The Disaster of Instant “Solutions”

I haven’t posted anything for a while for various reasons, but largely because others had said/written what I had in mind or because I had the feeling that no one was interested in listening, only spouting their pat “solutions.”

Right now, too many Americans are demanding instant solutions for problems created by cumulative actions and inactions taken by politicians over the past several decades. They’re angry, and they want instant solutions here and now. Nothing else will do.

Trump fills that need, helped in large measure by the inability of Democrats to understand the depth of festering anger with the inability and or unwillingness of government to address the larger concerns of the majority of Americans. He came up with simplistic slogans and has pushed violent “solutions” that not only go against the spirit of the Constitution, but in far too many cases also are patently illegal. In some cases, he’s also been aided by a compliant Supreme Court, which has, upon occasion, even indicated, if indirectly, that it is making decisions because Congress will not or cannot do so.

In any form of government, instant solutions are seldom possible, not without persistent and often severe adverse impacts, and that is what is already occurring with ICE, the Department of Defense/War, and the unilateral and likely unconstitutional reductions in government services and work forces. U.S. citizens are being locked up until they can prove they’re citizens. Small children are being zip-tied and detained, at times left without parents. What about the old idea of being considered innocent until proven guilty? Or is guilt being assigned by skin color and/or speech? Armed troops are being forced upon cities, based on the political leanings of local government.

Bizarre and unreasoned tariffs are hampering all manner of U.S. industry. Alternative energy facilities under construction are being defunded willy-nilly. Exactly how does that reduce the deficit or cope with skyrocketing demand for more energy?

All this is, understandably and unfortunately, the result of anger and frustration, leavened by a significant amount of hatred, but simplistic and ill-thought-out instant solutions will only make matters worse over time. If unchecked, they’ll also destroy democracy.

Right now, neither party appears interested in well thought out solutions that address the situation, only soundbites that inflame and exacerbate, and from what I see, few are listening to voices of moderation and reason, who are being drowned out by a tide of frustration and anger that is more interested in revenge and punishing the other side than actually addressing these problems in a practical and humane way.

It’s past time to dump all the efforts to use government to enforce ideology (of any sort) and to get back to a real, practical, workable, common sense approach to government, while we still can.

And yes, for all the quibblers, “practical” can also be taken to extremes.

12 thoughts on “The Disaster of Instant “Solutions””

  1. KevinJ says:

    I read a book thirty years ago where the author contended that the root cause of Yugoslavia’s disintegration wasn’t ethnic hatreds, but the loss of prosperity after the country couldn’t play East and West off against each other.

    (Anyone remember the Yugo? That country wasn’t going to make anyone rich based on its manufacturing, that’s for sure.)

    Anyway, the declining standard of living is what brought the old ethnic tensions to the fore, according to the author. I thought she had a good point, although I didn’t think economics was the only cause.

    I’ve been thinking more and more about her point since November. People wanting a return to being prosperous, and wanting it NOW, is entirely understandable.

    Though impractical. And subject to exploitation by untrustworthy demagogues.

    Not that the USA is going to disintegrate. Oh no. Certainly not. Can’t happen here.

    1. Mayhem says:

      They’re broadly correct, except that the elites ruling the country had long played one ethnic group off against the others – there were about 4-5 major ones pre breakup.
      After the strongman running the country died, nobody in power had the reputation or the threat to continue dominating the factions, though they continued to try to use them to spread the blame for the change in economic circumstances.
      Slovenia was the first to break away, and did so cleanly – it was always loosely controlled, but also relatively ethnically consistent.
      Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia however broke up along the lines of the major ethnic groupings, and each pointed at each other as to blame for their woes.

      1. Mayhem says:

        You see the exact same thing in postwar Iraq/Syria/Libya, which have the same combination of multiple ethnicities and a deceased strongman leader.

  2. Christopher Robin says:

    Sadly, things are pushing to the point where Americans will be convinced that the current government is no longer viable and want someone to take the burden of governing. Too many do not understand how the government works, especially the impact that informed voting has, and instead give it up and hope politicians magically do things they want.

    There are no quick solutions especially since the current president is especially divisive. The main function of the presidency, as established by Washington, is to be a powerful unifying force for a very diverse nation. When the presidency is used to divide it is especially devastating to the country. The amount of chaos we have witnessed in just a few months does not bode well considering we are just at the beginning of the presidential term.

    With a hijacked voter base that doesn’t seem capable of independent thought, much less compromise, and a federal government where all three branches are suborned by the president, I don’t see Americans maintaining civil liberties no matter which way things play out.

    The problem with living in a free society is other people get to be free too, which our current citizenry is no longer capable of understanding.

    1. Lawrence Basgall says:

      Okay, that is not all that I can say. Our Constitution is the greatest experiment of human thought and policy. The fact that it is the beacon, and indeed the only great hope for the world is both astounding and frightening. The fact that no other nation has embraced it’s core principles boggles my mind. Why are there no other peoples who created a government that has as it’s founding premise that each person is sovereign and that they endow their governance to those whom they have elected to carry out their wishes and represent themselves in the body politic?

  3. internet chick I appreciate you sharing this blog post. Thanks Again. Cool.

  4. Tom says:

    The unquestioning desire for “instant solutions” may be because we have been unable to find a way to teach “How to Think, Not What to Think” in our desire to learn.

    This has placed us in the predicament as noted by Sian Leah Beilock:

    “We live in an age of informational opulence; we are awash in readily available data but lacking discernment, communication skills, and empathy.”

    September 19, 2025 The Atlantic

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/teach-students-how-think-not-what-think/684271/

    As noted the solution is going to take time. Do we have that time?

    Is there an (acceptable) argument for doing things rapidly and in such a way as to construct rather than destruct the US and thus the world or do we leave that to the wishful thinking around “Democracy Chinese Style”? I am too old to know/find the solution we should act upon.

  5. adriandominic says:

    I know that this will seem like a grumpy middle-aged/old man rant, but when I was being taught, I learnt early on that apart from maths and physics, there were very few subjects with definitely correct answers.
    Tom – I’m afraid that unless there is a real external threat which forces a nation to focus on fundamentals, then it is hard to do things both rapidly and effectively. Actually, effectiveness is at best a matter of chance and depends on who is in charge. In WW2, the US got lucky with Eisenhower and Marshall in Europe and the Brits with Slim in Burma.
    The question of whether the external challenge is real is a whole can of worms. Arguably, the stupidest decision of Kaiser Wilhelm was to try and compete with the British Navy when he was in charge of a country with limited sea ports.

  6. Lourain says:

    Um. Mr. Modesitt,has your site been hit by a plague of chatbots?

    1. I thought I’d let them have a moment, since real live people weren’t commenting.

  7. Cloe Ward says:

    I really like reading through a post that can make men and women think. Also, thank you for allowing me to comment!

  8. Lawrence Basgall says:

    All I can say to this is that Trump reminds me of the Scion of Cyador.

Leave a Reply to Tom Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *