If you haven’t read David’s column on Stanley McChrystal yet, you should.

The column prompted a few quick thoughts:

(1) We engage in lots of abstract arguments about the relative merits of small government and big government, but of course much depends on culture, and in particular on institutional culture. States vary in their capacity and effectiveness. Among left-of-center Americans, there is a conviction, often implicit, that we undervalue the work done by public sector professionals. During the 1980s, many pointed to Japan’s MITI as a model of an elite bureaucracy that attracted the best and the brightest, and of course France has its grandes écoles that train a wildly disproportionate share of the country’s political and administrative and corporate leadership. Though we’ve definitely seen an uptick in the number of talented young Americans who look to careers in public service, I tend to think the U.S. environment is not as conducive to this kind of an administrative elite.

Accomplished professionals often aspire to serve the public, but usually on a temporary basis. Part of the reason is that our culture values transparency to such a degree that it is difficult to give professionals the discretion they need to do their jobs well. Rigid rules are a good way to minimize egregious abuses. They aren’t a good way to get people to perform brilliantly and creatively, almost by definition.

(2) I’ve seen some very obtuse people say that David was telling young reporters to ignore the things powerful people say when kvetching. That’s obviously wrong. Why? Because Hastings was the product of a broader normative and economic shift. For him to edit his account to give a sober, boring account of the war of Afghanistan was all but unthinkable given the economic imperatives facing the narrative non-fiction business, and David understands that.

Rather, David was pointing out a structural tension that will have a permanent ratchet effect on who can serve in government, and thus how well government can work at the highest echelons.

(3) Given these structural problems, and given the fact that the “culture of exposure” reflects tectonic rather than episodic forces, shifting towards scalable for-profit social entrepreneurship (buzzwords!) seems like the right way to go. These are institutions that can allow for flexibility, discretion, etc., because they can be easily fired or dissolved if they don’t do their jobs well. It’s not shocking that I’d reach this conclusion, so take it with a grain of salt. But I think it makes sense.