The Extravagant Wonderfulness of Our Decentralized Economy

AP Photo/Lynne Sladky

I’m seeing a lot of posts on X about how Ron DeSantis needs to return to Tallahassee and deal with the Florida insurance crisis. DCDraino posted something to that effect.  


The rest of the tweet:

I like DeSantis as a Governor but it is *very* frustrating to see him flying around the country while Floridians suffer with unaffordable insurance premiums It’s so bad that it can cost Florida Republicans many seats in next year’s legislature elections if he doesn’t fix it quick

Is anyone under the age of 70 really this oblivious to the extravagant wonderfulness of our decentralized economy? An economy that allows us to be maximally productive anywhere in the world and at any time? 

I can’t imagine.  

Your physical location means almost nothing regarding your ability to get stuff done in the Zoom economy. One of my most key strategic partners lives four hours north, but it might as well be 4,000 miles because we only see each other face to face a few times a year. Doesn’t undermine our productivity or effectiveness at all. It’s called the division of labor.  

Now, unless your sole objective is to spend the day shaking hands in the office, or in DeSantis’ case, the governor’s mansion, there’s really no reason why you can’t be offsite, out of the area, or even out of the state.  

One of my attorney partners moved to London for a year. We spoke as much as we ever did when she lived and worked in the same county. A governor running for president can be on the campaign trail, live out of hotel rooms, even for days at a time, and still get as much done as if they never left the governor’s mansion at all.  


Video conferencing software and instant messaging apps like Slack, Microsoft Teams, as well as Zoom, OneDrive, etc., are just a few of the innovative tools that make our remote economy possible.   

But I suspect DC_Draino understands this. So, then this is really just politics. DC supports the other first-tier candidate. And for some reason, when we pick a candidate post-2016, we somehow think we need to disagree with everything our candidate's opponent says.  

I resist being too pollyannish by citing Reagan’s 11th Commandment. Too quaint. But I think I can say this with confidence, we shouldn’t do politics that way. We can agree with what all of the candidates say unless we really don’t. And dare I say, on occasion, even your favored candidate is going to say something you disagree with. Sometimes my preferred candidate has the wrong position on an issue, and their opponent’s position is closer to mine.  

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I love this stuff. I live it, breathe it, talk it, dream it, and sleep it. But how much more enjoyable would it be if we were able to get back to the day when we could debate issues without the venom and nitwittery?  

On X, for example, my posts reveal an edgier version of myself. I suppose I reveal myself differently in different political markets, but my posts on X sometimes solicit rather absurd and over-the-top reactions. And this is from Republicans. 


I’ve chosen to ignore most of the replies lately, lest I put a plastic bag over my head. 

What I do think, and a week like this one really brings it home, is about the importance of moral, principled, conservative leadership running the country. Somebody serious, smart, and wise with the right blend of confidence and humility. The stakes are too high to get this choice wrong. 

Others seem to get the gravity of the moment. And some even have a specific candidate who fits the bill. 

I think what the last few years have really taught us is that weak leadership is provocative and creates instability. I'm all for disruptors, but I'd like a little less chaos and disruption for a while.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos