On a warm spring day in 1985, late in the afternoon, I found myself in Washington seated in the office of that quintessential
ALSO SEE:
Exposure to Other Viewpoints Is Vital to Democracy
Irish politician, Boston’s own Speaker of the House, Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill. I had just spent the best part of a week talking to members of Congress about student aid, trying to counter President Reagan’s annual assault on federal scholarships and loans. It had been slow, painstaking work. Now that I had finished my rounds, it was time to report on my activities to the lawmaker who happened not only to lead the House but also to represent the district in which my university stood.
Thinking back on what I had seen and heard, I could not help being struck by how engaged and articulate all of the legislators had seemed, and how informed they were about the arcane details of student aid. Surely these people were a far cry from the prevailing image of Washington politicians, an image that provoked such disapproval from the public. Thus, having finished my business with the Speaker, and noting that he had just lit a cigar and settled back in his chair, I felt moved to ask a question that had nothing to do with the purpose of my visit. “You have been in this building for over 30 years, Mr. Speaker,” I began. “Looking back, do you believe that the quality of people elected to Congress has gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed the same?” Without a moment’s hesitation, Mr. O’Neill replied, “The quality is clearly better, much better.” He paused, puffed on his cigar, and added ruefully: “But the results are definitely worse.”
I’ve often wondered about the Speaker’s reply. Has the federal government’s performance truly declined over the past few decades, and in what respects has it fallen short? If the abilities of our lawmakers have increased, why has their effectiveness diminished? Finally, are there ways to improve the government’s performance without producing results that could make the cure even worse than the disease?
Different people answer these questions in different ways, depending on their vantage point. Large majorities of the public have harsh words to say about politics, politicians, and the policy-making process. But these unflattering views are not necessarily shared by those who make their living keeping a close watch on events in Washington. As one might expect, most members of Congress have a much better opinion of their colleagues than does the general public, and feel surprisingly positive about the operations of the federal government as a whole. Journalists are much more critical than politicians, but they often disagree with the public and with one another about exactly what has gone wrong. To confuse matters further, political scientists who try to test empirically how the system actually works frequently reach results that contradict impressions held by all the other interested groups.
Resolving these differences is important, for the performance of public officials at all levels matters much more to the nation than it did when the 20th century began. Over the past 60 years, Americans have come to ask more and more of their government, as newer concerns for economic security, the environment, access to health care, racial and gender equality, and consumer protection have joined more-traditional demands for national defense and essential services. Now that citizens have come to depend on the State, to meet so many of their needs, their welfare depends more than ever before on how well their government performs.
The multiple responsibilities of the federal government give it exceptional opportunities to serve the people and fulfill their aspirations, especially now that America has amassed such impressive wealth and power. As President Clinton observed in his final State of the Union speech: “Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis or external threats. Never before have we had such a blessed opportunity -- and, therefore, such a profound obligation -- to build the more perfect union of our founders’ dreams.”
At the same time, the government also has exceptional capacities to frustrate and disappoint its citizens. Now that its programs and policies affect so many lives in such important ways, people suffer more acutely when the results fall short of expectations. In practical terms, a shoddy performance by public officials today can mean inadequate schooling for children, hunger for needy families, sluggish growth or even a recession for the economy, useless training for workers seeking job skills, substandard health care, polluted air, and a host of other misfortunes.
Those consequences are sobering enough, but they are not the only reason for concern. Eventually, persistent disappointment over the government’s performance could deepen and solidify the public’s loss of trust and confidence in its officials and in their capacity to help people achieve their goals. Distrust of government, of course, is not a new phenomenon in this country; it was widespread even at the time the Constitution was drafted, when America was blessed with statesmen of the stature of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. What is unique about the past quarter-century is that, for the first time in our history, citizens combine a profound distrust of the federal establishment with a set of ambitious national objectives that no society on earth has achieved without the active leadership of the State.
