What the Paulites Have Right

(1) There is nothing sacred about the Fed (2) Power is overly centralized in the Executive branch and the federal government (3) Power is overly concentrated in agencies that are not designed to be responsive

We ought not get rid of the Fed--I would fight hard to keep it--but it's a critical point, because once people realize the flexibility of our federal government, they can open up their imaginations about what is possible in response to this, or any other, crisis. We need not put all our trust in Bernanke, let alone Geithner or his replacement (if he gets replaced); Congress actually can lead on nationalizing the banks and reorganizing them.

My own hope is that we first shift power away from the executive to the Congressional branch--this only requires that we speak differently, collectively. Instead of "what should Obama do...?" or "what should Geithner do...?" about the banking crisis, we ought always be asking, "what should Pelosi do...?" and "what should my Congressmember do...?" If we talk differently, we will start holding different people accountable. We will, and can, demand more imagination and leadership from our Congressional representatives.

Second, I hope that we increasingly shift power to local governments. Collective decisions about health care and education are best answered on a local level. A government should not become too big to fulfill one of its most basic functions: representation.

I am very far away from libertarianism in other areas; I would like to see more investment in education, more investment in health care, more collective choices made about our collective societies. The only way I see it functioning (without nonresponsive agencies) is if we distribute all of these public goods via smaller state governments. More government, not less--but more of it local. The libertarian argument and the G20-protesters arguments share a common, and common-sense thread: we cannot design systems that are inherently non-responsive, either because of scale or by design, and then expect them to be responsive to our collective needs and wisdom during a time of crisis.

Comments (20)

1. See, Ms Teachout, you've reached the essential illumination of politics.

   NEITHER side completely in the wrong nor completely in the right. The redemption of the Republicans COULD come at a real embrace of a stance more in alignment with that. Their problem, as naturally is the Democrats, is their more authoritarian, top-heavy base.

   Despite all their calls for "smaller government", they have an authoritarian streak worse than the "Big Gov" liberals. A local poster here is fully invested in a near authoritarian view of the powers of the President (he's fair...he allows them for Obama too). Similarly, as we saw with Terri Schiavo, they are MORE than happy to stick their noses in both family issues, much less State issues.

   The Paulines (my term, since it borders more on a cult/religion) and the locals (again no names) who live in fear and dread of the Federal Reserve MAY have a few points...it's simply their paranoia that paints them as wackos.

   But you're right...."A government should not become too big to fulfill one of its most basic functions: representation."

   An element lost I'm sure on some of your colleagues at "TN".

   Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 09:07am

2. "what should Pelosi do...?"

   Retire.

   Posted by crabwalk at 04/13/2009 @ 10:15am

3. I recognize that there's danger in centralization, but why not take some of the reasoning a step further? Though there's some basis to believe that local government is more likely to be responsive than national government, there's also the danger of catering either to majorities or to excessively power minorities (like corporations). Concerns such as these seem to justify limited (but obviously not "bathtub-drownable") government on BOTH the national AND the local arenas.

   Posted by Thrawn at 04/13/2009 @ 10:56am

4. "We will, and can, demand more imagination and leadership from our Congressional representatives."

   posted by Zephyr Teachout on 04/13/2009 @ 08:25am

   Perhaps the best way to "demand more imagination" is to limit the number of times a person can run for political office. Folks like Kennedy and Byrd are way past their time to go. They're not fresh daisies, ya know.

   Posted by ACook at 04/13/2009 @ 12:26pm

5. posted by ZEPHYR TEACHOUT on 04/13/2009 @ 08:25am

   When Federal enhancements to unemployment insurance, just a short time ago, were offered to the state governments, in a time of need, some state governors and Congressional figures threatened to reject or rejected the aid. Political ideology was at work. Likewise, on issues like family planning, some states, when given the option by the Federal government, attempt to bar health care products and services to their populations. In both cases, common sense and the basic well-being of large numbers of people was threatened by state officials acting to position themselves politically for career-enhancing election bids or simply acting out of pure ideological lunacy.

   In terms of major political footballs like Federal Reserve response to economic problems, or taxpayer bailouts of private businesses, or government involvement in the provision of health care, it seems likely to me that state or "regional" figures would be very likely to consider issues besides what their regional populations need most in the regime of "enhanced local politics" you're talking about.

   Can you rectify for me what you'd like to see done regionally - at the state level for example - with what state or regional officials generally do with Federal monies and mandates that give them broad freedoms to decide how things proceed?

   Posted by syfriendly at 04/13/2009 @ 2:14pm

6. Great question Sy, which I can't address today--mostly because I'm prepping for class--but so appreciate your question and want to engage exactly where you are.

