Mike Konczal and Chris Hayes: How Meritocracy Produces Inequality

Jun 25, 2012

In the most recent installment of “Fireside Chats,” the Roosevelt Institute’s Bloggingheads series, Fellow Mike Konczal talks with MSNBC host Chris Hayes, discussing the distortion of meritocracy and the problems of self-perpetuating e

In the most recent installment of “Fireside Chats,” the Roosevelt Institute’s Bloggingheads series, Fellow Mike Konczal talks with MSNBC host Chris Hayes, discussing the distortion of meritocracy and the problems of self-perpetuating elitism. As Konczal explains, the culture of “anxiety about the person who’s one step up from you” creates an environment where everyone knows everyone else is cheating, but "the rewards are so high, and conversely, the penalty for being left behind... [is] so severe, then even the most unethical things become a no brainer that you’re just compelled to take part of.”

“There’s the depth of failure but also the breadth of failure,” Konczal says. In a myriad of areas, from Washington and Wall Street to the test prep industry and steroids in baseball, the system we have now is a “meritocratic competitive arms race.” This has lead to extraordinary corruption and crisis in every sphere of American life, and with it a collapse of trust in our institutions that are increasingly run by distant elites. 

To add insult to injury, this elitism is self-perpetuating. Any organization, even if it begins as completely egalitarian and democratic, will have to utilize the mechanisms of meritocracy to determine some sort of leadership. However, Hayes explains that those who end up with this power will “inevitably use that disproportionate power to subvert whatever mechanisms of accountability, turnover, mobility,” that were initially in place. Konczal laments that things have gotten so bad that failures such as WorldCom and Enron “just feel like historical footnotes now compared to Lehman Brothers." He concludes that “People need to understand that the game is rigged.”

Watch the full video below:

Share This

Debunking the Myths About Government

Jun 25, 2012

Rediscovering Government presented four mainstream, empirically based analyses of major government-related questions in the Myths About Government panel in Washington DC on June 21st. The panelists from the roundtable discussion addressed four common misconceptions about government and the economy. Read their summary responses below, and click through to view their bios and full presentations.

Rediscovering Government presented four mainstream, empirically based analyses of major government-related questions in the Myths About Government panel in Washington DC on June 21st. The panelists from the roundtable discussion addressed four common misconceptions about government and the economy. Read their summary responses below, and click through to view their bios and full presentations.

Does big government impede growth?

Government Social Programs and Economic Growth: Verdicts from History

Peter Lindert, University of California, Davis

Economic history does not find any net cost in GDP from democratic large-budget welfare states. The “free lunch puzzle” of welfare states is this: They avoided any net GDP cost while achieving many social goals: reducing poverty and inequality, extending life spans, and having cleaner government. In addition, their government budget deficits are no greater, and people are no less happy in these large-budget welfare states.

Peter Lindert Bio

Full Presentation

Presentation Handout

Do high taxes create disincentives?

Evidence on the Economic Effects of Taxes

Jon Bakija, Williams College

There have been many econometric studies of cross-country data that have attempted to estimate the effects of the overall level of taxes on economic growth, and many other econometric studies (using a variety of types of data) that have attempted to estimate the causal effect of changes in marginal income tax rates on peoples' efforts to earn income. This presentation displays the basic facts on these issues, discusses why neither approach has provided convincing evidence of a strong negative effect of taxes on long-run real economic activity, and explains why healthy skepticism of any claims to the contrary is in order.

Jon Bakija Bio

Full Presentation

Presentation Handout

Do markets distribute income fairly and equitably?

America’s Struggling Lower Half

Lane Kenworthy, University of Arizona

When the country prospers, everyone should prosper. In the period between World War II and the mid-to-late 1970s, economic growth was good for Americans in the middle and below. Since then, however, relatively little of our economy's growth has reached households in the lower half. Wages for this group have barely budged. Rising employment helped in the 1980s and 1990s, but that wasn't enough to ensure that incomes kept pace with economic growth, and employment stopped increasing after 2000. Government transfers are another key source of income for many households in the lower half, but they too have lagged behind growth of the economy. What are the prospects going forward? Will we see a return to rising wages or employment for Americans in the lower half, or are the trends of the past few decades likely to continue? What, if anything, could our government do to help?

