Powerful Problems, Simplistic Solutions

Politicians, especially presidential candidates, have never been much for embracing complexity, but it's safe to say that the 2012 race has officially entered the stage of absurd oversimplification. As the problems confronting the United States -- from dealing with a seemingly endless recession to overhauling health care to drawing down U.S. forces from two major overseas conflicts -- grow ever more complex, the political class seems to be embracing ever more simplistic solutions. (Sell all the gold at Fort Knox, anyone?)

Yesterday, GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty threw his hat into the oversimplification ring, proposing his Google Test: "If you can find a good or service on the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it," he said. Analysts were quick to point out that approach would mean, for example, the privatization of the military services.

Indeed, this is nothing but a high-tech variation on the old Yellow Pages test for deciding whether government functions should be outsourced. And the reason it's never fully applied is because it quickly falls apart. Sometimes, the reasons are practical: FedEx and UPS do the same thing the Postal Service does, but they don't deliver to every address in the country. Other times, political considerations intrude: Does Pawlenty favor abolishing the network of Veterans Affairs hospitals because there are plenty of non-government hospitals? I doubt it.

Pawlenty's not the only one on the oversimplification trail. Former Godfather's Pizza executive and Republican presidential contender Herman Cain made a speech this week in which he pledged not to sign any bill more than three pages long:

Setting aside the term-paper practicality issues this proposal would raise (What font would be allowed? Is single-spacing OK?) the serious issue it ignores is that federal legislation is complex because government is responsible for dealing with a complex world. Wishing that away in the name of simplicity is at best naive. And is that what we're looking for in our leaders?