Jul
29
How’s that populist democracy working out for ya?
July 29, 2010 | 8 Comments
One of the recurring themes of this blog is that populist democracy is an affront to the republicanism of the Framers. Yeah, I know it’s not as sexy as ranting about the dangers of Calvinism, but it’s something.
The problem with political theory, at least compared to the hard sciences, is that we generally lack any concrete empirical evidence to “prove” our claims. Sure those quantitative political scientists make an attempt to turn the world of politics into a laboratory, but all they end up doing -aside from boring the snot out of the rest of us - is proving that political science is not a science like chemistry or physics.
But sometimes we luck out, and we are afforded wonderful examples that demonstrate the validity of our theories. While such examples may not definitively prove our theories in the same manner as a mathematical proof, they go a long way in helping to make our case.
So, thank you, California. No state is a better model for the sort of populist democracy that I’ve warned about. Many, if not most, of the major legislative proposals are brought to the people by way of referenda. Instead of a class of experienced legislators hammering out ideas, we get democracy by thirty second television spot. And now we have a political class so cowed by the population that they are unwilling to make any of the serious choices that could potentially guide them out of a crisis.
And so California is on the brink of bankruptcy. The actor-Governor, who won his job initially thanks to the magical gift of a recall, and who initially boasted about how he was going to change the political culture of Cal-ee-for-nee-ya, decided that actually engaging in the type of reform needed for the state might lead to a failed bid for re-election, and so he retreated. In many ways he simply went back to doing what he does best (sadly, in this case): acting. He acted like a big shot toughy, deriding his opponents, for example, as economic girlie men. Unfortunately he was the girliest of the lot.
And so now the state attempts to dig out of this budget mess with half-hearted attempts and lame gimmicks. Moreover, the governor has decided that he’s just going to punt this issue to the next regime.
Sadly, even these pathetic attempts at fixing the budget are mocked by dimwitted demagogues.
Shannon Murphy, a spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D- Los Angeles), said Wednesday: “It’s shocking that every single one of the governor’s budget moves deliberately hurt people.”
Yes, that mean governor. If only he realized that there was a way out of this budget mess that didn’t hurt anyone. Why, if they got down to business not only could they balance the budget, but they’d also be able to provide ponies and candy to all the wonderful citizens of California.
I recognize that populism is not solely to blame for this crisis, that the irresponsibility of our legislative class extends to every region. But the deterioration of our country’s most populous state should give pause to those who advocate more of the silliness.
Comments
8 Comments so far
1. Political institutions in California are structured in a manner that permits gridlock. In the case of the state’s fiscal policy, tax increases requires super-majorities.
2. Authority over fiscal policy has likewise been effectively transferred to public employee unions whose will is enforceable by the state’s judiciary. (Quite apart from whatever freebooting judges may engage in on their own account).
Neither of these is indicative of an excess of democracy, populist or otherwise. The referenda which instituted the super-majority requirement for tax increases was an attempt to contain a political class which is unresponsive to the general interest and highly responsive to clamoring constituency groups.
I can assure you, New York has masses of elected officials who have been suspended in the fetid waters of the state capitol for decades, no initiatives, and referenda only for bond issues (most of them penny-ante). You still have interminable battles over fiscal policy.
Both in California and New York, you have public assent to this, manifest not is electoral mobilization but in a general absence of mobilization. You have to work at it assiduously in New York to lose a seat in the state legislature. The public is seldom a danger to anyone’s tenure.
There is no institutional fix for a rancid political culture. It might help to have screens up (rotation in office, mandatory retirement, &c) which inhibit the formation of a professional political class which sees its job as being to broker government benefits, but that would be rather incongruent with having ‘experienced’ legislators. Its the experienced ones who are cats paws to lobbies.
In the case of California, they may be stuck on stupid until an authentic disaster occurs.
The referenda which instituted the super-majority requirement for tax increases was an attempt to contain a political class which is unresponsive to the general interest and highly responsive to clamoring constituency groups.
But this only highlights the problem with referenda. They are quick-trigger responses to perceived problems, that while perhaps addressing a genuine concern, tend not to be well-thought out actions. In a referendum, the populace is given a simple yes/no vote. No debating, no wrangling, no compromise – just a yes/no vote that does not provide the opportunity to modify the proposal in any way. So the voters in California put themselves in their own bind by an action that seemed sensible at the time, but which may have only led to worse consequences down the line.
I think Alexander Hamilton had something to say about this:
That is not to say that you are incorrect in your observations about New York. The political class is a mess. But the question is are these politicians truly irresponsive to the will of their respective constituencies, or are they perhaps too finely attuned to their caprices? After all, the people keep electing these bums.
One potential institutional mechanism for dealing with all these: cut Congressional and legislative staffs to about 1/4 their current size.
