David Brooks thinks that partisans left and right are misreading President Obama:
If you ask a conservative Republican, you are likely to hear that Obama is a skilled politician who campaigned as a centrist but is governing as a big-government liberal. He plays by ruthless, Chicago politics rules. He is arrogant toward foes, condescending toward allies and runs a partisan political machine.
If you ask a liberal Democrat, you are likely to hear that Obama is an inspiring but overly intellectual leader who has trouble making up his mind and fighting for his positions. He has not defined a clear mission. He has allowed the Republicans to dominate debate. He is too quick to compromise and too cerebral to push things through.
You’ll notice first that these two viewpoints are diametrically opposed. You’ll, observe, second, that they are entirely predictable. Political partisans always imagine the other side is ruthlessly effective and that the public would be with them if only their side had better messaging. And finally, you’ll notice that both views distort reality. They tell you more about the information cocoons that partisans live in these days than about Obama himself.
The fact is, Obama is as he always has been, a center-left pragmatic reformer. Every time he tries to articulate a grand philosophy — from his book “The Audacity of Hope†to his joint-session health care speech last September — he always describes a moderately activist government restrained by a sense of trade-offs. He always uses the same on-the-one-hand-on-the-other sentence structure. Government should address problems without interfering with the dynamism of the market.
I think that Mr. Brooks is correct as far as he goes. However, I don’t think you can characterize President Obama’s core beliefs, his essence, without mentioning two factors.
First, it is my sincere opinion that President Obama believes in equality. I think it’s his core belief, a belief closely related to Bill Clinton’s core belief in racial equality. And I also genuinely believe that he is a technocrat. I think that any other explanation for how he has responded to the financial crisis, how he has handled healthcare reform, how he has approached Afghanistan, or any number of other issues is unbearably weak. He’s left vital parts of all of these to the experts and he’s suffered politically for it.
I agree and the reason he has suffered politically is becuase technocracy never lives up to the expectation. One aspect of technocracy is what you got with the old school Keynesian macro-economics. Tweak spending like so, increase inflation like that…and ta-da!!! No more recession. In fact, no more recessions ever. We’ll smooth out the business cycle. Of course looking back at the last 65 years and what do we see….Recessions. Stagflation. Macroeconomics undergoing massive transformation. The shift from “macroeconomics” to “monetary theory”. And finally, the conclusion that, “No, no you can’t smooth out the business cycle.”
All too often people think of things in a mechanistic fashion, like a car engine. So, we’ll just get the mechanic to fix the parts that are broken. Problem is the economy and society in general is not like a mechanical system. It is a system comprised of millions of interacting biological organisms that change over time. The orgranisms that were there 20 years ago may no longer be around, or there are quite a few less of them. The organisms learn and can adapt their behavior to their surroundings. So when the mechanic tinkers, they just don’t necessarily keep doing what they are doing, they might do something slightly different or even surprisingly different.
Think of it in terms of game theory (quite simplified). An individual is going to select a startegy that is going to maximize their objective given whatever strategy the other players select. So, a technocrat comes along, assumes everyone will keep using strategy s* and implements his plan p*. But then people note the change in the technocrats strategy and switch to s’. That is the simplified version. To make really hammer home the complexity of the problem the “game” in questions is really an infinitely repeated game (or more accurately each player is playing a game that they don’t know when it will stop). In that case we can invoke the folk theorem which says that any concievable outcome is possible (so long as the players minimax conditions are met). In that case the number of possible solutions is extremely large, and in many cases infinite. So where is the game going to end up? I haven’t a clue, and neither does the technocrat, but they love to pretend that they do.
Wo, that was not intellectually honest Steve. You know as well as I that the dominant macro theory over the last 30 years has been a bastardized Chicago school approach. Supply side and Randian deregulation, believing that businesses and banks will best regulate themselves. The deep capture on this is wide spread.