Lane Kenworthy Bio

Full Presentation

Presentation Paper

Do Americans want smaller government?

Better, Not Smaller: What Americans Want from Federal Government

Ruy Teixeira, Century Foundation, Center for American Progress

Americans lack confidence in the federal government's ability to solve problems.  A wide range of other indicators show that people think the government wastes a lot of the money it spends, is inefficient, not accountable for its actions, unresponsive and more a hindrance than a help to getting ahead in life. Not a pretty picture.  However, that doesn't mean the public necessarily wants the government to be smaller.  They would prefer instead that it worked better and solved problems.  Therefore, reforming the way government works could potentially contribute to building public support for government programs both old and new.  This is particularly true among members of the Millennial generation.  The other important factor is better macroeconomic performance, which would go a long way toward making people more receptive to an active role for government, especially a government that seemed to be performing more efficiently and effectively.

Ruy Teixeira Bio

Full Presentation

 

Rediscovering Government is an initiative of the Roosevelt Institute dedicated to exploring the purpose and value of government. Led by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick, the program aims to reinvigorate conversation surrounding government and what it can and should be doing for its citizens, through the website, blog, roadshows, and conferences.

Share This

Myths About Government

Jun 20, 2012Jeff Madrick

The Rediscovering Government roundtable discussion in DC tomorrow sets out to debunk misconceptions about government spending and the economy and reinvigorate a dialogue about the importance and positive potential of government. 

The Rediscovering Government roundtable discussion in DC tomorrow sets out to debunk misconceptions about government spending and the economy and reinvigorate a dialogue about the importance and positive potential of government. 

Perhaps it isn’t odd that the American people are so skeptical of the uses and purposes of government. As a nation built on a revolution against a monarchy, such skepticism is likely built into our national character.

But it doesn’t accord with our history, and that is why it remains surprising. Government was inseparable from American economic and social development. It did not reduce freedom, but protected it.

I am always disturbed when economists in particular talk about the “role of government.” It is like talking about the role of parents in their children’s lives, or the role of the basketball in a basketball game. There is no economy without government, even in America. The government does not merely correct market failures; its purpose is far more profound. It is about true freedom, true opportunity, and necessary change.

We have organized an important panel discussion on June 21st in Washington, D.C., to put to rest some of the prevailing myths about government. Peter Lindert of the University of California at Davis will tell us about his empirical work on whether large government impedes growth; his extensive research shows it has not. Jon Bakija of Williams College will similarly tell us about how little hard evidence there is that high taxes impede growth. Lane Kenworthy of the University of Arizona will show how much of the income of the lower half of the distribution depends on social policies. Nancy Altman of Social Security Works will put straight the true finances of Social Security. And finally Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress will tell us how extensive the American antagonism towards government is despite these facts, and whether these views can be changed.  

Our goal is to present a counter-narrative to the prevailing anti-government ideology. We will not argue that government is all good, requires no radical reforms, or cannot be made to work better. After all, why should we expect politicians to act in the interests of others, rather than their own sometimes contradictory interests?  

But there is reason to expect this, because it has happened time and again in American history. Moreover, acting in the interests of others is often acting in one’s self interest. Thomas Jefferson championed regulations of land sales in early America to make sure many people got a chance at ownership. The result was a strengthened democracy of secure and satisfied citizens.

His party built the canals through public financing in the states, led by New York. Many, and probably most, prospered when New York City became the giant hub of trade and commerce with the opening of the Erie Canal. American government created free and mandatory schools, subsidized the railroads, started technical colleges, and sanitized the cities, which in turn became sources of growth. In the 1800s, these activities were typically led by the state and local governments.

Markets don’t work when monopolies gather power, and the federal government in the next century set out to limit that from happening. It protected workers in all kinds of ways. In the 1930s, it recognized that financial markets were different from others and required special regulations. It built highways, invested in medical and technical research, subsidized college, and established necessary product, safety, and environmental regulations.   

As Lane Kenworthy points out in his fine summary piece on our site, if big government were a problem, why did the U.S. economy keep growing fast even as government got bigger?  

And let me point out one other factor that is neglected. As I emphasized in my book, The Case for Big Government, government is the key agent of change. No one anticipated we’d need high schools and colleges when the Constitution was written, but government was the instrument to create these critical institutions. No one knew of germ theory, but government led the way in sanitizing water and making large cities habitable. Who knew about the computer chip?