   The short version is I think local governments, simply because of scale, are harder to corrupt on the big issues (imagine a 6 billion person democracy--how much responsiveness would there be there). There's evidence that more progressive policies have better luck at local levels, in health, environment, elsewhere. This isn't unadulterated good, there are real risks, but that scale matters, in gov as in business--

   Posted by zephyrteachout at 04/13/2009 @ 2:43pm

7. (imagine a 6 billion person democracy--how much responsiveness would there be there).---Posted by zephyrteachout at 04/13/2009 @ 2:43pm

   Good gosh, Ms Teachout. You making the case AGAINST "world government"?!?!?!?

   Not disagreeing, just an odd crop of progressiveses we're raising this year!

   Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 3:36pm

8. Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 3:36pm

   mmmmm, aren't progressives by definition and odd crop? As posted on another thread, Kennedy to Trotsky to Gore to Nader to Obama.

   Posted by crabwalk at 04/13/2009 @ 3:52pm

9. ZT, you are absolutely right about our attitudes toward individual politicians. At worst, we assume that all bad politics comes from bad apples. We are a little closer to the mark when we realize that bad politics comes from good people with antiquated ideologies.

   But our problems are not only ideological; they are also structural. Merely THINKING that the Congress is more powerful, or fervently wishing that it were, won't make it ACTUALLY more powerful. That would require some structural, not merely ideological change.

   Of course, structural changes won't happen any time soon; they require Constitutional amendments or even the crafting of a new Constitution at a new Constitutional convention. However, NOW is the time to talk about the structural changes we want to see SOMEDAY.

   I would like to see the Electoral College ABOLISHED. I would like to limit the Presidential veto so that it may be used in only two ways: to block unconstitutional bills and to cut spending on all items in a bill equally and proportionally, so as to avoid deficits. THIS will reduce the power of the President relative to the Congress.

   I would like to see the Senate representing people rather than states equally (as the House of Representatives does), and I would like to curtail its power with respect to the House of Representatives, or (if possible) get rid of the Senate altogether and to confer its powers upon a unicameral Congress. I would like all Congresspeople to be elected by proportional means, such as IRV.

   I would like the Justices of the Supreme Court to serve non-renewable terms of no more than eight years.

   As for the general idea that federal power should be decentralized to the states, I think that first we need to shrink corporations down to a manageable size.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 04/13/2009 @ 7:43pm

10. Posted by zephyrteachout at 04/13/2009 @ 2:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Another question: given the degree to which the national Congress is completely occupied by big-dollar special interest lobbies - representing interests normally completely divorced from the bettering of the lives of the general public , or from doing things that are better for more people in general - why would you want to see the Congress more in the driver's seat?

    The only advantage to enhancing the Congress I see is countering the generally regressive tendencies of the executive administrations. The trouble is, though, that enhancing the Congress means you end up with the generally regressive tendencies of Tom DeLay or Nancy Pelosi. There is generally broad bi-partisan corruption in the Congress, they can be counted on in general to do bad things. For example, just last week, 20% of the Senate - 20 Democrats - voted to raise the exemption level for the estate tax. These Democrats, including "liberals" like Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, voted for a completely regressive economic policy which is about protecting the inheritances of the wealthiest members of society at any cost, including enhancing a dynastic wealth system now in place in the US.

    How do you see a more empowered Congress somehow not just being a worse example of what we already have?

    Posted by syfriendly at 04/13/2009 @ 7:56pm

11. I would like to limit the Presidential veto so that it may be used in only two ways: to block unconstitutional bills and to cut spending on all items in a bill equally and proportionally, so as to avoid deficits. THIS will reduce the power of the President relative to the Congress. Posted by JakobFabian at 04/13/2009 @ 7:43pm

    Hmm, back to civics class for you. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That was written in 1803. But you want to transfer the power to decide on constitutionality to the president? How does that reduce his power?

    "I would like the Justices of the Supreme Court to serve non-renewable terms of no more than eight years."

    Good-bye, independent judiciary. Hello, craven politicians pandering to whatever group they think will get them elected.

    "I would like to see the Senate representing people rather than states equally (as the House of Representatives does), and I would like to curtail its power with respect to the House of Representatives, or (if possible) get rid of the Senate altogether and to confer its powers upon a unicameral Congress."

    That would result in a tyranny of the most populous states over the least populous. California is running out of water? Cut a deal with New York, Texas, and Florida, and suddenly there is a pipeline draining the Great Lakes. No thanks.

    "I think that first we need to shrink corporations down to a manageable size."

    Who will decide what a "manageable size" is? High school grads? or MBAs?

    Posted by twillie at 04/13/2009 @ 9:42pm

12. My own hope is that we first shift power away from the executive to the Congressional branch--

    As usual the leftist reveal their LIES concerning the past administration and confront the truth that they DO NOT desire to live under the U.S.A. Constitution or the 3 tenants of the "rule of law" or actually desire the "balance of power" per the constitution. Thanks for speakig your truth on this!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/14/2009 @ 12:07am

13. Posted by comancheamerican at 04/14/2009 @ 12:07am

    RIO, does that mean you DON'T want power shifted away from the Executive?

