I recently listened to lecture 9 of Hillsdale College’s current
Constitution 101 class, “The Administrative State Today.” [You can register for all of Hillsdale’s online classes for free and go through
them at your leisure.] Sometimes what
you get from studying is discouragement. The lecture is a description of the
changes in the way government is run, spread over the 20th Century,
resulting in something today that has very little resemblance to what our
founders set up.
Kevin Portteus, associate professor of politics, Hillsdale College screen shot from Lecture 9 |
First, in the “progressive” era, under Teddy Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson, there was a move toward “expert” control. The legislative
branch would make vague, outcome-based legislation—for example, we want clean
water. Without defining that or creating rules governing water use, there was
no way to ensure the outcome. So agencies were created to see to it; experts
were hired, who would determine, supposedly through the best scientific
knowledge of the day, to measure, make rules, and enforce them.
Already, there were some real differences between what the founders
intended and how laws were being enacted. If law was to be detailed and
specific to localized businesses or even segments of the population, it wasn’t
supposed to come under the purview of the federal government in the first
place. Laws were intended for the specific purpose of protecting life, liberty,
and property of all the people. Suddenly you have some entity coming in and
saying, “We don’t like how you’re doing your work or using your property, so we’re
going to delineate exactly what you can do and how.”
These agencies took on a great deal of authority. The agency
decided what the law was. The agency decided who was worth examining for
violations of the law. The agency then investigated, prosecuted, and punished
violators. They were suddenly doing the jobs of the legislative, judicial, and
executive branches—and those branches seemed to cede the authority to them
without much argument. Courts and legislators alike would say things like, “They’re
the experts, so we won’t question their judgment in the matter.”
This was all very much in keeping with the “progressive” way
of governing—with the assumption that the modern world required an evolved
approach, because life was suddenly so much more complicated.
But this wasn’t enough for FDR. He saw that the regulatory
agencies were headed by “experts” who had been appointed from previous
administrations, and they might not have in mind the same political outcomes
that he wanted. So he pushed for reforms that empowered his executive office.
By executive order, he could appoint leadership of the agencies who aligned
with his political intentions.
In addition, he pressed for more ways to control the
agencies and their direction. One way was to go directly to the people, to
recruit them to his goals, which he did using media—the first president to so
use it.
And after FDR, more methods developed in a game of power
between a strong executive individual and strong regulatory agencies. In this
balancing act came the granting of standing to more groups. It used to be that
a litigant had to show that it had been personally harmed; the change allowed
groups to claim that they represented the people as a whole. It the abstract I
don’t find a problem with that. But in practice, it granted groups, for
example, environmental activists, to claim that they represented all Americans
when claiming that we are all harmed by some practice.
Lecturer Kevin Portteus, gives the example of Massachusetts
v. EPA:
the case that declared that carbon dioxide—carbon—was a pollutant
that could be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, and that the
Environmental Protection Agency had better get busy regulating it. The lawsuit against the EPA was filed by a
number of environmental organizations and by several attorneys general in the various
states: ergo Massachusetts v. EPA. Under the traditional definition of
standing, it is hard to see how any of them would have been able to bring
suit. They would have lacked standing.
The State of Massachusetts would not have been able, in all likelihood, to
demonstrate the direct harm necessary to be able to bring a case before a court
in the United States.
If you’re like me, you might have noticed how suddenly talk
about regulating poisons such as carbon monoxide suddenly changed to the
dangers of carbon dioxide, which is what we exhale, and plants “breathe in,”
and that is pretty much part of all life on earth. And suddenly experts are
telling us how much is allowed in our environment.
One purpose of the lawsuits from these groups, against the
agencies, was to pressure the agencies to comply with political, typically
liberal, ends. In other words, it was no longer about what experts in the
science decided to lay down as the law; it was what a particular president’s experts said, using their science, to control entire industries the way he wanted.
Over time, there began to be quite a lot of collusion between
politicians, regulatory agencies, unions, and corporations, to meet in back
rooms and hammer out deals that were in their best interests—regardless of what
the best interests of the public as a whole might be. This was termed “liberal
corporatism” by Chicago sociologist Robert Flax in 1964. A ruling power elite
had come to control policy, with very little input from us self-governing
American citizens.
There’s always danger to freedom when the American citizens
have their Constitutional powers usurped. Portteus quotes Charles Reisch, from
his 1970 book The Greening of America:
The tendency of administration, while it may appear to be
benign and peaceful, as opposed to the turbulence of conflict, is actually
violent. For the very idea of imposed order is violent. It demands compliance.
Nothing less than compliance. And it must obtain compliance, by persuasion or
management if possible, by repression if necessary. It is convinced that it has
the best way, and that all other ways are wrong. It cannot understand those who
do not accept the rightness of its view. Administration wants the best for
everybody, and all that it asks is that individuals conform their lives to the
framework established by the state."
We can see that today with something as basic as making
decisions about where our children go to school. Incidentally, Glenn Beck’s
latest book, just out, is called Conform,
and relates to the imposition of Common Core in our schools.
We’re not going the right direction. Portteus says,
The Obama administration has more faith in expertise than
probably any administration since Lyndon Johnson. And Obama’s old Office of Management
and Budget director Peter Orszag said, “You know what the problem with our
system today is, is that we don’t put enough power in the hands of the experts:
we leave too much up to the people.”
At this point in our nation’s history, says Portteus,
Policymaking has very little to do with what you learned in
high school civics. The old framework of, well, the legislature makes the laws
and the executive enforces them and the judiciary rule on cases, that’s really
been scrambled. We get very hung up today on the expansion of government power
and of course that is a real problem from the founders’ perspective. But the way
in which the functions of government have been reshuffled among the various
institutions is also a major problem. Things are being done by institutions
that were never meant to do them.
We know the direction we need to go, if our goal is freedom, prosperity, and civilization. We know that adhering to the actual
Constitution will solve a myriad of problems. But getting the power back from
those who have been controlling policy—and controlling us—for so many decades
is a tougher question. The lecture ended before we got an answer. I don’t know
yet if there is an answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment