Can Congress Learn From Hollywood? Ctd

Steven Soderbergh recently suggested that a movie studio could run the country better and more efficiently than the government. Drum pushes back:

Does Soderbergh seriously think that Hollywood is a poster child for the efficient use of budget dollars? Does he really believe that Hollywood is ideology free? Is he aware, for example, that our copyright law is the shambles it is largely because of Hollywood lobbying? Does he realize that governments deal with problems just a wee more important and less tractable than which green-screen technology works best? Does he have the slightest idea how the real world works? Apparently not.

Millman thinks Soderbergh’s reasoning isn’t exclusive to Hollywood:

[S]uccessful businessmen, who have run large organizations very effectively according to management principles that don’t seem to be applied very effectively in government, almost always think they could run things better than the clowns in Congress. And they are right! The American government is not designed to run things well – it is designed to prevent civil war or violent revolution by mediating irreconcilable differences between regional and other large interests. Effectiveness is an important secondary consideration.

Seth Masket adds:

It’s possible that Washington will resolve its internal disagreements more slowly than Hollywood will, but that’s precisely because Washington is democratically run. It resolves differences through roll call votes and through elections, which are inherently slow and messy. If Hollywood is more efficient, that’s because its key decisions are usually made by studio executives, producers, or directors — that is, dictators. We could certainly try that approach in government, but there are probably some down sides.