Email This PagePrint This Page

Our Incredible Shrinking Democracy

02 February 2010

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)


wish conservatives would stop complaining about big government and start worrying about the real problem - small democracy. I wish we'd all worry more about our incredible shrinking democracy.

It seems as if more and more decisions that should be made democratically are being shunted off somewhere to a few people who make them in back rooms. Which programs should be cut, which entitlements pared back, and what taxes raised in order to reduce the long-term budget deficit? Hmmm. Let's convene a commission and have them decide.

Commissions are a default mechanism when politicians want to hand off difficult issues to "experts." But reducing the long-term budget deficit has almost nothing to do with expertise. It's about our nations' values and priorities. Nothing could be more central to the democratic process.

Democracy requires at least three things: (1) Important decisions are made in the open. (2) The public and its representatives have an opportunity to debate them, so the decisions can be revised in light of what the public discovers and wants. And (3) those who make the big decisions are accountable to voters.

But these principles are in retreat, and I say this not just because of the proposed deficit commission.

The notorious Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) began with a virtual blank check from Congress. Treasury officials then secretly decided which companies were to receive hundreds of billions of dollars. Why these particular entities were chosen and not others remains a mystery. For months, the Treasury didn't even disclose the identities of the major banks that giant insurer AIG repaid with its bailout money - 100 cents on each dollar AIG owed them.

The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, has gone far beyond its traditional role of setting short-term interest rates. It has bought up massive amounts of debt - mortgage debt, Treasury bills, and debt instruments emanating several public agencies, many of them supporting a wide range of private entities. No one outside the Fed knows the ultimate beneficiaries of all this government backing, the criteria used by the Fed for making these commitments, or even how much debt the Fed is buying.

Even if the economic emergency justified such secrecy - and it's hard to see exactly why it would - the emergency is over, and yet closed-door decision making continues. Will Treasury use what's left of TARP to help stimulate more jobs and, if so, how? Will the Fed stop buying mortgage-backed securities? No one knows.

The same pattern is evident on other issues. Congress can't decide whether or how to limit the pay of financial executives. So where does the issue end up? The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Fed both say they're going to look at whether pay levels are appropriate. The House and Senate can't agree on what to do about climate change. Who decides? The Environmental Protection Agency concludes it has authority to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The debate over health-care reform looked like democratic deliberation until you realize the key negotiations that framed the deal occurred behind closed doors, between the White House and Big Pharma and Big Insurance. The Administration promised these industries some thirty million new paying customers. In return, they agreed not to oppose the plan. Big Pharma even placed a firm limit on how much it would cut its costs over the next ten years - $80 billion, and not a penny more. How do I know this? Not because this crucial deal was made in public, but because it was leaked to the press.

Personally, I want the government to limit the pay of financial executives, regulate greenhouse gases, and reform health care. And no one wanted a financial meltdown. But I'm appalled by the process that's been used to reach these objectives.

A big piece of the problem is this: Washington is now so overrun by lobbyists representing moneyed interests that it's become almost impossible to make policy in the open. If the Treasury and Fed tried to decide publicly which industries and firms should get hundreds of billions, they'd be inundated. Wall Street lobbyists are blocking real financial reform. The energy industry has filled the House's cap-and-trade bill with special subsidies and exemptions. Big Pharma and Big Insurance would have killed off the health-care reform if they hadn't been bought off. When it comes to the long-term deficit, Congress is incapable of acting because so many special interests have their hands out.

But the answer isn't to give up on democracy. Back-room policy making can succumb to private interests just as easily as lobby-infested legislatures (much of the public suspects the Treasury of being too cozy with Wall Street as it is).

The real answer is to recommit ourselves to cleaning up democracy. Yes, I know: The Supreme Court's recent grotesque Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which decided corporations are people entitled to First Amendment protection, complicates this. But the goal is still possible to achieve with more public money for congressional and presidential candidates who refuse private funding, more constraints on lobbyists, tighter rules for who must register as a lobbyist, fuller disclosure, and tougher rules on the revolving door between public service and private gain. Yale's Bruce Ackerman recently came up with another good idea: A $50 tax credit per person, which they can send to the candidate of their choosing.