Although a measure of skepticism toward govment can be healthy for any democracy, suspicion can easily become excessive. Whereas too much trust allows officials to grow complacent and irresponsible, severe distrust can make it impossible to muster the support needed to act effectively when circumstances require. Voters may be unwilling to accept additional taxes and quick to condemn the most enlightened proposals to deal with pressing national problems. Administrators may react defensively by exercising tighter control over subordinates and adhering rigidly to established rules and procedures. Courts may respond by imposing more-elaborate procedural safeguards to protect citizens against the threat of official mistakes. Cooperation may suffer if officials lack the confidence to work closely with one another. Compromise will become more difficult. In all these ways, excessive distrust may cause the government to become more cautious, more indecisive, more bureaucratic, and less capable of responding effectively to people’s needs.
A common belief in the Constitution and in the system of government it provides has long been the strongest bond uniting America’s highly diverse society. Now that Communism has been discredited, however, and memories of the Soviet Union have faded, Americans could conceivably lose sight of just how precious our political system is. If election after election yields results dissatisfying to the people, voters might gradually come to suspect that it is not only officials who are creating a problem, but also the institutions in which they serve.
The immediate risk for this country is not a repudiation of the system; support for our constitutional framework is overwhelming and is likely to remain so, at least as long as the economy does tolerably well and most Americans continue to be content with their own personal circumstances. The dangers come in a quieter, more passive form. Louis Brandeis once described the government as “the potent, the omnipresent teacher,” as it has clearly proved to be in articulating the essential framework of our social order: our basic liberties, our fundamental standards of fairness, our equality of rights enjoyed by different races, genders, and ethnic groups. Continued lack of confidence in public officials and diminished respect for the work they do could eventually weaken the moral authority of the State and thus hamper it in carrying out a role that is essential to any society, especially one as diverse as ours.
Persistent distrust can also corrode the foundations of government in another way. A healthy democracy requires the active involvement of substantial numbers of citizens. Persistent doubts about the way the government is working, the value of politics, and the relevance of elections could accentuate the political apathy that has already driven voting turnouts and participation in civic affairs to uncomfortably low levels. For almost half a century, each new generation has participated less in politics and public affairs than its predecessor. Eventually, these trends could reach a point that would threaten the legitimacy of the political process and weaken the cohesion of the society itself.
In anything as vast and complicated as a national government, there will be many factors at work and many reforms worth considering. Many of the government’s failings are not primarily the result of scheming politicians, incompetent bureaucrats, or selfish interest groups; they have their roots in attitudes and behaviors that are widely shared among the people themselves. Much of the fault, in other words, lies not in Washington but in ourselves.
Of particular concern is the current tendency of many Americans to proceed down two contradictory paths. On the one hand, voters have more influence over their government than at any time in recent memory, and they would like even greater control by deciding more policy issues by referendum, devolving more authority to local officials, and replacing professional politicians with people like themselves through the use of term limits. On the other hand, while wishing to exert more influence, Americans are devoting decreasing amounts of time to politics and public life -- voting less, attending fewer political meetings, reading less about events in Washington, even listening less to speeches by the president.
This is an ominous trend. The public’s growing lack of interest in civic affairs contributes in important ways to the deficiencies and frustrations that trouble people most about their government. Ignoring this fact merely causes us to pin our hopes on ineffective remedies, leading eventually to even more frustration and finger-pointing. Until we are prepared to take our role as citizens more seriously, there is little prospect that institutional tinkering and election reforms can accomplish enough to ease our discontent.
What can the country do to restore a proper balance between citizen influence and civic responsibility? Two possibilities come to mind. The first is to cut back the obligations of citizenship so that they are more closely aligned with the modest effort Americans seem willing to devote to public affairs. The second is to find ways to increase active and informed participation by citizens.