Perhaps I am biased because I live in New York. The New York City government eventually took over and aggressively expanded the subways. It built the dramatic walls of Riverside Drive, so often neglected. Miracle of miracles, it collects the garbage in this densest of cities.

But consider the great water works of the west. This was the work of state and federal government. And the highways, of course.  And the university system of California, among others.

If one needs further historical examples, consider the first great European city, Rome. Its aqueducts and enormous road network were the work of the government. Its devotion to law is a model to this day. It was highly productive and conducive to commerce because of these advances.  

American attitudes towards government have always shifted; sometimes pro-government and public investment and social programs, sometimes against them. We were usually at our best when we favored government, but government was far from always efficient. America was not immune to substantial corruption. Government always needed a good wringing out. But when it was widely vilified and weakened, America often failed. Political instability, widespread sacrifice, and jeopardized democracy were results.  

As for contemporary times, the Great Depression was an important catalyst. It turned an already partly progressive nation (since Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) far more so. It gave us a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, Social Security, labor organizing protections, securities regulations, and great public works to create jobs. The New Deal was followed by Johnson’s remarkable Great Society in the 1960s -- Medicare, Medicaid, historic civil rights legislation, and on. The American social sphere was brought into modern time along with its economy, which required those social investments.

But these attitudes shifted strongly beginning in the 1970s. Attitudes towards government had already become somewhat more skeptical in the 1960s, with new poverty programs and racial demands. The Vietnam War was a further blow to confidence in government, as was the Watergate scandal.  

In my view, however, the economic devastation of the 1970s was the major blow. Inflation of 12 percent, unemployment soaring, mortgage rates at 18 percent. In 1972, Governor Ronald Reagan of California supported a referendum to demand a sharp and permanent cut in state income taxes. Californians voted against it; they said they would pay their state taxes. By 1978, only six years later, Proposition 13 passed overwhelmingly, sharply cutting property taxes and with it undermining the state’s great education system.  Nationally, the Kemp-Roth tax proposal to cut federal income taxes up to 30 percent was rapidly gaining support in Congress. Economic pain caused Americans to seek quick and sometimes vindictive solutions, even personally self-destructive ones.  

In my view, the lost faith in and mismanagement of government is the key cause of the crisis of the future the nation now faces. This lost faith resulted in deregulation, unaffordable tax cuts, and the failure of government to develop new programs and act as the agent of change it should be.  

We can argue about these issues philosophically. But Rediscovering Government will stay as close to the demonstrable facts as possible. We will present the evidence about government, the economy, and growth. Then we can discuss how to restore a true sense of our own history, rebalance our sense of the purpose of government, and move on constructively.  

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

 

Capitol image via Shutterstock.com.

Share This

A Note on Free Market Fairness: Is "Economic Liberty" Incoherent?

Jun 20, 2012Mike Konczal

There's a fantastic symposium on the book Free Market Fairness going on over at the Bleeding Heart Libertarian website. Make sure to check out Sam Freeman and Elizabeth Anderson, as well as Tomasi's replies to both.

There's a fantastic symposium on the book Free Market Fairness going on over at the Bleeding Heart Libertarian website. Make sure to check out Sam Freeman and Elizabeth Anderson, as well as Tomasi's replies to both. I'm going to add my thoughts on reading the book; note that I'm an amateur when it comes to many of these political theory debates but something strikes me as missing.

One of the core parts of Free Market Fairness' theory of "market democracy" is enshrining economic liberty at the level of basic liberties protected by the constitution, like free speech, the right to a trial or political participation.

In Rawls' formulation, it means that economic liberties would be protected by the first principle of justice. This is the principle that each "person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all." These basic liberties are “inalienable,” and “any undertakings to waive or to infringe them are void ab initio [to be treated as invalid from the outset].” Citizens cannot bargain or trade their basic liberties away.

Many on the left point out how economic liberty isn't true liberty unless it is a fair value liberty, or a liberty that isn't just formally equal but also is substantively equal. To see examples using Rawls' framework, political equality is of the substantive variety, as it matters whether you can actually vote and participate, but religion is only formally equal, as you don't have a right to an expensive church for your personal, elaborate religious ceremonies. The left says economic liberty isn't really liberty unless there's substantive equal ability to participate in the economy.

