Yesterday, I went to the Occupy Wall Street protest as it converged on Times Square in the late afternoon. All in all, the protesters were joyous, motivated, and respectful of the police and passersby. As expected, the messages conveyed by such a diverse group ranged from pithy and legitimate critiques of Wall Street to anti-capitalist mantras that were ill-informed and non-constructive.
On my way home I got into a conversation with a group of young radicals who were calling for an end to the Federal Reserve. I tried to explain that the Fed serves important functions, and that if anything we should be demanding more aggressive action to reduce unemployment. They complained about the weak dollar and the threat of inflation, and I tried to explain that both could help remedy unemployment by boosting exports, reducing imports, and helping the economy grow faster.
At this point the dialogue ended. The young men said I didn’t know what I was talking about. When I told them I had a Ph.D. in economics, they got even more irate. They were particularly incensed when I defended Obama and the Dodd-Frank bill. When I asked them to tell me what they didn’t like about Dodd-Frank, they mentioned the government’s support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I tried to explain that they were confused, and clearly didn’t understand what’s in the bill.
And herein lies one of the reasons that substantive change in America is so hard: the policies challenges we face are incredibly complex. In fact, in the two areas where we most need reform—health care and the financial system—the policy details are so complex that even people with advanced degrees have difficulty understanding them. In a culture where most people can’t even name their own Congressman, there’s little chance of understanding topics like derivatives or healthcare exchanges. Frankly, I myself don’t fully understand them.
The gulf between what average voters know about government policy and what the experts engaged in carrying out the policy must take into account has never been greater. It’s difficult to imagine that ordinary voters will ever be sufficiently informed to make clear judgments about policy specifics. We may know that we want tighter regulations on banks, or universal healthcare, or strong environmental controls, but the complexity of achieving these outcomes will elude all but the most devoted policy wonks.
This leads to the next conclusion: voters must trust the politicians they elect to do the right thing. Yes, this creates the potential for corruption, abuse, and the influence of special interests in the political process. More than ever, the most important characteristics for our political leaders are integrity, honesty, and a commitment to science, rationality, and the public good. Without these traits, the entire policy process degenerates into a free-for-all for corporate interests and crony capitalism.
This is exactly what happened during the Bush Presidency. The public interest was subverted by corporate interests in virtually every piece of legislation, from the prescription drug bill to energy policy to the fight to privatize Social Security (which ultimately failed).
Corporate interests were hardly banished in the Obama Administration. They were placated in the healthcare bill by the lack of a public option, by the decision to waive competitive bidding for drugs, and by the individual mandate. More recently, the Administration decided to delay new Clean Air rules. But the public interest did prevail at some key points, notably with the Volcker rule in the Dodd-Frank bill, strong patient protections in the Affordable Care Act, and the removal of bank subsidies for student loans.
The media can and should be the bridge between the complexities of the policy process and the public. Unfortunately, the traditional media in America fails to perform this crucial function, and in fact makes matters worse by routinely peddling false equivalencies (this one is particularly egregious).
The void left by the media puts Americans in an especially precarious position as the challenges become ever more complex, and beyond the capacity of average voters to comprehend. In such a situation, voters would be well-advised to put more stock in the integrity and intellect of those they elect. At the end of the day, these qualities are the most likely to determine whether they act in good faith for the public interest.
Jason Scorse