Yet nobody seems to be talking about these sorts of reforms. They don't appear on Obama's agenda. True, they don't generate lots of public excitement or appreciation, and they're murderously difficult to enact. But without them our democracy doesn't stand a chance.


Open Article On Originating Site

Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," and his most recent book, "Supercapitalism." His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes. (I wrote a version of this for the current issue of "The American Prospect."

 

Comments  

 
+7 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-02-02 23:26
Why isn't it abundantly clear to each and every citizen, by now, that the red herring AKA "big government" is,in every sense simply dwarfed by big and bigger and bigger yet business? If anything, our government needs to be substantially bigger to simply balance the predatory behavior of big business. The market place now is so exceptionally predatory that it is,for me,a matter of considerable time and energy just fending off the blatant frauds, misrepresentati ons and exploitations that are increasingly visited upon myself. If so called big government were to double my taxes and more, but were to reign in the excessive costs of, yes, corporate fraud perpetrated against consumers like me, and were to reign in predatory lending practices and interest charges that continue to increasingly resemble mafia style extortion/loan sharking, I'd be saving a great deal of money. There is a reason for the lack of transparency in decision making.It is to perpetrate the ongoing exploitation of most.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-4 # Peter Edler 2010-02-02 23:42
Strictly viewed, Bill Clinton was the last legitimate US President. Obama is the second illegal President, following the illegally appointed George W. Bush, now implementing and expanding some of Bush's most devastating policies. Obama is rightly called Fauxbama in intellectual circles - everything he says and does is fake. With GWB we never had to wonder whether anything was true - everything was lies or covered up lies. Fauxbama is a walking false-flag operation, his rhetoric wrapped in a silky prose package that is however turning threadbare. The Incredible Shrinking Democracy might also be called The Fly. Pentagon America enters a teleportation booth at home, turns up instantly somewhere else on the planet - to wreak havoc and destruction. Pete Edler, member Swedish Writers Union, Stockholm.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # John Whiting 2010-02-03 01:40
Robert, welcome to the Cassandra Club. You are one of the select few always to be correct and never to be believed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-6 # Peter Edler 2010-02-03 01:55
What, don't you trust President Fauxbama to take care of business? Pete Edler, Stockholm
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+6 # Thomas Rische, PhD 2010-02-03 05:03
Suggestion: Require each legislator to spend four weeks (20 working days) a year, actually performing a variety of jobs at which ordinary constituents work--not managers, but actual meet-the-public workers: office clerks, factory workers,postmen /women, ditchdiggers, truck drivers and loaders, child care centers, teachers, police and firemen,recreat ion leaders, senior centers, etc., jobs picked by a representative jury of constituents. The should be real-world jobs, not those in which top managers sit in cushy offices and debate high policy. Some should be in "average", less wealthy areas and ghettos. They should spend one day being "homeless" (as Prince Charles did recently in England)
These legislators could not be accompanied by staff. Some might have to sit in chairs or wheelchairs and merely observe some jobs. But those too feeble to do even this should be asked to resign.
The point: help congresspeople learn or relearn the real problems of ordinary people.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Peggy Sapphire 2010-02-03 09:28
Amen. And require every legislator to function within the same immoral health care "system" as that to which "ordinary people" are subject, for the length of their term. Require them, like "ordinary people", to operate within the recent dangerous & Constitution-perverting decision of our US Supreme Court re Free Speech, also for the length of their term.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # ron 2010-02-03 10:56
good in theory, but you assume they are warm blooded mammals with beating hearts and compassion.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+7 # Bud Pratt 2010-02-03 05:12
Mr. Reich
I am a long time fan of your work. This article hits the nail on the head. Keep talking truth to power.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-9 # Carolyn 2010-02-03 06:20
If democracy is in retreat it is because Democrats think that they have a right to control the universe. What constitutionsl responsibility gives Congress or the President the right to decide how much pay executives get? Maybe they should limit the obscene earnings of the Hollywood elite and basketball, football, and baseball players. AFter all if they didn't get paid so much the poor go attend the movies and games. Democracy isn't in danger just because of backroom deals. It is endangered by the arrogance of elected officials who think the people of the United States are stupid and unable to care for themselves without the all-seeing eye of the government, which right now is corrupt beyond measure. Throw the scoundrels out. I hope that is the result of the 2010 elections.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Will Candler 2010-02-03 08:00
Carolyn, An excellent idea! Would we not all be better off, if the highest allowable salary(/income?) were say 100 (still better 50) times the lowest? After people hit this upper limit, and had enough to live comfortably, they might ask themselves: What do I want my life to contribute? Instead of the mindless thought that "more is better". Peace.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # ron 2010-02-03 10:59
Carolyn, the hollywood elite and the sports stars did not ask us for money
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # RiverRat37 2010-02-03 12:20
Carolyn ~ Your interpretation is pretty silly and somewhat lacking. The idea is to limit the income of execs who are sitting on OUR money -- yours and mine. There is no reason they should get rich on our tax dollars, eh? It seems that if we "throw the scoundrels out" there will be precious few left. And it's a sure thing that the new ones will quickly become scoundrels, given the number of lobbyists hanging out in the halls of Congress. There are better ways ... suggest you read Robert's column again.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # jlohman 2010-02-03 06:47
Let me put it more bluntly: There are only two possible reasons why our country is in a tailspin: either our politicians are inept or they are corrupt, and there’s little indication of it being the former.