I'm all for that critique as far as it goes, but I think it is important to go a step further and argue that formulating economic liberty as a basic liberty is, practically speaking, incoherent.

The Department of Stabilization

Rawls described a stabilization branch of the state in Theory of Justice, tasked with bringing about full employment. In practice a lot of our economic debates are focused on what to do about mass unemployment in this crisis.  Let's do a quick map of economic agents in our current Great Recession and how the downturn has impacted them:

There are workers, many of whom are unemployment, and they have sluggish wage growth and low quit rates. Incumbent managers and owners are experiencing big profits and large bargaining power over their workforce. Capital owners have benefitted from disinflationary trends. Entrepreneurs find it difficult to start new businesses amidst mass unemployment. The government could lean against all these trends by doing stimulus, but taxpayers would be on the line if it didn't work out.

Now here's what I mean by incoherent: treating economic issues as a basic liberty tells us nothing about how to address stabilization one way or the other and substantially confuses our intuitions about how to approach the problem - which is one of tradeoffs. The first principle would only allows certain breaches of inalienable economic liberty in order to make the most extensive set of liberties, compatible with similar liberty for others. Now I understand that the regulation of basic liberties (like free speech) is problematic for Rawls, but it dissolves into nothingness here under market democracy.

Basic liberties can't guide us, because liberty for one comes at the expense of liberty for others. Which economic liberties are we to preserve? The one of the unemployed to work, the entrepreneur to have customers, bosses to their profits or rentiers to their capital income? All of these liberties are part of the economic realities of each agent, and these are fundamentally in tension with each other. There's no way to view them as "compatible" with each other as a sufficient condition to animate decision-making.

The only way to address them as a matter of policy is to balance them against each other according to some principle. Full employment? Price stability? Deflation and the Gold Standard? Bringing in the concept of liberty prevents the ability to discuss these in terms of tradeoffs, as the whole point of basic liberties is that groups of citizens can't have their basic liberties traded off each other.

One could say that the only system is thus one of no stabilization. But this is a policy choice, no different than emphasizing full employment at all costs. There's nothing about mass unemployment that must contain more inalienable liberty than full employment - it is just a different set of actors who benefit. And this would look suspiciously like bringing in one set of arguments for how the economy should work and whom it should work for through the courts, rather than democratically through argument in the public sphere.

This incoherence exists more broadly. For instance, uses of basic liberties aren't up for being traded. I can't sell you my vote, and I can't ask the government to enforce a contract where you've sold me your right to a fair trial. Yet economic transactions are all about trading off economic rights. When I sell you my labor I'm accepting serious limitations on what I can do with my labor - it now belongs to you.

Thus economic liberty is often, at any moment, zero-sum: a more extensive liberty for the boss comes at limiting the liberty of the worker. The same for the creditor and the debtor. One of the first big "liberty of contract" cases was Pennsylvania's state court's 1886 Godcharles v. Wigeman, which struck down a state act prohibiting payment of wages in scrip. Here the benefit of the boss (and the company) came at the expense of the worker in the form of the means of payment. This may be a pareto-optimal trade when it happens - market democracy would presume that it must be by definition of it happening - but assuming I'm giving away a liberty for my ultimate long-term benefit, as well as the benefit of the economy as a whole, is way off the reservation of how we consider the other basic liberties.

The best way to conceptualizing it is within a framework of justifying inequalities, which is what Rawls' second principle tries to do. The second principle's difference principle could be the wrong approach - we might want to maximize growth regardless of its impact on the poor - but it is the right spot on the lexical framework to approach such a question. Pushing these questions into the highest lexical position leaves us with nothing coherent to say on the matters, it disrupts our normal thinking about liberty and stops our ability to see these issues as what they fundamentally are, which is balancing private forms of power and providing rules that bend them towards the greater good of the economy. Rules that are, I'd argue, best constructed through democratic argument; but rules that are in no way clarified by referring to more abstract notions of liberty.

 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
  

Share This

50 Years Later, What JFK Can Teach Us About Expertise in Government

Jun 14, 2012Mark Schmitt

Kennedy Democrats put too much faith in the "liberal consensus," but today's policymakers place far too little in the value of experts.

