Want to solve problems versus wanting to appear to be solving problems

From Brokenism by Alana Newhouse.  The subheading is The real debate today isn’t between the left and right. It’s between those invested in our current institutions, and those who want to build anew.

Newhouse posits two courses of action - either continue with the institutions as is or rebuild them.  The best alternative would be to reform the existing institutions, usually by brining them back to focus on their original mission.  Most institutions are founded to solve a problem or advocate for a particular solution but they quickly morph towards focusing on sustaining their own existence (and their perks.)  

Consequently, while reforming existing institutions should logically be the easiest approach, the track record of success is often very meager.

From Newhouse

Many of them acknowledge that there are problems, even serious ones, with universities, newspapers, nonprofits, both political parties, what have you, but they see these as normal, fixable challenges, not signs of fundamental brokenness. To them, the impulse to consign weighty institutions to the dustbin of history feels impulsive and irresponsible—like arson. To Ryan, staying committed to decrepit structures, and insisting to others that they are fundamentally safe when they’re clearly not, is what feels reckless.

Indeed.  Of all America's challenges, most of them become markedly easier to address were our universities, newspapers, nonprofits, and both political parties actually focused on making things better for the citizens of our nation rather than sustaining their engorged institutional privileges.  But most of them seem far more invested in appearing to be seeking to solve problems, not actually committed to solving them.