I think the neo-Keynesians probably outnumber the true Keyensians, but I really dont remember any of them saying that the business cycle would be eliminated. Please feel free to cite any respectable economist who believed that. Certainly what you see written be main line Keynesian types, like DeLong, is that government spending can be used during recessions to shore up the economy, but this needs to be offset during better times by either reduced spending or adequate economic growth to drive down debt as a percentage of GDP. This is the course we followed until 1980. Just look at the raw numbers.
I do agree that government cannot really fix the economy. I am skeptical about the government role in job creation. While I think there is a role for economic stabilization and safety nets, actual creation needs to be done by the private sector. My only caveat here would be on issues like health care. I think that health care is an issue for which the private sector cannot adequately cope without some sort of government interference at this point. It simply will not and cannot fix itself. The incentives are aimed at increased growth. We need to make it possible for small businesses to grow and function absent the burdens and fears of health care issues.
Steve
What’s the opposite of a technocrat?
Any president sets spending priorities, attempts to raise or lower taxes, negotiates more free or less free trade agreements, adds or subtracts regulation.
So one way or the other isn’t any president’s policy going to affect the economy? And whether they’re going left or right aren’t they by definition falling into what Steve V. sees as an inherently foolish attempt to manage the economy?
So what’s the alternative? I’m not trying to be facetious, it just occurred to me that the term technocrat — one I’ve certainly used — doesn’t appear to have a real world opposite.
Probably the closest to an opposite would be a complete free market, laissez-faire type.
Steve
But a free-market, laissez-faire president is an odd fish to contemplate, isn’t he/she? What would this person do? Because he would of course have to do something — attempt to set taxe rates, negotiate free trade agreements, make budget requests, etc…
So a laissez-faire president would have to be an activist “technocratic” president. Unless he was to simply leave everything as is.
The opposite of a technocrat is a democrat.
The issue is one of process. If you leave the decision to the experts, you’re a technocrat. If you hire experts to get their informed opinions, and then make the decision yourself, you’re an autocrat.
If you do what has the support of the people, either by cultivating the support first or by figuring out where the parade is going and getting in front of it, you’re a democrat.
As I have said repeatedly here in the past, I have two problems with technocracy. The first is that it relies on a misunderstanding of how much experts actually know. They aren’t oracles. They just have informed opinions. Unfortunately, lots of experts are willing to let you believe that they’re experts on everything. Nearly every public intellectual falls into this category.
The second problem is that experts are human beings, too, with foibles, idiosyncrasies, and agendas of their own.
And where do the “people” get their ideas? Let’s make this concrete and use health care. Health care reform was clearly a major issue in the last election. People polled, still do, as wanting health care reform. How does that then translate into policy? Again, almost every single idea in the current bill polls as popular. Yet, put it together, and it does not. Is this because people really understand the bill or because they do not. What do you do when you are out front and people are frightened by disinformation?
Of course this all ignores the media and the ability of the wealthy and elites to shape the conversation. You will always need expert advice and opinion to transform any idea into an actual law or policy, so every politician will be a technocrat in the broad sense. Only the anarcho-capitalist who is willing to let markets regulate themselves and do away with most organized government avoids the label entirely.
Steve
The question is what is the role of experts in policy-making? My view would be that experts should inform policies, not make them.
Calling something “concrete” doesn’t make it concrete, Steve.
First, polling does not indicate what you’ve suggested. Polling indicates that some components of healthcare reform are popular, some are not. Essentially, the benefits are popular and the costs aren’t. Advocates from one side or the other can cherry-pick the results how they will.
Second, you have apparently concluded that any possible opposition isn’t principled but misguided and, apparently, maliciously misguided. That’s not concrete. That’s a generalization.
My own view is that there are lots of people who are reasoning from what they know and can observe rather than being sold a bill of goods by the unscrupulous.
But all of this is beside the point. I think that President Obama has made the same error that President Clinton did before him. He’s relied too heavily on the experts rather than building popular support first.
In practical effect there may be no difference between a president who is technocrat, autocrat or democrat.
It’s mistaken I think to imagine that experts form their opinions without reference to what they perceive as the president’s preferences. In other words, an expert, in order to wield power, must himself be a bit of a democrat, or at least a toady. In any event it remains the president’s choice, the president’s agenda whether explicit or implicit.
