Friday, December 09, 2011

QOTD

Yuval Levin in the National Review:
This fall, liberals from the president on down have begun to grasp the scope of the political and intellectual disaster that the past three years have been for the Left. Their various responses to the calamity have tended to have one thing in common: immense frustration. But the different expressions of that frustration have been deeply revealing. They should help Americans better understand this complicated moment in our politics, and, in particular, help conservatives frame their responses.

Liberal frustration has fallen into two general categories that seem at first to flatly contradict each other: denunciations of democracy and appeals to populism. In September, Peter Orszag, President Obama’s former budget director, wrote an essay in The New Republic arguing that "we need less democracy." To address our country’s daunting problems, Orszag suggested, we need to take some power away from Congress and give it to "automatic policies and depoliticized commissions" that will be shielded from public pressure. "Radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic." Two weeks later, North Carolina’s Democratic governor, Beverly Perdue, made a less sophisticated stab at the same general point, proposing to suspend congressional elections for a few years so members of Congress could make the difficult decisions necessary to get our country out of its deep problems.

Orszag and Perdue both seemed to channel a long and deeply held view of the Left -- that the complexity of modern life and the intensity of modern politics should lead us to put more power in the hands of technical experts who have the knowledge to make objective, rational choices on our behalf. Leaving things to the political process will result only in delay and disorder. President Obama has frequently expressed this view himself -- wistfully complaining to his aides earlier this year, for instance, that things would sure be easier if he were president of China.

At the same time, the Left has been rediscovering the joys of populism. Populism can mean many things, of course, but in America it has often meant not only a faith in the wisdom of the masses but also a channeling of resentments into a case that the majority is being oppressed by an elite few. And that is just what the president has sought this fall. On the stump, he has been railing against wealthy corporate-jet owners and their Republican henchmen, who care not for the struggling working man and want only "dirtier air, dirtier water, fewer people on health care, [and] less accountability on Wall Street." Meanwhile, a small but opulently publicized populist protest movement has arisen to "occupy" parts of New York’s financial district as well as parks and public spaces elsewhere around the country. Although it seems at times to be all fringe and no center, the movement does appear to be held together by resentment against corporate greed and crony capitalism, and a sense that the large mass of the public shares that resentment.

So should we be guided by expert commissions or a popular movement? Does the public have too much of a voice in our politics or not enough of one? It is tempting to see the Left’s simultaneous calls for populism and technocracy as a profound incoherence, because we are inclined to see the two as opposite ends of an argument about who should govern. . .

The simultaneous populist and technocratic appeals of the progressives’ successors in today’s politics seem to echo this premise. They at least implicitly suggest that technocracy and populism are two sides of the same coin.

And the framers of our Constitution seemed to think so too. But whereas the progressives championed both technocratic government and direct democracy, the Constitution stands opposed to both. As the framers saw it, both populist and technocratic politics were expressions of a modern hubris about the capacity of human beings -- be it of the experts or of the people as a whole -- to make just the right governing decisions. The Constitution is built upon a profound skepticism about the ability of any political arrangement to overcome the limitations of human reason and human nature, and so establishes a system of checks to prevent sudden large mistakes while enabling gradual changes supported by a broad and longstanding consensus. Experts should not govern, nor should the people do so directly, but rather the people’s representatives should govern in a system filled with mediating institutions and opposing interests -- a system designed to force us to see problems and proposed solutions from a variety of angles simultaneously and, as Alexander Hamilton puts it in Federalist 73, "to increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws through haste, inadvertence, or design."

That such a system is far from populist should be obvious. In Federalist 63, James Madison says plainly that the constitutional architecture involves "the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity" from directly governing. The democratic elements of the Constitution are intended to be checks on the power of government, not expressions of trust in the wisdom of the public as a whole. And even as checks, these elements are imperfect. As Madison argues in Federalist 51, "A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the government, but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

But those precautions do not amount to the rule of experts. The framers were disdainful of the potential of technocratic know-it-alls whose abstract expertise was often of value only in what Hamilton calls, in Federalist 28, "the reveries of those political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction." And even men with expertise in administration should not be given too much power. In Federalist 68, Hamilton argues that, while good administration is very important, the idea that the best-administered regime is the best regime is a "political heresy." There is much more to government than administration.

Thus expert omniscience could not be trusted to check the excesses of popular passion, and public omniscience could not be trusted to check the excesses of expert arrogance. In the view of the framers, there is no omniscience; there is only imperfect humanity. We therefore need checks on all of our various excesses, and a system that forces us to think through important decisions as best we can. This may well be the essential insight of our constitutional system: Since there is no perfection in human affairs, any system of government has to account for the permanent imperfections of the people who are both governing and governed, and this is best achieved through constitutional forms that compel self-restraint and enable self-correction.