Kennedy Democrats put too much faith in the "liberal consensus," but today's policymakers place far too little in the value of experts.

This is a year of big 50th anniversaries: 1962 was a big year for jazz albums and children's books, but also for several of the great documents of the tortured history of modern liberalism. Michael Harrington's The Other America: Poverty in the United States was published 50 years ago, and the Port Huron Statement appeared the same year.

There's a third document that surely won't receive the same level of Boomer-nostalgia attention, but is far more relevant to the political history that followed. That's John F. Kennedy's Yale Commencement speech of June 11, 1962. In that speech, which was drafted and edited by all the famous brains of Camelot – Arthur Schlesinger Jr., McGeorge Bundy, Theodore Sorenson, John Kenneth Galbraith – Kennedy declared, “What is at stake in our economic decisions today is not some grand warfare of rival ideologies... but the practical management of a modern economy." The economic problems of the 1960s, Kennedy said, are "subtle challenges for which technical answers, not political answers, must be provided."

This was surely the most profound error of the era of “liberal consensus.” Kennedy and the men around him had persuaded themselves that “ideology” (by which they meant the great 20th Century clashes among fascism, Marxian socialism, democratic socialism, and democratic capitalism that had defined their own lives) was just a matter of “myths” and that all the real challenges that remained were just technical choices to be resolved by experts. Meanwhile, just beyond the shadows of the campus, an ideological showdown was building that was hardly mythical. It would pit the radically individualistic conservatism of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and their far more radical heirs against the moderate Democratic safety net capitalism that the men of the New Frontier took so much for granted that they couldn't even call it an ideology. Indeed, even today it's hard to define the viewpoint that stands in opposition to the dominant ideology of the right.

Liberalism was discredited in part because of the Kennedy men's faith in experts and their conviction that the choices were technical, not political. In the most narrow reading of the 1962 speech, JFK was embracing the view, held briefly by the American followers of John Maynard Keynes, though not Keynes himself, that “the practical management of a modern economy” involved “fine-tuning” fiscal and monetary policy, which would keep it on a steady path of growth. Keynesian fine-tuning failed dramatically, especially in the 1970s, leaving liberals essentially without economic tools and vulnerable to the alternative of supply-side economics. Excess faith in expertise is also held responsible for the Vietnam War (“The Best and the Brightest” were technocrats who could ask every question except whether the basic idea made sense) and failures of the community-based anti-poverty programs of the Johnson era. Above all, as critics of liberalism both sympathetic and hostile have argued ever since the late 1960s (most recently, Jonathan Haidt), the ideology of expertise-not-ideology put liberals far out of touch with the real stuff of life – morality, ethnicity, family, fear, tribal instincts. And to some extent it's true – a classic example is the idea of overcoming residential segregation through more aggressive desegregation of schools, that is, busing – which surely created more conflict and racial antagonism than it resolved, and not solely because of racism.

But 50 years is a long, long time (check this video clip of Kennedy's speech if you want a sense of how far away that era seems), and liberals have been apologizing for and backing off of their faith in dispassionate expertise for most of it while the contempt for expertise developed by the populist right has continued to build. When populist politicians like Sarah Palin denounce “elites,” we act mystified that she doesn't seem to mean the very rich. But the idea that the real elites are technocratic experts empowered by government is now very old – so old that it's not true. One of the first things conservatives have done consistently when they gain power is to cut the legs out from under any kind of independent source of evaluation – eliminating the Office of Technology Assessment in 1995, ending any independent analysis of the distributional effects of tax cuts in the Bush administration, challenging scientific consensus on climate change, and most recently, attempting to eliminate funding for the American Community Survey and the National Science Foundation's social science research program.

At the same time, we're actually a lot smarter than we were in 1962. Experts understand the limits of their own rational models (that's part of the breakthrough of behavioral economics), and our methods for evaluating government programs have evolved more than a little bit. David Bornstein, writing on the New York Times Opinionator blog, recently called in some detail for an age of “evidence-based policy making,” hailing, for example, an experiment that showed that simply making the standard application for student financial aid easier could increase the likelihood that a student would attend college for two or more years by 29 percent. As Bornstein notes, the Obama administration is attempting to quietly restore a role for evidence and evaluation, but it's hardly the stuff of presidential speeches.