In the current iteration of our system any POTUS influences experts who then tell him what he wants to hear, or he influences public opinion and then pretends to follow it. But a person with great power cannot pretend to surrender decision-making — his “non-decisions” are equally decisions. And even if he were to keep entirely mum, experts would still be bending their suggestions to fit whatever they perceive to be his preference.
This connects a bit to the theological problem of evil in the world. God cannot pretend to take a hands-off approach because a refusal to act is an act, a refusal to intervene is an intervention. Similarly with a president.
Of that there can be little doubt. He did what he thought was right, (and do-able) rather than acting as a purely political animal. Of course this is exactly what the voters claim to want — until they get it.
Michael, your comment evokes H. L. Mencken’s wisecrack:
I think that Aristotle might have agreed with you, Michael. According to his system of categorizing government, tyranny (autocracy) was the corrupt form of rule by an individual, oligarchy (of which technocracy is one form) was the corrupt form of rule by a group, and democracy was the corrupt form of a polity, rule by the many. What they all have in common is that they’re corrupt.
“Second, you have apparently concluded that any possible opposition isn’t principled but misguided and, apparently, maliciously misguided. That’s not concrete. That’s a generalization.”
When the opposition opened with death panels, what am I to think? When a better bill was available, Wyden’s, what am I to think when all of the sponsors from the right bailed on it? When the opposition begins to oppose any cuts in Medicare spending, what am I to think? Yes, there are principled objections that can be made to this bill. There are some who make them. They are not generally the arguments that are generating the most publicity.
“Essentially, the benefits are popular and the costs aren’t.”
Exactly. Which deserves an honest debate on the trade offs. Not exactly what we get.
Steve
steve,
30 < 65. Jesus can't believe I had to point that out. I mean really, I put a short description of the evolution of macro-economics and this is the bullshit I get. This is not the Journal of Economic Perspectives.
You get an F on you economic history final exam. That was indeed the thinking in the late even into the 1970s by some with the advent of computers and large scale macroeconometric models. Of course, it all came to pretty much a bad end when the models just didn’t work quite the way they thought they would.
This is still technocratic thinking to a large extent in that it assumes that these policy insturments are being used by experts, but inreality are used by politicians with agendas that may or may not coincide with what is best for the economy as a whole.
And you call me intellectually dishonest? Really? Please explain how in 57 of the last 65 years we ran a deficit? If we are going to follow the path you’ve described we shoult have had far fewer years of deficits. Even going from say, 1950 – 1979 we still have 27 years of deficit out of 31.
Sure the debt shrunk, as did the deficit from war time highs, but was it due to the policy you describe or letting economic growth do the job? It was the latter. I suppose you can give politicians credit for not keeping those deficits sky high, but kind of hard to when the war is over. You are right that deficit spending shifted upwards, but that shift started early, more like in the 1970’s vs. the 1980’s.
I did and you are wrong.
1955 – 1965 Defict as a percentage of GDP: -0.6%
1966 – 1976 Deficit as a percentage of GDP: -1.8%
1977 – 1987 Deficit as a percentage of GDP: -3.7%
1988 – 1998 Deficit as a percentage of GDP: -3.5%
It seems pretty clear that much earlier than you’ve claimed there was a erosion in the view that persistent deficits are a bad thing.
Michael,
You are thinking of a 20th century president, prior to this type of presidency the President didn’t do nearly as much and the Supreme Court wouldn’t let them even if they wanted too. Now…well, the President and Congress have had their power expanded so much there isn’t much that they can’t regulate if they really want too.
steve,
Fallacy of composition. Why is this so hard to understand?
So a bill with 53 items has each item being popular, but as a whole the bill is not. Is it because while some people like one or two of the items they despise the rest? Or maybe it is the huge cost associated with the entire bill? Or that with all 53 it expands the power of government in an area people are uncomfortable with. Or all of the above.
