Pylimitics

It’s difficult to fully understand complex structures. That’s kind of tautological; “complex” already means “difficult to understand”, at least in part. But never fear; I have a point, and it’s this: in the same way we understand the complex physics of the universe by using simplified models that are “close enough” in most cases, we understand the US federal government in a simplified way. For the most part, that’s close enough.

Most people understand that there are three branches of the government, and that the legislators decide what to do, the executive does what they say, and the judiciary rules on whether they’ve followed the rules. Take a closer look, though, and there’s enormous complexity in there: bills in Congress (the actual substance of “deciding what to do”) can be hundreds of pages long, and sometimes minute details can be crucial. A single representative or senator simply doesn’t have time (or, in some cases, the understanding) to give sufficient attention to a given bill. To cope with it, they have staff — their own organization. So while our simplified model of government is “people in congress decide what to do by writing and voting on bills,” the complexity that hides is that congress is an assembly of speciallized organizations.

There’s at least as much complexity within the judiciary. Just last week, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the orange baby’s tariff actions were not following the rules. I don’t know about you, but my simplified model of the judiciary did not, until that moment, include anything called the “U.S. Court of International Trade;” I had never heard of it.

One reason I’d never heard of it is because I don’t have any direct contact with “international trade.” But in a federal government that’s trying to keep a huge, incredibly complex civilization running, international trade is pretty important, and pretty complex. The trade court has existed since the late 1800s, when it was initially called the “Board of General Appraisers.” At the time it was a department of the US Treasury. There were some problems around locating it in the Treasury department, though, so after roughly thirty years it was moved into the US Department of Justice.

That eventually didn’t work out either, and after roughly another thirty years it became part of the judiciary (those other departments are in the executive branch). That most recent move happened in 1948, and apparently worked out, because that’s where it still is. That makes the U.S. Court of International Trade over 130 years old, and part of the judiciary for about half its existence. The original name “Board of General Appraisers” also changed, first to the “Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,” and finally to its current name in 1980.

Just like any given representative in congress needs support from specialists in specific areas (either on their own staff or elsewhere), the judiciary needs specialists too. A criminal court deals with criminal cases and wouldn’t have the right expertise to deal with copyright issues. A patent court concentrates on patent law, which is complex in its own right. And an international trade court knows about the rules, practices, and expectations in that domain. The whole thing is based on dealing with complexity by simplifying it — nobody has to know everything about everything; each individual can be expert in one specialty. It’s simpler to have a specialty, and over the millenia people have developed sophisticated ways to enable diverse specialists to work together. Expertise is essential, whether it’s legal or scientific or agricultural or whatever.

The thing to remember is that it’s perfectly natural to use simplified models most of the time, because most of the time they’re close enough. Most of the time, most of us don’t have to know about the U.S. Court of International Trade. But when somebody tries to persuade you about something, and leans on the simplified models they assume you rely on, and especially if they try to make sure you don’t delve into the underlying complexity, watch out. Anybody spouting convenient, suspiciously simple aphorisms about the government is out to trick you.

===

The title is taken from a convenient, suspiciously simple aphorism attributed to the villainous Ronald Reagan in the 1980s: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” Typically, Reagan just stole it; the phrase had been around for many years by the time it exited his treasonous lips. And of course he was just using it to manipulate people.