Derb — I think that’s all very true. Jonathan Rauch’s Demosclerosis made that point very well. And I think you can find more conservative versions of it in the writing of James Burnham and others.

But here’s the thing. The fundamental difference between right and left — right including libertarians, left including everyone from Marxists to mainstream liberals — is how we see such problems being addressed, i.e. the role of government. For the Thomas Friedman types paralysis is proof of the need for more, stronger, bigger, better government. For most on the right, the paralysis is proof that we have too much government. Lawyers and bureaucrats aren’t the problem for the left. They think the problem are the citizens and businesses that resist progressive change. Obviously there are exceptions to a sweeping generalization like this, but I think that the rule of thumb is pretty obviously true.

Now, I don’t mind most manifestations of governmental paralysis, because I don’t think the government should be doing too much. But there are areas where I think the government should be more effective (and tax much less). In nearly all of those areas I think the answer would at least involve firing a lot of government workers, cleansing the books of silly laws and rules, and letting common sense, property rights, and economic freedom rule. I can’t think of too many areas where I think we’d be better off if we were more like China.