the selection criteria for officials in the US governments. Reflecting on the election of a president for Columbia College, the oldest undergraduate college in New York, Alexander Hamilton notes: “It is essential that he be a gentleman in his manners, as well a sound and polite scholar, that his moral character be irreproachable; that he possesses energy of body and mind, and be of a disposition to maintain discipline without undue austerity; and in the last place, that his politics be of the right sort.”^[xi]Thomas Jefferson suggests that the federal service of the US requires officers “whose talents, integrity, names, and dispositions, should at once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind, and ensure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public business”^[xii]^.

Certainly, nobody is perfect, and also the founding fathers were not. Still, the Biden government needs to make it clear to society that especially those who aim to “Make America Great Again” must be looking for leaders who fulfil these guidelines. It must convey that applying these criteria clearly shows that Donald Trump is not at all suited for any political office in the US and certainly not to lead the nation. Instead of making it great, he would rather destroy it.

In as far as government processes are concerned a turn-around program could concentrate on how the government would in the future ensure that citizens are adequately heard and involved in the policy making process and how the government will ensure its optimal performance through an open consultation system with the public and through an effective Government Performance Management System.

If one discusses all these issues with US society in the most open, honest, and constructive way conceivable and communicates with the public on these issues in an effective manner, I am sure one can prevent the US from turning into a dictatorship in November.

2. Stabilizing US Democracy on The Long Run

To stabilize US democracy on the long run three key factors appear essential:

First, people must subscribe to a joint goal, such as creating a co-operative, healthy, and strong society.
Second, people must appreciate and be certain that they have the very best democratic system conceivable to achieve this goal, and,
Third, they must be able how to run their democratic system effectively and to ensure it stays stable. Crucial issues which the public must understand is how to select suitable politicians and how to prevent the democratic system turning into a dictatorship.

Government should lead and agree with society on the goal of building a co-operative, healthy, and strong society. The goal should perhaps form the basis of a joint mission statement of society.

For people to know that they have the very best system conceivable that quality in itself must be a fact. The new government should, therefore, install a work group to initiate the review of the construction of the US democratic system. The group should propose measures to mend its deficits. A key problem evidently is the fact that the US democracy is dominated by money. Fixing this problem will be extremely difficult but must be done. One problem of the US election system evidently is that it repeatedly leads to a show-down between two elderly candidates when in a three-hundred million society easily fifteen candidates could be found who possess the necessary qualities and qualifications to run the nation. A constitutional review should also address this problem evidently caused by the election system. The world is facing huge challenges. For the US being able to cope with these challenges and having the most effective and efficient democratic system conceivable is of fundamental relevance for the nation and for the democratic world.

Ultimately, stabilizing democracy requires that people understand the value of democracy, what it is, how it can and must work to serve wider society as effectively and efficiently as only possible. They must also see that building the perfect political system is extremely difficult and requires huge system building capacities and co-operation. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as government “of, by and for the people”. People must understand what government “by the people” entails and what they can and must do to make “their government” effective and efficient and to keep the democratic system stable. Conveying all this information requires a highly effective Citizenship Education System. This must be built as soon as only possible.

But back to the present situation.

As we said, there are only seven months to the Presidential election in November. To avert the risk of the US turning into a dictatorship at that point President Biden must now, without delay, initiate an instant turn-around program for US democracy. For the program to be effective, Biden and his government must now finally look for “new ideas and thinking” on the matter, they must tap into relevant know-how distributed in society and consult comprehensively with society on how to structure the program.

[i] Remarks by President Biden in Address to a Joint Session of Congress, U.S. Capitol, April 28, 2021Remarks by President Biden in Address to a Joint Session of Congress | The White House

[ii] 2024 Election: Biden Holds On To Slight Lead Over Trump, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Trump Gets Higher Marks On Age, Mental & Physical Fitness; Biden Does Better On Ethics, Empathy & Temperament, https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3890

^[iii]For a discussion of the Project 2025 see for example MICHAEL HIRSH, Inside the Next Republican Revolution, Politico, 19 September 2023, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/19/project-2025-trump-reagan-00115811

[iv] The White House, FACT SHEET: The Biden-⁠Harris Administration’s Abiding Commitment to Democratic Renewal at Home and Abroad, Briefing Room, Statements and Releases, MARCH 29, 2023, FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Administration’s Abiding Commitment to Democratic Renewal at Home and Abroad | The White House

[v] Remarks by President Biden in Address to a Joint Session of Congress, April 28, 2021

[vi] Cf. The Summit for Democracy, The Summit for Democracy – United States Department of State

[vii] Michael D. Shear and Shane Goldmacher , Team of Rivals? Biden’s Cabinet Looks More Like a Team of Buddies. In making his picks for the new administration, the president-elect has put a premium on personal relationships., New York Times, Dec. 9, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/us/politics/biden-cabinet-personal-relationships.html

[viii] Hans Peter Ulrich, Biden – The Savior of Democracy? | optimisingdemocracy, 29 January, 2021

[ix] Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, American Political Science Association 2014, Published online by Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595

[x] Al Gore, The Future, 2013, p. 95 and 104

[xi] Quote in Paul C. Light, A government ill executed, Harvard University Press, 2008 , p. 79 (from Lynton K Caldwell, The administrative theories of Hamilton and Jefferson…Chicago University Press, 1944)

[xii] Ibid. (from writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 10, p. 182)

Biden – The Savior of Democracy?