Lets make this concrete. I like:
coconut,
salsa,
scotch (preferable an Islay),
pizza,
peanut butter,
spicy tuna rolls,
mango
Now, suppose we mix all the solids together and we will take a bite and wash it down with the scotch…will it taste good? I submit it will most likly taste like sh*t.
More intellectual dishonesty. That is one part of the opposition. That one segment of those opposed to it does not mean that all who are opposed to the HCR bills share that view. So what are you to think? How about just thinking. That would be a nice change.
See that part in Dave’s post about government being corrupt.
No, because they are not catchy. For that you should blame the people making those wild arguments….and the media for giving them such play. Damn those creative genius types again!
And there lies the problem with technocracy and why will always fail. An honest debate about policy trade offs is boring. The politician that grand stands, makes wild comments and exaggerates, distorts and even outright lies will get much more press.
“He did what he thought was right, (and do-able) rather than acting as a purely political animal. Of course this is exactly what the voters claim to want — until they get it.”
Gulp. I have to agree with Michael on this. I despise the health care bill as a monstrous mistake. But the word y’all are looking for is leadership. Obama is demonstrating it on this issue, much as I disagree with him. But he is leading.
What else. I see Steve V pretty much bitch slapped steve all over the place. Not surprising. I’m sure steve is a fine fellow and good at what he does. But on “matters business and economique” not so much.
You guys might have some fun here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1950_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=40-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=c
Make sure you create the graphs as a pct of GDP. In particular, look at the absolute (perhaps US bankrupting) explosion in government health care and pension expenditures once they got in the game. And now we want Obama Care?? Hire a bankruptcy lawyer.
Also interesting are the defense and transportation graphs. Starving government “should do’s” to hand out goodies. 50 years of irresponsibility coming home to roost.
Fun chart, in looking at health care as a percentage of GDP I have to say it shows why I disagree with Dave about the impact of Medicare, or at least as how I remember Dave’s view of Medicare–that is had a one time effect on spending. The legislation was passed in 1965 and look at the health care chart, we see a sudden change in the trajectory of spending that really has yet to change. I think that is one reason why growth rates have been so high. We have more people, longer life expectancy, and new medical procdures. Intuitively the impact of these three factors would be to put upward pressure on government health care expenditures over time.
So…until you do something about Medicare, health care will remain a problem. You can expand it, you can make money saving changes around the edges here and there, but in the end, what is going to kill us is the escalation of costs that is far out pacing our economic growth to support such spending. Will we “find the money somewhere”? No. There are no hidden room with lots of money to put this issue off indefinitely. Anyone who thinks there is is delusional.
And what makes this problem almost impossible to deal with is our system of government. If the Democrats step up and say, “We need to fix Medicare to fix health care costs,” the Republicans will use that to beat them. If the Republicans do it, the Democrats will use it to beat up the Republicans come election time. By putting this kind of thing into the realm of politics we’ve made the problem pretty much intractable.
This is why I disagree with steve when he says that government has to get involved. It is involved and that is a significant part of the problem. Look at that chart. Was the Medicare Prescription Drug Blackhole sound policy?
“The legislation was passed in 1965 and look at the health care chart, we see a sudden change in the trajectory of spending that really has yet to change. I think that is one reason why growth rates have been so high. We have more people, longer life expectancy, and new medical procdures.”
And, of course, all paid on someone elses nickel. Or so they thought.
“Will we “find the money somewhereâ€? No. There are no hidden room with lots of money to put this issue off indefinitely.”
“We” have milked defense and infrastructure for about as long as possible. Perhaps the defense tit has some milking left. But not much. Obama’s racist preacher may yet be correct: “chickens coming home to roost.” Reaching out – Bernard Finel: are you ready for 70% tax rates? Or do you want to reign in the alcoholic-like spending binge.
“This is why I disagree with steve when he says that government has to get involved. It is involved and that is a significant part of the problem. Look at that chart. Was the Medicare Prescription Drug Blackhole sound policy?”
Truer words have never been spoken.
Was reading over at Cafe Hayek and came across this and thought it applied to the issue of technocracy.
http://cafehayek.com/2010/03/unreasonable-reason.html