That we don't base policy on such evidence isn't just because government is lazy or ignorant – although sometimes neither the believers in a policy nor its opponents really want to know whether it works. It's about politics and power, and it has been for 50 years. When everything, from climate change to whether economic austerity might lead to economic growth, is treated as an ideological question rather than a matter of evidence, then it's a battle of power, and the side with more power is likely to prevail. Restoring a place for dispassionate expertise, evaluation, and evidence is central to the promise of a just society – but we have to do it without the Kennedy men's clumsy blindness to how radical that idea is, how much it threatens powerful interests, and the fact that there is much of life where expertise is of no value.

Mark Schmitt is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

At Netroots Nation with a Panel Thursday

Jun 7, 2012Mike Konczal

I'll be at Netroots Nation for the next several days. If you are here and want to say hi, shoot me an email or a twitter message.
 
Today, Thursday at 4:30pm in room 552, I'll moderating a panel on progressives and the Federal Reserve with Matt Yglesias of Moneybox, Karl Smith of Modeled Behavior, and Lisa Donner of Americans for Financial Reform. If you are there you should check it out.
 
I believe it will stream online, so you can watch it even if you weren't able to make it. Hopefully it'll be viewable in the box below.

 
After the fact it should be viewable online. You can stream other panels at this webpage.
 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Share This

Mike Konczal on “Fireside Chats”: Tough Times make Liberal Reform Tougher

Jun 5, 2012Danielle Bella Ellison

In the latest episode of “Fireside Chats,” Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal talks with David Frum, Daily Beast writer and author of the new novel Patriots. In the clip below, they take on why Democrats have had trouble gathering support for stimulus programs during the current recession. “We’ve gone from Speaker Pelosi and the new Obama presidency and the idea of this wave of progressive energy to really trying to fight between the center and the center right,” Konczal notes.

In the latest episode of “Fireside Chats,” Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal talks with David Frum, Daily Beast writer and author of the new novel Patriots. In the clip below, they take on why Democrats have had trouble gathering support for stimulus programs during the current recession. “We’ve gone from Speaker Pelosi and the new Obama presidency and the idea of this wave of progressive energy to really trying to fight between the center and the center right,” Konczal notes.

As Konczal explains, “The real New Deal that we think of – the core economic security and managing the business cycle and so on – occurred in ’35,” when the economy was expanding. Meanwhile, “the conservative agenda to roll back the Great Society and the New Deal” unfortunately becomes more feasible in tough economic times like ours. The public becomes more risk averse and prefers austerity policies to big and potentially risky spending programs. Major liberal reforms, however necessary and beneficial they may be, are just very hard to pass during bad economic times.

The current grim economic condition, as well as the increase in media culture and accelerating ethnic change, have caused a transformation of American politics. Watch the full conversation below in which Konczal and Frum discuss this transition, what a Romney budget would look like, and the future of Obamacare.

Share This

New Deal Numerology: Working Holiday

May 3, 2012Tim Price

This week's numbers: 99.99 million; 80; 4; 147; 66

99.99 million... is a wide-ranging number. That was the difference in estimates offered by Occupy Wall Street, which pegged turnout for May Day protests between 10,000 and 100 million. Some would call that shoddy guesswork; Wall Street would just call it “accounting.” 

This week's numbers: 99.99 million; 80; 4; 147; 66

99.99 million... is a wide-ranging number. That was the difference in estimates offered by Occupy Wall Street, which pegged turnout for May Day protests between 10,000 and 100 million. Some would call that shoddy guesswork; Wall Street would just call it “accounting.” 

80... is a celebrated number. That’s how many countries recognize May 1st, or International Workers’ Day, as a national holiday. The U.S. never joined in due to fear that honoring “workers” would make us sound like socialists. Who else cares about them?

4... is a substitute number. That’s how many months separate May Day from America’s Labor Day. Making it a send-off to summer ensures a more relaxed atmosphere, so there’s less Bolshevik agitation and more focus on shoe color.

147... is an overworked number. That’s how many years ago the first American May Day protests took place as Chicagoans demanded an eight-hour workday. Many of today’s 1% carry that torch forward by maintaining a zero-hour workday.

66... is a stricken number. That’s how many years ago the last general strike took place, shutting down the city of Oakland. The May Day protests failed to break that streak, but to be fair, it’s much harder to go on strike when no one has a job.

Share This

Mark Schmitt: Are Think Tanks Too Politicized?

May 3, 2012

In the latest episode of our weekly Bloggingheads series, "Fireside Chats," Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Mark Schmitt sat down with Tevi Troy from the Hudson Institute to talk about the history of think tanks and whether or not they've become too politicized.

In the latest episode of our weekly Bloggingheads series, "Fireside Chats," Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Mark Schmitt sat down with Tevi Troy from the Hudson Institute to talk about the history of think tanks and whether or not they've become too politicized. Tevi thinks they are, but Mark points out that there are different types of think tanks and not all are out to buttonhole politicians into switching their votes five minutes before they walk onto the floor of Congress. However, in the clip below, he argues that those that do intend to shape policy play an increasingly important role in our national debate.

Mark notes that the recent Cato Institute controversy has drawn attention to the politicization of think tanks, but how did they become politicized in the first place? Tevi points to 1984, when Democrats' loss to Ronald Reagan inspired the creation of the Progressive Policy Institute, which would eventually develop many of President Clinton's ideas and policies. Once the Democrats won in 1992, Republicans responded by creating their own think tank, Project for the Republican Future. Tevi calls this the "Lose an Election, Gain a Think Tank" pattern that has developed over the past 30 years. 

Are these politicized versions of think tanks healthy? While Tevi argues that we have gotten further and further away from the original non-partisan think tanks that value expertise over politics, Mark points out that there is a place for both the advocacy-focused think tank and the ones more involved with influencing policies, and that most are actually not involved with policy outcomes. Mark talks about his time on Capitol Hill and remembers that some think tanks were very open about the fact that they solely wanted to influence legislation. He saw firsthand that many Republican think tanks were incrediblly influential with politicians, which led progressives think tanks to decide that they needed to offer their own legislative response. Mark agrees with Tevi in the changing nature of think tanks that "part of it may be the simple polarization of American politics, but that for example, "in the founding of the Heritage foundation" they decided that they needed "something that's in the game." It's hard to not play the game if that is the only road to success.

The question remains, as Mark and Tevi discuss, how much of an effect the various sources of funding for each think tank shape the way the research is done and the final outcomes of proposed legislation. For more of this conversation, check out the full video:

Share This

Keeping Them Honest: What Politicians Say vs. What We Make Them Do

Apr 25, 2012Tim Price

By dismissing politicians’ promises as meaningless, we let ourselves off the hook for making them take action.

By dismissing politicians’ promises as meaningless, we let ourselves off the hook for making them take action.

Politicians are big, fat liars. It’s a belief so deeply ingrained in American culture that we’re taught to revere George Washington as the one-of-a-kind exception who narced himself out for chopping down a cherry tree, and even that story is completely made up. Like many things we believe, it’s not necessarily true that politicians produce lies the way plants produce oxygen. As political scientist Jonathan Bernstein has noted, presidents do basically try to fulfill their campaign promises, but they make more headlines by breaking them. And the 40-year-long effort to discredit government, which Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick has highlighted, has also probably contributed to the belief that our politicians are up to no good. But our constant and perhaps justified skepticism poses some big problems during a presidential election, which is at least partly about whose story of America we find more convincing.

But what if we focused on a different story? One of the most oft-cited incidents from FDR’s presidency is a policy meeting he held with labor leaders shortly after his election, which he concluded by telling them “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.” Did Roosevelt ever actually say those words? Who knows? Like Washington and his cherry tree, what matters is why we tell the story and what it says about how we view the man in question. FDR understood that regardless of what he personally believed, change had to happen from the bottom up, not just from the top down. He was a bold leader who was never afraid to take on a fight as long as he had the American people on his side. If we stop assuming that politicians will simply deliver progress without our involvement or that the process of policymaking is out of our hands once our votes are cast, then we might start to see elections in a very different light.

This question of trusting what politicians say is a tricky one for both of the major presidential candidates this year. As Mitt Romney makes his 97th pivot from the primaries to the general election, he may try to recant or alter positions he took to please the right-wing base that would send moderates screaming for the hills. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed noted that “[a]ccording to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn't as anti-immigrant as he often sounded” during the primaries. This prompted Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne to ask, “Does [that] mean Romney said things that he doesn’t really believe? …How many other ‘private’ positions does Romney hold that we don’t know about?” Romney has been plagued by such accusations of insincerity throughout the campaign, with opponents referring to the presumptive Republican nominee as a “well-oiled weather vane” and piling on an ill-judged remark comparing him to an Etch-A-Sketch.