Nothing useful will happen in congress until we implement public funding of campaigns. See http://tinyurl.com/yd4otrf

If campaign cash were not so relevant, politicians would not be spending half their time recruiting it and the other half protecting it.

Jack Lohman
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # James Allison 2010-02-03 06:51
The 13th Amendment--Article 13-- prohibits slavery, ownership of a person (Section 1), and empowers Congress to enforce Article 13 (Section 2).
The 1886 Supreme Court, in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific R.R., supposedly declared corporations to be persons.
As corporations are owned by persons, it follows that corporations exist in a state of slavery, and are therefore forbidden by the 13th Amendment, which empowers Congress to outlaw them.
Fortunately, there is another way out of this morass: The U.S. Supreme Court can reverse Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific R.R. (1886). Which would corporations prefer? To be forbidden by an act of Congress, or to lose their personhood by an act of the Supreme Court?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Rich 2010-02-03 07:33
The recent supreme court decision was only the icing on the well baked cake. Pundits spend more and more time rationalizing why our government simply can't actually manage to address the interests of the american public anymore. It would be 'murderously difficult' for anything else to happen. What wouldn't the well monied interests do to derail opposition with established ability to effectively fragment and nullify any conceivable public backwash. We should all learn to accept post-demoocratic corporate governance. It is clearly what we have, and here to stay.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Jeff Barrett 2010-02-03 07:41
Mr. Reich is too upbeat about the state of our democracy. Our congress has clearly been corrupted by lobbyists with too many Representatives and Lobbyists all too willing to toe the line of special interests with disregard for their constituents. Our Supreme Court :original intent" conservatives have voted to violate the most basic tenets of our founding fathers. We have a congress incapacitated by idiologs and idiocracy where obstruction is more important than the general welfare of the people of this nation. Fauxbama not believable? Who would be trying to lead our way out of the fall of the Great American democracy. He's just a young idealist with a pragmatic Chicago political background. Call that what you will All the backroom politics and public flourish will not move a corrupted democracy.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # Kesh Ladduwahetty 2010-02-03 07:44
Mr. Reich is absolutely correct! Our government has been taken over by the corporate interests. We Democrats have to do a better job of carrying the message that the answer is not to kill government, but to restore the idea that we cannot govern ourselves without goverment, that government is the process by which we create and enforce the rules of the game.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # perry brown 2010-02-04 14:07
I totally agree with one small exception. I would put it this way: 'the answer is not to kill government, but to restore the idea that WE ARE the damnned government. We can ABSOLUTELY govern ourselves. But goverment is not some mysterious, looming, entity seperate from ourselves. A function of government is protection from things like invading armies or 'natural' disasters like Katrina or H1N1. In that class I would include rapacious, big corporations who have proven time & again that they can not be trusted to govern themselves via ethics or the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Viginia Martin 2010-02-03 09:14
I'm so happy to read the truth at last. We surely can find some ways to dilute the power of corporate money--if we can get anything past the lobbyists.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # blender 2010-02-03 11:26
Or is it the Incredible Shrinking President? His tiny self is hidden in the very last sentence. He could do somepin, but he too small. "Yet nobody seems to be talking about these sorts of reforms. They don't appear on Obama's agenda."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # Bev in Sacramento 2010-02-03 13:30
There was the fall of the Roman empire, and now we are on the brink of falling in America. Corruption is winning. Campaign finance reform eliminates lobbyist/corporate power & Medicare for all eliminates insurance companies. This would be a healthy start and it better be done soon.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Mark Early 2010-02-03 19:00
For a very good history of the Progressive Movement which began in the 1870's read; "The Populist Moment" by Goodwyn. Begun by Southern Farmers united later with northern urban workers, all of whom were being ravaged by big banks and the railroad combines. 100,000' of family farms and homes were being foreclosed on until with their backs up against the wall citizens began talking to each other and organizing. Out of abject despair came the flowering of the largest democratic mass movement in American history. A movement that almost changed the fundamental trajectory of American social and economic history.

