It seems to me that your three barriers are more intertwined than you recognize.
Activist government, in which California leads nearly any other place on earth, puts much discretionary power in the hands of government. Practically, this is not in the hands of elected officials - most of the actual power is delegated to commissions, boards, and agencies. These commissions, boards, and agencies should not be expected to faithfully implement the state policies as envisioned; they are made up of people who have their own priorities and interests.
This leads to one or both of the following: either the government bodies are captured by the people and organizations most affected by the decisions, or they are run for the benefit of the employees. The California Public Utilities Commission is an example of the former; the utilities themselves are most directly affected, and will spend a great deal of energy molding policy to their advantage. The Department of Parks and Recreation is an example of the second: employees implement policies and procedures in ways that maximize agency budgets, increase agency employment, improve employee pay and benefits, and avoid criticism for breaking laws and regulations; services to the public are whatever is left after these interests are taken care of. All of this can be summarized in your first barrier (Narrow Interests).
In this view, the second barrier (Progressive Proceduralism) is merely a tool the Narrow Interests can use to advance their agendas. The opportunity for Proceduralism is built into the American approach to government. In order to prevent the kinds of abuses we've seen in the past, we try to write rules that will circumscribe discretion of elected, appointed, and civil service officials. The rules require hearings, investigations, and reports, which inevitably produce results that call the objectivity of the process into question, leading to more research, hearings, and reports before any action can be taken. All of this gives opportunity for the Narrow Interests to mold the policies in their interests, or to block new initiatives completely.
The third barrier (Anti-Statism) isn't really the belief that government can't succeed - at its best, it's a deep skepticism of the potential of expanding government's scope to solve problems that have no obvious solution. And it is a natural result of the first two barriers: people see that initiatives are hijacked by the Narrow Interests and bogged down in Proceduralism so that the purest of ideals end up achieving essentially none of their objectives, at great cost in terms of government spending as well as lost individual liberty. As you say, any other institution can also fail, but every other institution can be destroyed by its failures: businesses that can't deliver products go bankrupt; corrupted religious institutions lose their followers; voluntary organizations that are corrupted or no longer relevant lose their members. The consequence of government failure is generally more government.
There was a time when Californians achieved great things through government: they built freeways, water and irrigation systems, and created a very prosperous society blessed by lovely climate and beautiful scenery. In order to recapture this outcome, it seems to me that Californians will need to reduce government to a scale that can be effectively monitored by media, elected officials, and interested citizens, and to avoid the temptation to try to solve all problems with programs and rules. But that would cut against the Narrow Interests and be blocked in Proceduralism. These barriers can be overcome, but it would require mobilizing the citizenry on a scale not seen in decades at least, and the result would be transitory unless the scope of ambitions for the state is scaled back to match the scale of government that can be effectively monitored and held accountable.
It seems to me that your three barriers are more intertwined than you recognize.
Activist government, in which California leads nearly any other place on earth, puts much discretionary power in the hands of government. Practically, this is not in the hands of elected officials - most of the actual power is delegated to commissions, boards, and agencies. These commissions, boards, and agencies should not be expected to faithfully implement the state policies as envisioned; they are made up of people who have their own priorities and interests.
This leads to one or both of the following: either the government bodies are captured by the people and organizations most affected by the decisions, or they are run for the benefit of the employees. The California Public Utilities Commission is an example of the former; the utilities themselves are most directly affected, and will spend a great deal of energy molding policy to their advantage. The Department of Parks and Recreation is an example of the second: employees implement policies and procedures in ways that maximize agency budgets, increase agency employment, improve employee pay and benefits, and avoid criticism for breaking laws and regulations; services to the public are whatever is left after these interests are taken care of. All of this can be summarized in your first barrier (Narrow Interests).
In this view, the second barrier (Progressive Proceduralism) is merely a tool the Narrow Interests can use to advance their agendas. The opportunity for Proceduralism is built into the American approach to government. In order to prevent the kinds of abuses we've seen in the past, we try to write rules that will circumscribe discretion of elected, appointed, and civil service officials. The rules require hearings, investigations, and reports, which inevitably produce results that call the objectivity of the process into question, leading to more research, hearings, and reports before any action can be taken. All of this gives opportunity for the Narrow Interests to mold the policies in their interests, or to block new initiatives completely.
The third barrier (Anti-Statism) isn't really the belief that government can't succeed - at its best, it's a deep skepticism of the potential of expanding government's scope to solve problems that have no obvious solution. And it is a natural result of the first two barriers: people see that initiatives are hijacked by the Narrow Interests and bogged down in Proceduralism so that the purest of ideals end up achieving essentially none of their objectives, at great cost in terms of government spending as well as lost individual liberty. As you say, any other institution can also fail, but every other institution can be destroyed by its failures: businesses that can't deliver products go bankrupt; corrupted religious institutions lose their followers; voluntary organizations that are corrupted or no longer relevant lose their members. The consequence of government failure is generally more government.
There was a time when Californians achieved great things through government: they built freeways, water and irrigation systems, and created a very prosperous society blessed by lovely climate and beautiful scenery. In order to recapture this outcome, it seems to me that Californians will need to reduce government to a scale that can be effectively monitored by media, elected officials, and interested citizens, and to avoid the temptation to try to solve all problems with programs and rules. But that would cut against the Narrow Interests and be blocked in Proceduralism. These barriers can be overcome, but it would require mobilizing the citizenry on a scale not seen in decades at least, and the result would be transitory unless the scope of ambitions for the state is scaled back to match the scale of government that can be effectively monitored and held accountable.