As Stuart Scott used to yell, "Ring the bell. School is out!" I recommend reading the three excerpted pieces in order:
Walter Russell Mead, "The State of Our Union: The biggest deficits in the United States these days are not the ones grabbing the headlines".
The state of our union can be summed up pretty easily: Democratic policy ideas don’t work, and the Republican Party is melting down. From New York state, where Democratic power brokers are beginning to be herded into prison, where so many of them belong, to Chicago, where a civil war between Democrat-run public unions and the Democratic mayor rages even as the city’s finances fall apart, to the collapsing cities of Detroit and Flint, and on out to the high-speed rail boondoggle in California, the country is covered in the ruins of decades of “progressive” governance. Take Obamacare itself, a “reform” that is already making health care more bureaucratic and less affordable. Even as premiums and deductibles rise and the provider networks shrink, special interests like labor unions, insurance companies and hospital chains seek to rewrite its rules and regulations to achieve windfalls for themselves at the public expense. They will almost certainly succeed, and over time, Obamacare like other programs will become increasingly encrusted by sweetheart deals, carve-outs and other provisions that reduce its positive qualities while making it ever more expensive and bureaucratic.
The more “Democratic” an institution is these days, on the whole the less well it is working. What institution in the United States has been under Democratic control longer and more thoroughly than the failing public school systems of major cities? Or their police departments?
Philip Wallach, "Farewell to the Administrative State?"
Because administrators style themselves as above-the-fray solvers of collective problems, it makes it very difficult for them to question their assumptions or open themselves to exchanges with critics on equal terms. Doing so would threaten their pose as “wise rulers” and show the political choices embedded in their thinking, and so their natural tendency is to hunker down—the very thing that has led to legitimacy problems over the long run, even as it fends off some short-term headaches by branding critics as “political” or as working for “special interests.” Legislatures, on the other hand, institutionally specialize in openness and the ability to find compromises even among people who remain in open political disagreement.
Glenn Reynolds, "How to make the U.S. collapse-proof".
So one answer would be for a society not to become so complex. This is easier said than done, of course. Human nature being what it is, bureaucrats want to expand their empires, politicians want to employ their constituencies on the taxpayers’ dime and various groups are always trying to mobilize the state’s resources on their own behalf. . . .
So one thing you’d want would be to limit the growth of this web. That means smaller government, government that’s less involved in administering the things that special interests care about, and one that provides more opportunities for citizens and groups who want to do things to break the web somehow. . . .
Of course, in describing a limited federal government, ruling over a nation made up of semi-sovereign states, subject to the rule of law and judicial review I’m not describing anything shocking or new: That’s precisely the kind of government we in the United States are supposed to have under our Constitution.