    An Executive run by....Obama?

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 07:47am

14. The short version is I think local governments, simply because of scale, are harder to corrupt on the big issues (imagine a 6 billion person democracy--how much responsiveness would there be there). There's evidence that more progressive policies have better luck at local levels, in health, environment, elsewhere. This isn't unadulterated good, there are real risks, but that scale matters, in gov as in business--

    Posted by zephyrteachout at 04/13/2009 @ 2:43pm

    I have to disagree with your view that smaller local governments are harder to corrupt. The same thing that works on the national level works at the state and county levels.

    All anyone running for office has to do is say that their opponent is going to raise taxes on the majority of his consituents. Whether this is true or not has no bearing. He with the most sound bites wins.

    Another thing is local businessmen have definitely more say in what goes on in the city planning meetings etc. than your average citizen does. Once again, the campaign money raised to run for these local offices comes from somewhere, and more often than not, it comes from businesses promoting their own bottom line.

    Small or large don't make the case. Laws, and enforcing anti-corruption laws makes things fall in line. Under W, zero enforcement of anything on the books applies to big business or the Bush administration. That is the biggest reason we are in the mess we are in today. We'll continue to be stuck in the mud until some law and order return to D.C. which won't happen anytime soon.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/14/2009 @ 11:32am

15. Who will decide what a "manageable size" is? High school grads? or MBAs?

    Posted by twillie at 04/13/2009 @ 9:42pm

    From what I've seen of most of the business weenie heads, I think we'd be better off letting the high school grads make the decision. They;re less likely to be into graft and corruption than the MBA folks believing they are entitled to undending wealth accumulation.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/14/2009 @ 11:38am

16. BTW, Ms Teachout might get a less favorable opinion of the Ron Paulines, if she read some of their stuff on immigration, race, or how the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is somehow "un-Constitutional because of how it was ratified"!

    Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 12:53pm

17. It seems we are in need of some change in the way we elect our reps and in the way we're governed. As usual we have a lot of input from all sides of the political spectrum running from total to no government.

    Personally, I'm beweildered. I think I want a government of, by, and for the people. I hear this constantly but my eyes see differently. Have we gotten to large for democracy to work as the founders wanted?

    Like most of us here, I believe we must make government responsibe and answering to the people. I'm just not sure how this is to be done.

    I know that we live in a very different time and progress has made a lot of things redundent, still the ideals of freedom to choose or change is part of that liberty we all believe is essential to human well being.

    Posted by awfton at 04/14/2009 @ 2:30pm

18. I know that we live in a very different time and progress has made a lot of things redundent, still the ideals of freedom to choose or change is part of that liberty we all believe is essential to human well being.

    Posted by awfton at 04/14/2009 @ 2:30pm

    I think you are on target. You know the old saying, "Give me liberty, or give me death"? Anymore, I think it has become "give me safety and take my rights becuase I'm scared shitless of death".

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/14/2009 @ 3:20pm

19. I think it is a little premature to dismiss the rest of Ron Paul's message. A few are just now coming to the realization that he has been right {and unwavering} on all the things he has been talking about for the last twenty five years.

    I plan on changing my 4X8 RP yard sign to say "RON PAUL was right but you wouldn't listen". But the problem is, it's alraedy too late.

    Posted by messianicdruid at 04/14/2009 @ 9:12pm

20. "Hmm, back to civics class for you," said "Twillie."

    No need. I never said the US president should be given the power of judicial review. I said that the president's Constitutional veto power should be limited to two applications, one of which would be purely constitutional. The way it is now, the president can veto a bill for any old reason. I'd like the president to provide some serious justification to nullify a Congressional majority.

    I do not share your concern that small states (states with few people, like Alaska) would be victimized by big states (states with many people) if we had no Senate. Give every voter's vote the same weight, and let the people be equal to each other, and nobody will victimize anybody else. The Senate was created in part to make the math easier for Southern slaveocrats to preserve slavery by admitting as many slave states as free states to the union. It is no accident that the Confederacy fought for "states' rights," because their aim was to limit human rights.

    The independence of the Supreme Court might be enhanced by a better process of nomination and advice and consent (how about the whole Congress rather than just the Senate?), but I do not believe it is enhanced by having Supreme Court justices serve for life. If you start appointing partisan justices, then the other side appoints partisan justices, too, until there are no non-partisan justices left. And I see no guarantee that partisan justices will become more moderate as they age.

    Nonetheless, I'll be happy with life terms of office for Supreme Court justices - if you'll let me have my other reforms!

    Again, the book I recommend to you is Sanford Levinson's OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION. It's entertaining and thought-provoking even if you don't agree with it.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2009 @ 11:17pm