Likewise, President Obama has come under fire from the left for promising “change you can believe in” and delivering only a handful of heavily compromised victories. Some progressives are especially frustrated because they believe Obama secretly agrees with their policy prescriptions but lacks the courage or political support to advocate for them. One such issue is gay marriage, where Obama claims his views are “evolving” in favor of legality despite the fact that he openly supported it 16 years ago and conveniently devolved just in time to run for higher office. Others see it as naïve to think that Obama has done anything other than what he wants to do. Roosevelt Institute Fellow Matt Stoller wrote that by blaming the president’s failures on management rather than ideology, “all the media boosters and center-left validators of Obama in 2008 let themselves off the hook for mistakes. Instead, they ask, ‘where did our inspiring Obama go?’”

Stoller’s point about the president’s critics letting themselves off the hook hints at the real answer to whether candidates tell us what they honestly believe or what they think we want to hear: We can’t know unless we read their minds, so we have to take them at face value, exercise our own best judgment, and either keep pushing them forward if we agree or stop them in their tracks if we don’t. Sure, all else being equal, it makes sense that progressives and conservatives alike want a man or woman of principle representing them in the White House. And obviously we don’t want chief executives so dishonest that they risk leaving office in handcuffs. But by focusing all our attention on the failings of our leaders, we absolve ourselves of responsibility for shaping and implementing the policies we want to see. Sometimes we’ll find a dream candidate, although more often we’ll have to settle for the closest match and work to move them in the right direction. But either way we need to go in with our eyes wide open, not simply trust that they’ll one day emerge from their campaign cocoons to become the beautiful butterflies we want them to be.

Elections are not, or at least should not be, a “fire-and-forget” affair in which we vote for our favorites and send them off to govern while we cross our fingers and hope for the best. As New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said at the launch conference for the Rediscovering Government initiative, “great strides in social justice don't come out because of politicians; they come out because of movements.” Even if Barack Obama’s views were far enough left to make Bernie Sanders look like a member of the John Birch Society, it would still be incumbent on progressives to keep the pressure on him and the members of Congress to make sure real change was made.

If we were to get over our learned helplessness and take charge of our political process, what would that look like? Ideally, as Roosevelt Institute Fellow Sabeel Rahman wrote recently, it would involve thinking of citizenship not simply as a chore we’re reminded of every two to four Novembers but as a kind of office with duties that extend far beyond the ballot box. It would also involve engaging in dialogue with people we do and don’t agree with and getting our message out as broadly as possible and through as many channels as we can, I say as I write this blog post.

Perhaps most importantly, it would involve good old-fashioned organizing. When Barack Obama implemented spending policies that conservatives didn’t like, they donned their finest colonial period costumes, took to the streets, and helped derail most of his domestic policy agenda. When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker gutted the rights of public workers, union members and activists rallied against him and gathered support for a recall election. And when Americans from all walks of life got fed up with our leaders ignoring the deepening divide between the haves and the have-nots, they sparked a worldwide movement that has put inequality front and center in our political debate. By taking on these and other big fights, ordinary Americans can prove that governing is what happens while politicians are making other plans.

None of this is easy. Faced with billionaire-funded Super PACs trying to bludgeon their ideological opponents into submission, political institutions so polarized and paralyzed as to be functionally useless, and an entrenched two-party system that often boils down to a choice between right and really far right, it’s very tempting to just give in to cynicism and retreat. But regardless of how much our leaders’ rich buddies chip in for their next campaign, dollars aren’t votes (at least until the Roberts Court says otherwise), and the nice part about being part of the 99% is that we outnumber them. By working together, we have the power to set the agenda and make sure our policymakers don’t keep their jobs unless they keep their promises. In other words, it’s on us to make them do it. This story might seem more implausible than the one where we’re all long-suffering martyrs who are constantly deceived and betrayed by cunning politicians, but it’s almost guaranteed to have a much better ending.

Tim Price is Deputy Editor of Next New Deal.

Share This

Pages