Rauch has a new e-book (free, at least as of the other day, when I downloaded it) called Political Realism. He argues that progressive political reforms have had adverse unintended consequences. In particular, they have made life more difficult for John Boehner.
Rauch relies on a distinction between professional and amateur politicians, a distinction for which he credits James John Q. Wilson. The pros just want to stay in power, and they will compromise on principles in order to keep it. The amateurs are ideologues.
Rauch argues that seemingly well-intentioned reforms have weakened political parties and thereby strengthened the amateurs. The reforms include attempts to require transparency in government, to restrict campaign finance, to curb earmarks, and to give ordinary voters more power to choose candidates via primaries.
The major unintended consequence of these reforms has been polarization and gridlock. Because the professionals are no longer free to manage the political process, government has become ineffective. Rauch argues that we should dial back the reforms that weaken the party pros and instead think in terms of reforms that strengthen them.
If you believe, as Rauch does, that the professionals would govern more effectively if given more slack, then his argument goes through. However, I am not sure that I buy into that assumption.
I can see one issue–entitlement reform–on which a compromise among professionals could have beneficial effects. But the unsustainable system of entitlements was built by those very professionals whom Rauch extols. My cynical take is that the professionals are good at compromising on the use of other people’s money, most especially when the other people are too young to vote or not even yet born.
If you ask me, the single most consequential political act of my lifetime is likely to be President Obama’s decision to throw the Bowles-Simpson recommendations under the bus. That may have destroyed the last chance to prevent a budget train wreck. Yet Rauch believes that Obama is one of the good guys, a professional able to compromise.
Obama’s professionalism, according to Rauch, is illustrated by the way that health care reform involved compromising with various interests. But if Obamacare is your poster child for professional politics, you are not going to convince me to jump on board the Rauch bandwagon.
As you can tell, my feelings about the book are mixed. I think that the main points are insightful. I see those as
1. Professional politicians are better able to compromise if amateur ideologues are less influential.
2. Progressive reforms have worked to empower amateur ideologues.
However, I do not share Rauch’s optimism for what the professionals might accomplish if they had their way.
Obama couldn’t even get a pointless war going.
Btw, do you think one of the impulses to scuttle Bowles-Simpson was because it was nominally bi-partisan and professional?
Considering Obama to be a professional and bi-partisan strikes me as obviously wrong on both counts. The bi-partisan part is obvious. That he is more in tune with the amateurs may be a little less obvious. Still pretty obvious. I contrast how Clinton would likely have handled a quasi-depression (the economy, stupid).
Ignoring the $36 trillion in medicare savings? You can call that a fantasy, but I would call anything beyond 10 years a fantasy.
Do you mean James Q. Wilson?
The Clerisy hearts itself.
It was the Republicans who voted against Bowles-Simpson in Congress and prevented it from becoming legislation.
Can you explain how Obama was responsible for the far-right wing of the Republicans voting down Bowles-Simpson?
Life (and politics) is not quite that simple.
This article says that for the Commission to forward the report to the House, it needed 14 of 18 members’ votes. It got 11. Four of the 7 voting no were Democrats. Not sure how you got to “Republicans voting down Bowles-Simpson”? Sure they voted no, but it could have moved despite them.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/30/ryan-and-simpson-bowles-commission-full-story/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/02/27/the-real-reason-obama-wouldnt-embrace-simpson-bowles/
For one thing, the president holds the penultimate option at the end of a costly process. He (or she) cab kill most things just by keeping mum.
Best line from that article:
“Republicans and Democrats will agree on measures that close our long term budget gap only when economic circumstances change such that acting is less painful than not acting.”
Professional politicians lead to things like hidden taxes. Matching FICA being an example. People do not have any idea how much taxes they are paying. I consider hidden taxes corrupt scams.
“Obama’s professionalism, according to Rauch, is illustrated by the way that health care reform involved compromising with various interests.”
I generally like Rauch, but he’s what we used to call “kennel blind,” back when I was breeding dogs. His eye for “conformation” is somewhat biased.
As you note: the only health care/insurance reform compromises among various interests was to figure out which got the front teat and which the rear. (If you’ll forgive my earthy metaphor.) As with Sumner’s “forgotten man,” the only interest NOT at that table was the middle class schmuck who’s paying the freight. As usual.