Personally, I have no interest in instituting a system of voter initiatives here in New York with regard to policy questions. I would be pleased to replace competitive elections for various officials (judges, prosecutors, auditors, regents, &c). with referenda for retention or recall.
I think California’s system got out of hand because they permit commercial signature gathering. However, it is a suboptimal way to conduct policy. The fact remains that the political class has been most resistant to respecting the norms instituted by initiative in California. There is an element of this I think poorly rendered in your frame.
I think one ought to consider the political class as a self-selected group with their own internal dynamic and motivations. Electoral contests are a crude way of adjudicating conflicts between them, but mostly a pantomime because they are non-competitive. The public trains what little attention it devotes to the executive, so you have the absurd situation here in New York of Gov. Patterson being held responsible by the electorate for the fiduciary misconduct of the legislative caucuses who resist his entreaties and regard him with contempt.
The politicos have their conception about what it means to be doing a proper job, their deals with various constituencies which want something (public employee unions, local pols, business sectors with heavy investment in political contacts like real estate and construction, higher education). Journalists are readily co-opted if you avoid doing things (like saying ‘no’) which give them stories of conflict to write about.
The general public ratifies these arrangements by inaction. They are likely to turn against you only if you look argumentative, or if you do something which has an impact they can digest because it has a palpable effect on their mundane life (e.g. an increase in property taxes) or if they do something that some character like Stephen Minarik can rudely represent in a 30 second spot or in a brochure.
Look at a character like Dede Scozzafava, a cat’s paw of her union official husband who truckled to anyone who came her way. She has been repeatedly elected to public office over a period of more than twenty years. She had the support of the moneybags around George Pataki, of the bosses of the Republican legislative caucus, and (much more reluctantly), local grandees. She burned up like a housefly under a magnifying glass when Douglas Hoffman typed up a list of her policy preferences and mailed copies to several hundred registered voters.
Right now, the state budget is being held hostage by two factors.
1. The Republican caucus, which is a minority in both chambers, is quite disciplined and bloc voting against the majority preferences. They likely have good and bad reasons for doing this.
2. Which has left the majority caucus at the mercy of its most recalcitrant members. Right now, there is a state senator from Buffalo who is insisting on some candy for his district in the form of a project the speaker of the state assembly is against. It has something to do with higher education. I will wager you the popular groundswell in Buffalo for this project is nil. Why is Sen. Whathisname doing this? Because he thinks it is a good idea; or he has a deal with the Mayor of Buffalo, or the Erie County Executive, or the president of one of the four subsidiaries of the State University of New York in greater Buffalo.
3. There was an article in The Public Interest a few years back that offered two assertions:
a. Ordinary people seldom mobilize to seek government benefits. Constituencies organize to protect and extend existing benefits.
b. Ceteris paribus, the tenure in office of a legislator is directly correlated with his propensity to favor public expenditure. Experience = profligacy.
Populism is not our problem.
I put some thoughts on possible institutional reforms in California on my blog about a year ago, if you are interested.
“Several hundred thousand” registered voters.
Every time you speak of New York, Art, I become that much happier that I no longer live there. And I live in Maryland.
I can’t really quibble with anything you’ve said about the state, and with the problems of our political class. You’re quite right. But with the case of California, to me it epitomizes every problem with populism. It is the state that has most lived up to the frenzied ideals of LaFollette, Bryan, and the Progressives and Populists who rose to prominence in the late 19th century. It is a state that is immobilized, and the irony is that is immobilized precisely because of the frenetic activity that has taken place over the past several decades.
Perhaps populism is not the sole problem, but it certainly is not the solution. If the masses in New York cannot mobilize themselves to take charge and throw out the corruptocrats that dominate the state, then why would he have faith in the same populace to wisely steer the ship of state?
The Tea Party movement then could serve as the driving force that re-awakens the electorate, as your Scozzafava example demonstrates. But an entire sea change needs to take place, as the problems in places like NY and California are so endemic and are rooted in a pernicious culture. Both the populace and the political class need to be transformed. I don’t particularly care for that word because it has almost a totalitarian overtone, but I think you catch my meaning. Citizens need to become more engaged, and in turn that engagement would hopefully bring about a change within the political class. It’s not something that can necessarily be achieved only through policy, but rather requires a cultural shift that will have to come from grass roots movements like tea parties or maybe bloggers typing away on their keyboards.
There is one thing that I think would go a long way to disrupting the careerism that is hampering our politics. I think you’ve mentioned term limits, and that’s something I have recently come aboard in supporting. But I’d go further. If we slashed Congressional staffs back to about 1/4 of their current size, that, too would transform the political culture of DC. It ain’t just career politicians that are the problem. You sure as heck wouldn’t see as many 2300 page bills in Congress without the dedicated staff there to write them.
Again, Paul, I think you are attempting to view contemporary political pathologies in terms of categories that confound rather than elucidate. I will attempt this evening to reply on my own site.