1 Reply

So far, half the job done.

To complete it Biden needs a highly effective Government Performance Management System without delay.

What a world of a difference in the entire conduct of the inauguration ceremony, the decent and measured speech of Biden, the thoughtful and classy poem by Amanda Gorman, and in the deep prayers spoken at the inauguration in comparison to the swampy culture of lies and indecencies of the Trump years which increasingly threatened to devour the US. What a relief not only in Washington, but around the world. In a time when democracy globally is under extreme strain, the health of the leading democracy in the world is of crucial importance for human freedom and dignity.

Nobody except Biden could have ousted Trump, state many voices in Washington. So, must we consider Biden the savior of US and perhaps of global democracy?

One thing is undeniable: We owe the greatest admiration and respect to Joe Biden who at 78 years takes on the gigantic challenges the US and the world are presently facing.

Yet, by ousting Trump the job of saving US democracy is only half done. Biden and his excellent team face an extremely difficult mix of policy tasks from overcoming the pandemic, getting the economy back on track, creating jobs and an economically more balanced nation with equal chances for everyone and fighting racism. Furthermore, they only have around two to three years – even less, if one takes the mid-term elections in two years into account – to unify the nation and to stabilize democracy to ensure that a populist politician like Trump will not be elected again. How can Biden achieve success in handling this wide array of extremely difficult and urgent policy tasks?

Practically all democratic leaders in the world believe that running a government optimally is a matter of personal judgement, be it their own or the advisers around them. Yet, if Biden wants to succeed, it is crucial that he and his associates do not fall into this trap. Prevailing over all these challenges in the short time available is only possible with a government system of the highest degree of effectiveness and efficiency. To get it Biden needs a government performance management system which itself operates extremely effectively.

This idea is not new. Ten years ago, the Obama administration in fact already recognized the need for government performance management to make government as effective as possible. It appeared to be a frontrunner among global governments on the matter. But a quick look shows that the approach the Obama administration pursued was inadequate. A presentation from the year 2011 by Shelley H. Metzenbaum, from the Obama administration, and A. Alfred Taubman from the Brookings Institution, lists the three “key elements” of its government performance management concept:

a) Leaders set clear, ambitious, outcome-focused goals for a limited number of priorities,

b) Agencies measure, analyze, and communicate performance information to drive progress on their priorities,

c) Leaders frequently review progress on their priority goals.

These key elements appear fuzzy. What is the “limited number of priorities” supposed to be and of which benefit are “frequent” reviews of progress on priority goals? The approach to performance management by the Obama government evidently misses out completely on a systemically indispensable first step for making any system effective, the need to confirm and agree on its exact goals.

As Hélène Landemore from Yale University writes in her book “Democratic Reason”, the fundamental key to optimal policy making is optimal deliberation, the inclusion of all know-how available in society and the world on a policy problem. It is also the indispensable prerequisite for ensuring effective government performance management. The fuzziness of the approach to performance management by the Obama administration shows that the first step required in creating an effective government performance system through such public consultation is the identification of a suitable methodology.

One concrete suggestion at this point will be: For Biden and his team to ensure the success of the government in unifying US society and stabilizing US democracy and in coping with all the other difficult policy issues it is facing, they must base their approach to making government work on sound systemic thinking. The methodology requires the thorough verification of the precise goals and purposes of the democratic policy making system and of each process in the system. It then entails the exact determination of each and every factor affecting the achievement of the goals identified and ensuring that these factors are in place. If the Biden government does not work diligently through these steps in making government effective, it will not operate as effectively as it must.

While the combined experience of the Biden team is a great asset, given that many of its members were in government, when the increasing discontent with the political system allowed Trump to get into office, it also entails the risk for government to continue exactly as before. “How do we do government?” “What must we improve?” In the light of what is at stake for the Biden government and the nation, a structured independent assessment of the overall quality of the policy making process which investigates these questions appears indispensable.

In the current situation it would be a dangerous mistake for the government to believe that it will achieve the critical goal of stabilizing US democracy simply by solid and effective policy making in the wide array of areas which it is facing. Given the complexity of the tasks, chances are that government success over the next two years or so will not be far-reaching enough to convince the great majority of the citizens of the merits of a decent democratic government.

Effective systemic government performance management will highlight that the goal of stabilizing US democracy rather must be treated as a distinct policy area on its own. It will emphasize that, next to aiming to deliver on the expectations of the people in such areas as jobs, healthcare, and equal rights, the Biden government must involve the people in the process of policy making so they see how it works and can trust in it. The aim of making democracy more resilient at the same time calls for the implementation of a high quality citizenship education program which conveys to the people what a functioning democracy needs to look like, what the preconditions for effective democracy are, what the personal and professional requirements concerning its leaders must be, and, finally, how the people themselves can engage with their government in a constructive fashion to ensure that their concerns are being heard and taken into account.

Biden will be able to handle the extremely difficult combination of challenges he is facing in the narrow timeframe available only with a government of the highest degree of effectiveness and efficiency conceivable. To ensure his government operates at such level of quality he must open it for new thinking on how to run government effectively. He and his team must install an effective government performance management system without delay.