I appreciate Mark’s effort to discuss Democratic failures. I disagree with many of his points, and agree with some.
1) I disagree with his dismissal of “exogenous factors” like bad campaign
management, voter intimidation (and suppression), and fake news as explanations
for the disaster of 2016. As someone wisely wrote in a recent letter to the NY
Times, when a basketball team loses a game by, say, 96-97, there are any number
of sufficient causes for the loss: a missed foul, an injury, a poor
substitution, a bad referee call, etc. The same is true for the election
result, especially when you add such other “exogenous factors” as FBI Director
Comey’s last minute intervention and the one-sided hacking, presumably at
Putin’s behest, of Democratic emails. Since
Hillary won the popular vote by a large margin, virtually any of the “exogenous
factors” could have won it for Trump.
I do agree that the Democrats have grave faults of their
own, well worth examining as key factors in the long, otherwise inexplicable
failure of the Democrats to defeat a Republican Party that has become a
cheering squad for the rich, and at least since Reagan has proven corrupt,
nasty, and dishonest. But many of his points are wrong.
2) Mark’s comments about the overweening size and cold-blooded
nature of the government echo a consistent Republican refrain. The size is
factually incorrect: from 1962 to 2014 federal civilian employees increased by
a total of 8%, whereas the US population grew 65.7%.[1]
But it’s popularity has less to do with facts than with a consistently repeated
claim emanating from the mostly large businesses that dislike controls on their
false claims, pollution, employment discrimination, monopolization efforts, and
workplace safety.[2]
3) Likewise factually incorrect is Mark’s statement that “Government's ability to manage complex processes
inevitably reaches a point of diminishing and then negative returns.” [his italics]. This sounds plausible,
but there are many modes of regulation. The techniques that work in a small and
simple system must change as the system does, and on the whole that’s what
happens. There is no inherent reason, apart from political opposition, why
regulation cannot continue to adapt as it always has. The real point of
difference is that Republicans believe in the honesty, decency, and voluntary
law abidingness of businesses whose priority is to make a profit in the short
term, and Democrats do not.
4) Mark’s discussion about medical care is likewise inaccurate.
He says “modern medicine is tortuously complex and
requires decentralized decision-making and on-the-ground engagement by an array
of skill disciplines. Medical service thus by its nature defies top-down
regulation.” Again, Mark expresses a fairly simplistic view of
regulation. If he were correct, the medical care systems that prevail in
virtually every other developed nation would all be considered failures. In
fact, by the available measures most of them do a better job at something less
than half the US cost. Moreover, even Medicare and Medicaid in the US make
adjustments for differences in medical practices and local expenses. The complexities
of the US system are, rather, due to the Republican insistence on private,
employer-based medical insurance in place of a simple government-financed
approach. Likewise, the so-called failures of Obamacare are largely due to the
opting out or refusal to extend Medicaid by many Republican governors, and the
implacable opposition that Republican Congressmen have mounted to the entire
program, making the normal post-legislation adjustment process impossible.
5) In one respect, though, I agree with Mark’s diagnosis. He
notes that Obamacare became a short-hand for every nuisance and gripe about
medical care, and that this followed from Obama’s misconception of public
perceptions. I think that Obama’s failures in the realm of explanation and
persuasion are the most serious faults of his administration, and this is one
example.
6) I also agree with Mark’s claim, in discussing the EPA, that liberals can be at least as dogmatic and irrational in the pursuit of
their goals as conservatives. I don’t know that EPA regulations actually
exemplify the point,[3]
but I do believe that the point holds true in many contexts.
7 Now let us consider Mark’s belief that Democrats are losing
elections because “they have abandoned their
legitimate mission of being empathetic champions of humanity and have instead
become tagged as the party of pitiless bureaucracy.” This claim has some credibility with
me. Perhaps the party has become tagged as the sponsor of pitiless bureaucracy.
I have not heard that before, and it has not come up in the various books that
I have read about the supporters of Trump. But being “tagged” is certainly the
type of emotionally laden, media-savvy charge that could well have taken place,
and would certainly resonate. I also think Mark has a point because it echos
the thought-provoking claim in Thomas Frank’s recent book Listen Liberal that Democrats have become the party of
professionals and disregarded their traditional base of unions and working
people.
8) Finally, there is a sense in which I sort of agree with
Mark’s last point, that “by smugly belittling any
serious politician to their own right, the Democrats threw away this election
and cleared the field for Trump.” The sense in which I agree is that Hillary
did not campaign on the issues. Perhaps she tried, but much of her time, and
certainly her most attention-catching efforts, were devoted to ad hominem
attacks on Trump, rather than discussions of the policies she advocates. This
was utterly inexcusable as a campaign tactic, since exactly this approach had
led Trump’s primary opponents to doom. Her campaign managers should have known
this, and Hillary herself should have rejected any advice to proceed in this
manner.
[1]
In 1962 there were 2,514 million civilian employees of the federal government.
In 2014 there were 2,726 million. See OPM.gov, Historical Federal Workforce
Tables, Total Government Employment Since 1962, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/,
During the same period, the US population grew from @185 to 308.7 million,
according to the Census and the Statistical Abstract.
[2]
They would rather play states off against each other in a pitiless race to the
bottom than be subject to uniform federal regulation.
[3]
Mark argues that the EPA does not factor cost into its regulations. I don’t
believe this claim, as
the use of cost-benefit analysis is required of the EPA
by executive order, and I don’t think the EPA flouts it. “President Reagan also recognized the problem of
unaccountable regulatory agencies. He responded by issuing an executive order
in February 1981 that required executive branch agencies, like the Department
of Health and Human Services and the EPA, to perform CBAs before issuing major
rules.” Conservative Reform Network, Requiring
Cost-Benefit Analysis for All Regulations,” 9/27/15 at http://conservativereform.com/requiring-cost-benefit-analysis-for-all-regulations/
A thoughtful rebuttal, but I would offer a couple of counterpoints:
ReplyDelete1) The observation about any factor, even a small one, being enough to make the difference in a close election is I think the same one I made in my 11/24 posting. It's the "my kingdom for a horse" idea, and it's true enough as far as it goes but sidesteps the fundamental issue, which is that litanies of small excuses are largely beside the point at a time when a political earthquake has just occurred calling for a deeper soul-searching.
2) While I agree that the number of government employees as a percent of total population is a useful data-point, I think it seriously underestimates the extent to which government has come to dominate the private economy.
3)I see scant reason to believe that any form of regulation adapts effectively as it grows more powerful. I'm not sure this issue can be determined one way or the other with data, but I've had personal exposure to regulation in the fields of medicine and finance. In both cases, I've observed that rules tend to grow ever-more complex and in such a way as to start interfering with the core discipline while gradually losing sight of the regulation's original purpose. I've heard enough anecdotal from other fields to believe that this pattern is the rule more than the exception.