Governmental Crisis
IN the aftermath of the election and the initial set of nominees for senior positions only the more exhausted of those on the left have ceased their hand-wringing about the damage to be wrought by the new administration. This is merely the current and most visible critique of the role of government in our society (and one which is usually well-deserved). However, even if the damage turns out to be minimal, there remain two other critiques which need to be considered.
The basic role of government in attending to the needs of society which cannot be met by “private” (market) mechanisms has been the subject of conservative attacks throughout the 20C. Part of this is based on concern over the infringement of individual liberty manifested through regulation, and part is based on the taxes raised to support these activities which must be extracted from the purses/wallets of the populace, particularly those whose purses/wallets are more stuffed than average. There is legitimate political philosophy behind this (as well as hyped-up fear of overweening state domination from an era of Soviet Communism and Fascism, both of whose totalitarian leanings give sensible cause for caution. Names such as Frederich Hayek and Milton Friedman are most commonly cited in this vein. There is also smugness and greed, often more nicely packaged as the “American Dream,” mixed into the rationale to limit government.
This was the traditional battleline between Democrats and Republicans since (at least the New Deal). It continues to be embodied by supporters of the incoming administration. However, this group also seems to want to destroy government, not merely limit its scope. The naming of several apparent incompetents evidences a desire to force government to be ineffective; which is also a feature of the proposal to eviscerate the senior civil service. As to the latter, even leaving aside questionable legalities, the prospect of such a wholesale replacement of the middle and upper management of any large organization can only lead to widespread freezing up of the gears. Little will get done and what does get done will be done poorly. Government will thus be shown to be inherently dysfunctional.
Beyond these two problems, however, lies something more fundamental and problematic. Government doesn’t work very well; it certainly doesn’t meet the expectations of either the conceptualizers of the great liberal project of the 19/20C which saw government as a powerful tool to implement societal values or of the broad swath of the populace who, in the modern era are the nominal democratic selectors and overseers of government. The impediments are new; they’re well beyond the traditional concerns about corruption, or our current political impasse, or excessive intrusion. They stem, instead, from the nature of modern life.
By this I mean that modern life is complex and over-institutionalized, and the trade-offs are increasingly apparent. There are no good solutions, only a set of potential marginal improvements that can be made without incurring unacceptable costs on some other front, financial, organizational, or practical. NIMBY’s seek to preserve local culture and neighborhood feel (and their embedded home values), so the housing stock is short of demand and new buyers are priced out. Everyone loves cheap electronics, but not seeing pictures of Asian workers being abused. The tax code is riddled with efforts to promote some sensible policy (often hijacked by those with the resources to take the most advantage of them) to the point that only CPAs (one version of the modern priesthood) can make sense of it. Even without messy politics, it’s really hard to get things done. Any edition of the NY Times will provide at least a half a dozen examples.w
Whatever the broad spread of people can comprehend and articulate, it's no wonder we are unhappy with governments and why increasingly, incumbents facing electorates are turned out or forced into cumbersome coalitions (which have their own problems in developing coherent policies). I wrote about one aspect of this a few years ago, when I invoked the term “ungovernability” (021122) a phrase used to describe European politics in the later 20C which has wider applicability now.
A recursive cycle of nihilism, nationalism/tribalism/racism, and the resulting politics of fear (rather than of self-interest) and frustration with governments’ inability to cope feeds around and around. There are, historically-speaking, only two ways out: charismatic leadership or a collapse and reboot. We may be lucky and find the former, but the latter is more likely and promises an increasingly depressing period ahead.
It does no good, of course, to “blame” government or bureaucrats or even political parties. They are all products of a deeper cultural malaise. Nor is this by any means a uniquely US issue. The broad retreat of democratic norms globally and the spread of “populist” leaders and parties is a central part of the story.
Democracy has never been touted for its efficiency. Its benefits come from a comparison with the ordinary (inevitable?) abuses which accompany all the alternatives and its eventual settling on a course of development for a society which proves effective. There remains, however, a legitimate question of its ability to attend to crises, risking either populism/authoritarian solutions or waltzing off the cliff. The current confluence of climate, capitalism, geopolitics, overpopulation, AI, etc. may finally prove too much.
What seems clear, not least in light of the projected direction of the US over the next four years, is that incremental solutions to any of these challenges are likely to prove trivial (or detrimental). Relying on deeply embedded notions of “progress” or providence are more likely projections of fear or lack of imagination than anything useful.
This past year, a blueprint for the upcoming administration, called Project 2025, garnered a lot of attention and a fair amount of it looks likely to come into effect. It’s time for those of a more sensible bent to get to work on its successor and be ready to push for some more profound changes the next time around.
IN the aftermath of the election and the initial set of nominees for senior positions only the more exhausted of those on the left have ceased their hand-wringing about the damage to be wrought by the new administration. This is merely the current and most visible critique of the role of government in our society (and one which is usually well-deserved). However, even if the damage turns out to be minimal, there remain two other critiques which need to be considered.
The basic role of government in attending to the needs of society which cannot be met by “private” (market) mechanisms has been the subject of conservative attacks throughout the 20C. Part of this is based on concern over the infringement of individual liberty manifested through regulation, and part is based on the taxes raised to support these activities which must be extracted from the purses/wallets of the populace, particularly those whose purses/wallets are more stuffed than average. There is legitimate political philosophy behind this (as well as hyped-up fear of overweening state domination from an era of Soviet Communism and Fascism, both of whose totalitarian leanings give sensible cause for caution. Names such as Frederich Hayek and Milton Friedman are most commonly cited in this vein. There is also smugness and greed, often more nicely packaged as the “American Dream,” mixed into the rationale to limit government.
This was the traditional battleline between Democrats and Republicans since (at least the New Deal). It continues to be embodied by supporters of the incoming administration. However, this group also seems to want to destroy government, not merely limit its scope. The naming of several apparent incompetents evidences a desire to force government to be ineffective; which is also a feature of the proposal to eviscerate the senior civil service. As to the latter, even leaving aside questionable legalities, the prospect of such a wholesale replacement of the middle and upper management of any large organization can only lead to widespread freezing up of the gears. Little will get done and what does get done will be done poorly. Government will thus be shown to be inherently dysfunctional.
Beyond these two problems, however, lies something more fundamental and problematic. Government doesn’t work very well; it certainly doesn’t meet the expectations of either the conceptualizers of the great liberal project of the 19/20C which saw government as a powerful tool to implement societal values or of the broad swath of the populace who, in the modern era are the nominal democratic selectors and overseers of government. The impediments are new; they’re well beyond the traditional concerns about corruption, or our current political impasse, or excessive intrusion. They stem, instead, from the nature of modern life.
By this I mean that modern life is complex and over-institutionalized, and the trade-offs are increasingly apparent. There are no good solutions, only a set of potential marginal improvements that can be made without incurring unacceptable costs on some other front, financial, organizational, or practical. NIMBY’s seek to preserve local culture and neighborhood feel (and their embedded home values), so the housing stock is short of demand and new buyers are priced out. Everyone loves cheap electronics, but not seeing pictures of Asian workers being abused. The tax code is riddled with efforts to promote some sensible policy (often hijacked by those with the resources to take the most advantage of them) to the point that only CPAs (one version of the modern priesthood) can make sense of it. Even without messy politics, it’s really hard to get things done. Any edition of the NY Times will provide at least a half a dozen examples.w
Whatever the broad spread of people can comprehend and articulate, it's no wonder we are unhappy with governments and why increasingly, incumbents facing electorates are turned out or forced into cumbersome coalitions (which have their own problems in developing coherent policies). I wrote about one aspect of this a few years ago, when I invoked the term “ungovernability” (021122) a phrase used to describe European politics in the later 20C which has wider applicability now.
A recursive cycle of nihilism, nationalism/tribalism/racism, and the resulting politics of fear (rather than of self-interest) and frustration with governments’ inability to cope feeds around and around. There are, historically-speaking, only two ways out: charismatic leadership or a collapse and reboot. We may be lucky and find the former, but the latter is more likely and promises an increasingly depressing period ahead.
It does no good, of course, to “blame” government or bureaucrats or even political parties. They are all products of a deeper cultural malaise. Nor is this by any means a uniquely US issue. The broad retreat of democratic norms globally and the spread of “populist” leaders and parties is a central part of the story.
Democracy has never been touted for its efficiency. Its benefits come from a comparison with the ordinary (inevitable?) abuses which accompany all the alternatives and its eventual settling on a course of development for a society which proves effective. There remains, however, a legitimate question of its ability to attend to crises, risking either populism/authoritarian solutions or waltzing off the cliff. The current confluence of climate, capitalism, geopolitics, overpopulation, AI, etc. may finally prove too much.
What seems clear, not least in light of the projected direction of the US over the next four years, is that incremental solutions to any of these challenges are likely to prove trivial (or detrimental). Relying on deeply embedded notions of “progress” or providence are more likely projections of fear or lack of imagination than anything useful.
This past year, a blueprint for the upcoming administration, called Project 2025, garnered a lot of attention and a fair amount of it looks likely to come into effect. It’s time for those of a more sensible bent to get to work on its successor and be ready to push for some more profound changes the next time around.
RSS Feed