Over at Bloomberg, Matthew Yglesias makes the case for moderating the Biden Administration's policy ambitions. The column argues that many voters prefer stability to massive policy change, and that the Democrats now in power should focus on just a few priorities rather that try to change the whole economic system with very large outlays, backed by correspondingly large tax increases.
I don't wish to opine on the substance of the argument. I do think, however, that the premise is quite correct as a factual matter. Politicians are usually wrong to assume that voters will embrace radical change. In fact, in the recent past, even incremental change has been followed by defeat at the polls. I am thinking for instance of Obamacare, and the subsequent rout of the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. We live in a prosperous country, where things are basically fine. Sure, there are problems and challenges, but most voters are reluctant to embrace radical change for an uncertain payoff.
The founding fathers of the United States wrote in its Constitution many provisions that make it hard to effect change through the political system. Laws must pass both chambers of Congress, sometimes with a supermajority requirement, and be signed by the President. They are then subject to judicial review, where they could get overturned. Getting something radical done has always been hard. But it is even harder now. The reason is the growing heterogeneity of preferences and opinions that animates our very pluralistic population, and the fact that politicians now receive immediate feedback on these preferences and opinions. Want to enact policy A? Those who prefer policy B, or the status quo, will immediately make themselves heard. Want to enact policy B instead? The same thing will occur. Gridlock comes from two sources: the specific institutions of the US, and the set of preferences that feed into these institutions to determine policy. What comes out of this process at present is basically the status quo.
I have said it before, and will say it again: the Democrats' $3.5 trillion plan will not become law. The fact that a mainstream left-leaning columnist like Matt Yglesias calls for moderating it is revealing.
UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi seems to recognize this reality. The issue is whether the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will go along with these scaled-down ambitions. My hunch is that they won't, and this week's vote on the infrastructure package will be a clear test of this prediction.
Professor, will you write about Robert Kagan's recent column "Our constitutional crisis is already here" on Washington Post and Rameshi Ponnuru's disagreement on Bloomberg? It would be great to hear from you about the constitutional crisis debate.
Thank you!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/23/robert-kagan-constitutional-crisis/
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-03/a-u-s-constitutional-crisis-a-2024-coup-let-s-all-take-a-deep-breath
Posted by: David Ning Chen | 10/07/2021 at 09:05 PM