There is much to be said for the first approach. Americans are asked to go to the polls more often and make up their minds about a greater number of candidates and elections than any other citizenry in the world. Through ballot initiatives and private polls, their opinions are solicited, recorded, and publicized on more issues than in other major democracies. This multitude of choices and opportunities would be fine if Americans also led the world in their zeal to participate in the democratic process. Yet they show no sign of taking a greater interest in politics or devoting more time than do citizens of other democracies to inform themselves about candidates and current issues. If anything, they seem less engaged and less informed. Under these conditions, rather than deplore the apathy and indifference of so many Americans, why not fall in line with other major democracies by pruning back our civic responsibilities?
One way of compensating for the lack of civic participation would be to encourage the continued growth of lobbying groups and advocacy organizations, so that they will represent as many interests and segments of the population as possible. Through this process, citizens can delegate most of their civic duties to representatives who are willing to work hard at promoting their interests in Washington and advising them on how to vote and communicate with public officials on matters important to their welfare.
Americans are far along this road already. The innumerable groups and organizations that currently exist in Washington play a useful role in helping to ensure that more and more interests are represented in the policy-making process. Through the efforts of the Concord Coalition to combat huge federal deficits, even the voice of unborn generations has resonated loudly through the corridors of power.
At the same time, interest groups cannot do everything. The most completely organized society will not fully compensate for an apathetic citizenry. However hard they try, lobbyists are unlikely to have much influence if their members do not vote. With all the will in the world, they cannot overcome the adverse results of declining turnouts on the quality of elections, or remedy the vast inequalities of wealth and political influence among different interests and segments of the population.
A dense network of advocacy groups will also fail in several ways to serve the national interest. A society so organized will teem with vested interests struggling to preserve the status quo and to keep policy makers from terminating outmoded programs or unnecessary benefits and subsidies. A cacophony of appeals from lobbying groups will not help citizens form a balanced judgment on which candidates to choose or what policies to support to further the general welfare. Nor will a host of contending organizations representing particular interests do much to preserve our democracy as a unifying force for America’s diverse society. If anything, relying more on interest groups to make democracy work will deepen the divisions separating different elements of the population.
Commentators have suggested a number of other ways by which to lighten the load of civic responsibilities. Some political scientists would limit the use of primary elections, arguing that media-dominated campaigns coupled with low turnouts lead to the selection of photogenic candidates who can raise a lot of money but often lack the skills to govern. Other groups are trying to curb the growth of direct democracy by restricting the use of ballot initiatives. George Will even favors term limits -- not for the reasons that animate most supporters, but in the hope that such a reform will blunt the impact of popular opinion by bringing candidates to power who are not professional politicians pandering to the public and guided by poll results, but private citizens willing to exercise their independent judgment.
Whatever one may think of these proposals, they are likely to encounter strong popular resistance. Why would angry, frustrated voters agree to limit their own powers and grant more discretion to the very politicians they distrust? Americans may be less and less active politically, but opinion surveys suggest that they want more power, not less. They will certainly not agree to do away with primary elections and go back to political conventions dominated by party regulars. Nor will they favor limitations on the number of ballot initiatives; in fact, large majorities favor greater use of the device. Term limits have a brighter future -- but not for the reasons that persuade George Will. Moreover, they are unlikely to work the way he anticipates. Instead of producing a body of strong, independent-minded legislators, they may simply give rise to a crop of inexperienced lawmakers who rely too much on staff members, lobbyists, or executive-branch officials for information and advice. Few knowledgeable observers believe that the country would be better served as a result.
A different strategy for limiting the citizens’ role is to give more policy-making authority to entities made up of experienced people who are neither elected nor subject to strong grassroots pressures. One way of achieving such a result would be to expand the role of the judiciary. Another would be to create more independent agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission. Still another would be to utilize expert bodies, like the commission of elder statesmen proposed by George Kennan to give advisory opinions to Congress and the president on long-term problems facing the country.
