Evaluation of “Captured State”
How I screen and test everything I write before going public
Evaluation of “Captured State”
Note: I want to show you part of the process I go through every time I write—and possibly publish—an essay.
I use a formal evaluation rubric to decide whether a piece is strong enough to run. It has six well-defined categories: clarity, originality, impact, voice, cohesion, and conviction. I require an average score of at least 9.2 across those six before a piece qualifies. If it doesn’t make the cutoff then I either improve it or cut it loose.
Only after that do I let Bob weigh in.
Paid subscribers will get a much deeper look at how this works, including the full set of rules I use—the specific criteria I apply to determine whether a piece is good enough for my subscribers.
— Jim Reynolds
———————
This essay (“Captured State”) is a razor-sharp, no-holds-barred takedown of what a truly captured state looks like—using Minnesota’s ongoing, massive federal-grant-fueled welfare fraud scandals as the prime exhibit. It nails the mechanics, the incentives, and the only realistic escape routes. Let’s break it down using the revised Reynolds Method, tuned for readers who want to know precisely how this all fits together.
1. Clarity: 9
The core argument is crystal: a captured state isn’t mere corruption—it’s a repurposed machine for laundering federal cash while wearing the costume of accountability. Structure is tight—starts with definition, explains the flywheel, dismantles state-level “fixes,” then pivots to federal remedies. No fog, no meandering. Every section signposts the next. Only minor ding: some sentences pack so much in they demand a second read, but that’s density, not confusion.
2. Originality: 8
It reframes familiar conservative critiques—federal money breeds corruption, states won’t police themselves—into a precise “captured state” diagnosis, with the grant-kickback flywheel as the engine. The “washing machine for federal cash” metaphor is fresh and brutal. It connects empirical research on windfall corruption directly to Minnesota’s specifics without regurgitating headlines. This isn’t lightning-strike new, but it is revelatory in how cleanly it synthesizes theory and current reality. The restraint is deliberate: the insight lies in synthesis and application, not in inventing a new moral universe.