Sadly, I see no other catalyst for a successful populist movement without a complete breakdown of economic life in the US which a hyper-inflation depression would induce (the 1930's was the deflationary variety). Nothing else will focus the collective American mind, more accustomed to blind optimism and acquiescence with the status-quo.

Very sad.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # tarantilla 2010-02-03 20:11
Broken government but unrealistic about the fix. Regular people have the power if they would use it. Not the vote, but how they spend their money, and where they spend it. Big companies would quake if the public could organize and target their spending. Or ALL take 3 days off work, without pay, and spend nothing.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # tarantilla 2010-02-03 20:21
Not a realistic fix for a broken government. People have the power if they would use it. Take 3 days off work without pay and spend nothing. Organize and target spending. Hurt their pocket book and big business might then "negotiate". Target one big shot at a time til they're scared.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # perry brown 2010-02-04 11:04
I'm not bright enough to have thought of our many troubles in these terms. But if I were, I would have defined 'Big Government' in terms of the conditions you describe here, roughly; the back-door decision-making; open debate replaced by endless 'study' by unknown & unnamed 'experts'; the true decison-makers (lobbyists) too remote for accountability or transparency. That would explain why I've never seen a conflict in being both liberal (that dreaded label) AND against 'big government'. If that was the case, then we could handle shrinking democracy and big government all at once.
The problem seems (to me) too intractible to ever be addressed, even without 'Citizens United v. FEC'. But thanks for a great article anyway.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # roc1 2010-02-04 13:08
The only way to start returning power to the people is to have universal campaign finance reform, that successfully counteracts the recent SCOTUS ruling. This is the key to starting the paradigm shift. Without it, power will always be bought, and the human tendency for greed will remain unchecked.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # bf00b 2010-02-05 02:28
The only real change that came with the American Revolution was that coming to power was not limited by the accident of birth. The image of a people's government has been well sold, so well, in fact, that we believe that it did and does exist. The only significant input to public policy is that which was persistently demanded by enough people who were willing to give up their comforts for it, not through any acquiescence to public hopes via the democratic process. We strive for empire, but why, every empire ultimately collapsed. We are manipulated in the realm of equity to actualize an agenda that is hidden from us.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Lila Humphrey 2010-03-03 08:14
Dear Lila ...

Very pertinent one from Reich. James Fallows was predicting our current greatly weakened Democracy 10 years ago.

Love ...

Mike ...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 


Security code
Refresh