This emphasis on moderating forms -- that is, the focus on arrangements that impose structure and restraint on political life -- is crucial, and it has always been controversial. Indeed, it is what troubled the progressives most of all about our system, and what troubled many other technocrats and populists before them. But as Alexis de Tocqueville noted a century before the New Deal, "this objection which the men of democracies make to forms is the very thing which renders forms so useful to freedom; for their chief merit is to serve as a barrier between the strong and the weak." And he added, with his usual prescience, "Forms become more necessary in proportion as the government becomes more active and more powerful." In other words, we need them now more than ever.

The framers’ formalism, with its humility about our knowledge and its limits on our power, is at work not only in our political institutions but in our economic system too. American free enterprise, like our constitutional system, establishes rules of the game that restrain the powerful and create competition that helps balance freedom and progress. And in economic policy, just as in politics more generally, that framework is undermined by a populism that wants to take from the wealthy and by a technocratic mindset according to which Washington should pick winners and losers. In economics and in politics, our defense against these dangers has to start with an adherence to procedural rules and forms that restrain the hubris of the powerful -- defending markets, not coddling big business or soaking the rich; defending the Constitution, not advancing technocracy or populism. . .

Because the Left has been so much more technocratic than populist these past few years, the Right’s response has naturally drifted into populist tones. That is appropriate, and it has been effective, but the tone must not overwhelm the substance of the Right’s critique. In this time of grave challenges, conservatives must work to protect the fundamentally constitutionalist character of the Tea Party, and of the conservative movement -- avoiding the excesses of both populism and technocracy as we work to undo the damage done by both, and to recover the American project.
Agreed--especially as to the shortcomings and illegality of technocratic government, and preference for the constitutional process.

See also Will Wilkinson's "The Occupy Movement's Enthusiasm and Contempt for Democracy", and MaxedOutMama's demonstration that liberal populists and papers can't do math.

5 comments:

KitWistar said...

Here's my list of Christmas music---something to take your mind off the test tomorrow. I look forward to seeing what yours is when you post on Sat if you feel well enough. Hope there is good news tomorrow.

Christmas Music

Messiah --- any recording with Karen Clift, Soprano / Boston Baroque
(The St Martins-i-t-F Symphony & Chorus Messiah I think is just ghastly---way too schmaltzy. )

Vivaldi Gloria

“In Dulci Jubilo”

“Panis Angelicus”

Weinachts Oratorio ---- Teldec/ Harnoncourt

( I believe I love the above all the more for having sung them at one time or another,
formally and not so)

Mass in B Minor

“Bist du Bei Mir” ( from Anna Magdalena)

Coronation Mass

The Nutcracker Suite ( but skip the ballet , I’m not a fan )

There are a couple of old carols I adore:
Joy to the World, Adeste Fidelis, Maria Wandered Through A Wood,
O Holy Night…and the last 3 verses of We Three Kings ( those words are powerful),
& The Coventry Carol. And the way my grandmother used to sing “Stille Nacht” in German

My absolute favourite modern Christmas music is Sting singing
“Lo, How a Rose ere Blooming”

And I confess I do love oozy old “Santa Baby” sung by Eartha Kitt

KitWistar said...

Here is MY list of Christmas Music, something to distract you from tomorrow's test. Hope it is all good news. I'm looking forward to seeing how my list compares with yours when you post it on Sat, if you feel well enough.

Christmas music

Messiah --- any recording with Karen Clift, Soprano / Boston Baroque
(The St Martins-i-t-F Symphony & Chorus Messiah I think is just ghastly---way too schmaltzy. )

Vivaldi Gloria

“In Dulci Jubilo”

“Panis Angelicus”

Weinachts Oratorio ---- Teldec/ Harnoncourt

( I believe I love the above all the more for having sung them at one time or another,
formally and not so)

Mass in B Minor

“Bist du Bei Mir” ( from Anna Magdalena)

Coronation Mass

The Nutcracker Suite ( but skip the ballet , I’m not a fan )

There are a couple of old carols I adore:
Joy to the World, Adeste Fidelis, Maria Wandered Through A Wood,
O Holy Night…and the last 3 verses of We Three Kings ( those words are powerful),
& The Coventry Carol. And the way my grandmother used to sing “Stille Nacht” in German

My absolute favourite modern Christmas music is Sting singing
“Lo, How a Rose ere Blooming”

And I confess I do love oozy old “Santa Baby” sung by Eartha Kitt

OBloodyHell said...

>>> it seems at times to be all fringe and no center

...Or all fruits and nuts with no juice.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> "the reveries of those political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction."

In other words, even in the late 18th Century, there were ivory-tower dunderheads with all the answers and none of the solutions.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> MaxedOutMama's demonstration that liberal populists and papers can't do math.

Gee, ya think their inability to grasp the inevitable effects of communism and socialism on economies wasn't already a blatant description of this as a problem?