How Much Government? - NYTimes.com In "The Stem and the Flower" (column, Dec. 3), David Brooks discusses politics and government and concludes that the "best government" is "boring" and "steady reform, not exciting transformation." He points to the Obamacare website as evidence that "government is good at check-writing ... but it is not nimble in the face of complexity" and exhibits "a lot of passive-aggressive behavior." But the historical record rebuts Mr. Brooks's crabbed view of government. Our government is a testament to the transformative and enduring power of the shared vision that has bound our country together for hundreds of years. And the transformative accomplishments of bold projects undertaken by that government are legion, including the Interstate Highway System, the space program and the Civil Rights Act, to name a few. Mr. Brooks characterizes government as inept at complex undertakings. Yet there are many types of large organizations in which people act together - not just civilian governments, but corporations, churches, military and law enforcement, and a multitude of others - and all of them have the strengths and weaknesses that exist when people with differing skills, interests and personalities come together in a single enterprise. Coming together in a government is not inherently less worthy or effective than coming together in other organizations, nor is the profit motive the only motivation that serves long-term societal interests. If citizens take up less public space on "politics," won't corporate interests be able to own an even bigger and more powerful share of the democratic process than they now do?