The United States has already gone further than any other country in allowing the courts to make decisions that are the prerogative of elected officials in other democratic nations. More remarkable still, judges have wielded these powers and retained greater respect from the people than any other branch of government. But the power of the judiciary may have reached its limit. At the zenith of judicial activism, in the 1970’s, courts were presiding over entire school districts, prison systems, and mental-health facilities in response to recalcitrant or incompetent government officials. By all accounts, the experience was neither attractive to the judges involved nor especially effective as a permanent method of administering public services. The courts have since retreated from that high-water mark of judicial activism and show little sign of wanting to return.
Commissions made up of eminent figures have long been used to address specific problems, such as housing policy and race relations. At times, their work has educated the public, stimulated debate, and collected much useful data on important subjects. Occasionally, they have helped to resolve difficult issues, as in the case of the bipartisan commission appointed to reform Social Security in the early 1980’s. More often, however, they have simply been a convenient device for presidents to build support for political decisions already made or to satisfy the public that something is being done about problems that have aroused widespread concern. More-ambitious efforts to use such bodies for policy-making purposes can easily come to naught. The saga of Hillary Clinton’s commission to reform the health-care system is the most spectacular recent example.
Despite these reservations, there are a few measures to limit the citizens’ role that could bring about positive results. The most promising would be to require voters to choose among party slates rather than making separate choices among the candidates for a long list of offices. That would give citizens a task that is much more within their powers, while providing some sorely needed accountability for the work of Congress. Those advantages, however, would almost certainly fail to persuade politicians and would probably not even convince the citizenry. Americans may not wish to spend much time preparing to vote, but they resist any effort to limit the range of their election choices.
Even if citizens were more accommodating, no effort to shrink their responsibilities can repair all of the damage done by apathy and disengagement. Americans could agree to limit the choices they make in the voting booths, eliminate primaries, and give more responsibility to expert commissions, but they would still have to know enough to vote intelligently in presidential and Congressional elections. As long as politicians keep paying attention to opinion polls, the public will need to inform itself sufficiently to reach a reasoned judgment. If programs of school reform, public housing, and law enforcement are to work properly, local communities must continue to organize and participate to help the effort succeed. If our society is to protect itself from dividing along ethnic or economic or ideological lines, Americans will still need to strengthen the common bonds of civic commitment.
In sum, if we are to keep our democracy strong and narrow the gap between the influence citizens possess and the effort they devote to public affairs, we are unlikely to succeed by trying to curtail the powers of the people. Americans would not agree to such proposals, nor would our democracy necessarily be improved as a result. The obvious alternative is to look for ways of encouraging citizens to give more time and energy to their civic responsibilities.
Fortunately, there are a wide variety of practical measures we can take to revive political participation. Schools can strengthen their programs in civic education, which have fallen into neglect as a result of the overriding urge to focus curricula on preparing the workforce for a global economy. College faculties can explicitly consider ways of preparing citizens by making sure that all students have a basic grounding in American government, by tying community-service projects to the curriculum to show, for example, the connection of homelessness and poverty to public policy, and by encouraging all students to vote. Programs of national service can be expanded. Federal and state governments can increase levels of financing for public-affairs programming on television, recognizing that the United States spends far less for this purpose than any other advanced democracy. Educational and civic organizations can arrange discussions of current issues of public policy. Officials at all levels of government can experiment with new Internet technologies to make more information about government available to the public and to develop new forums for debating current issues. States can provide for same-day voter registration and look for new ways to raise turnout by making voting easier.
In the end, Americans will get the quality of government they deserve. No easy remedies or institutional fixes will cure our discontents as long as so many citizens continue to look upon the State merely as an entity to supply them with services in return for paying taxes. Democracy is a collective venture that falters or flourishes depending on the efforts citizens invest in its behalf. Until Americans acknowledge this fact and act accordingly, they are unlikely to get the kind of government they want or see their country achieve many of the goals to which they aspire.
Derek C. Bok is president emeritus and university professor of Harvard University. This article is adapted from his book The Trouble with Government, just published by Harvard University Press. All rights reserved.
http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Page: B7