Do we get a national “do over”? Do we need one?
Which path you choose probably depends very much on your experiences with our country’s current design, which has it roots in both the pragmatic and ideological debates that surrounded Confederation and has continued on through every national political decision since.
For those intimately connected to the policy structures and decision-making circles that were at the heart of our current design, we imagine that there are at least a few “do over” pieces that they’d want to correct, whether bad or good.
But what about the perspectives of those who weren’t intimately involved, or who sought to contribute their ideas but were never asked? That’s often the vast majority of our citizens: asked to approve the design by proxy vote at each election, some representing informed and interested voices, and others simply wanting to get on with it.
Full transparency: we don’t have a new design to offer. Yet.
That’s the point of this particular focus area. We need to talk about what we want or need to correct, and channel that dialogue into an effective program of action.
More to come!
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir [our] blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency.
Daniel Burnham