Why liberals hate democracy

President Obama’s former Office of Management and Budget director, and current Vice Chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup, Peter Orszag has a column up at The New Republic titled, “Too Much of a Good Thing, Why we need less democracy.” Orszag writes:

During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing.  … To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

Orszag goes on to make the case for government-by-expert-commission, decrying the rise of polarization, which he claims “is making it increasingly difficult for lawmakers to tackle the issues that are central to our country’s future.” Orszag then gets specific, asserting that “virtually all responsible economists agree” that we need more deficit spending now and plans for deficit reduction sometime in the unspecified future. Orszag then blames polarized politics for the failure of Congress to enact policy along these lines. “What we need, then, are ways around our politicians,” Orszag concludes.

What Orszag conveniently leaves out of this analysis is that the vast majority of the American people don’t want higher deficit spending now. That, and the fact that there are hundreds of responsible economists who don’t believe massive government spending is needed to stimulate the economy.

The reality is that liberals’ desire to bypass democracy is as old as the progressive movement itself. In 1891, Woodrow Wilson, the founder of the progressive movement wrote:

The functions of government are in a very real sense independent of legislation, and even constitutions, because [they are] as old as government and inherent in its very nature. … Administration cannot wait upon legislation, but must be given leave, or take it, to proceed without specific warrant in giving effect to the characteristic life of the State.

Hillsdale Associate Professor of Political Science Ronald Pestritto recounts:

Wilson’s argument for freeing administrators from close political control was grounded in the characteristic Progressive confidence in the expertness and objectivity of the administrative class. For years, Wilson had been urging special education for future administrators at elite universities. He argued that “an intelligent nation cannot be led or ruled save by thoroughly trained and completely-educated men. Only comprehensive information and entire mastery of principles and details can qualify for command.” Wilson had faith in the power of expertise, of “special knowledge, and its importance to those who would lead.” He later referred to “the patriotism” and “the disinterested ambition” of the new administrative class.

Wilson’s model for this conception of administrators, he freely acknowledged, was almost entirely foreign to American constitutionalism. Yet it was his own notion of the distinction between politics and administration, Wilson argued, that cleared the way for importing what was essentially a Prussian model of administration into the United States.

 

Related Content