Developing a Moderate Party Platform – Part II
For a competitive 3rd party to arise it will have to have a unifying theme that can be used to establish positions across a range of economic and social issues. To be effective, that theme will have to attract supporters from the right and the left. Perhaps the best candidate for that unifying theme is the growing disdain the general populace has for special interests. Conservatives and liberals alike complain about the problems caused by special interest politics. Almost everyone can tell a tale about a policy or process that causes them to lose (screws them over) while at the same time benefiting some special interest. Anger arises in people who feel they have been ripped off.
One problem with the special interest issue though is that everyone is a part of some special interest. If you work in a specific industry, you have an industry interest. If you are part a union you have a labor interest. If you are over 65 you have a senior interest and health care interest. In you are male or female, you have a gender interest. If you have faith in a God you have a religious interest. Belong to a particular race and you have a racial interest. If you are an immigrant, a consumer, gay or lesbian, a friend of Israel, or have a child with autism, then you have characteristics that establish a special interest.
It is also natural to support policies that favor your own special interest. If you are a farmer, agricultural subsidies make sense; a worker in an import-competing industry, then protection against Chinese imports makes sense; a senior citizen, then social security and medicare in its present form is an absolute necessity; work at Goldman-Sachs, then government bailouts are needed; if you are poor and unemployed then benefit expansions are good; own your home then the mortgage interest deduction is important; …. I can go on and on.
The main problem with special interest policies is that each one is discriminatory; each special policy bestows benefits on some group of people at the expense of others. Usually supporters of a particular special interest policy will argue that their policy is good for the nation. But, usually that’s not true. Supporters of import protection will say the policy will save or create jobs, but they won’t talk about the higher prices to consumers. Supporters of bank bailouts will say the actions prevent the collapse of the financial sector, but they won’t say much about the risk to taxpayers. Social security and medicare beneficiaries will say that those benefits are only fair because they made payments into the system previously, but they won’t be willing to consider that generous future benefits will have to reduce the disposable income of future taxpayers. Unfortunately everyone considers their own special interest a necessity, or a right, and will argue that the elimination or change in their policy will surely harm the nation.
A potentially successful moderate platform could include a goal to reduce the influence and sway of all special interests. This is the kind of unifying theme that could draw bipartisan and independent support. Unfortunately an effective strategy to reach that goal is elusive. Consider the recent suggestions to simplify the tax code. This is a laudable goal since, as I’ve heard Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC say, “everyone knows the tax code is unfair!” The tax code contains all sorts of special exemptions for this or that interest group. Eliminating, or at least reducing, these exemptions are something many people can support. However, because every powerful special interest will fight to retain their handout, it will be difficult, or impossible, for politicians to actually make these changes.
The growth of the lobbying industry is a clear indication of how special interests increasingly control government. That growth makes sense once the government starts handing out more and more special favors. If you are a special interest group and you see others getting special benefits then it only makes sense to hire some representatives for yourself and have them track and attempt to influence the policy changes under discussion by government. If government is writing new rules that favor some over others, one might as well try to make sure some of those rules favor you.
One reaction to this situation has been attempts to limit the influence that lobbyists have over politicians. Campaign finance reform, rules regarding political action committees, and many other examples, are attempts to restrain special interest influence. Despite these rule changes, lobbyists and special interests continue to exert their control
A moderate candidate with a platform to tackle the special interest policies could focus national attention on the problem. Unlike a Republican or Democrat, a moderate candidate would be free to highlight that some special interest policies benefit traditional conservative interests, while others benefit traditional liberal interests. Surely one reason for the continuing growth of government influence in both Democratic and Republican administrations is because each party in power directs policies towards their own special interests. The problem is on both sides of the aisle, which may be why a candidate from either side will be unlikely to tackle the problem.
Lately there has been a lot of talk of sacrificing for the good of the nation. President Obama has said that millionaires and billionaires need to contribute more. A moderate candidate might be the only one who could explain and emphasize that the shared sacrifice all Americans should consider is a willingness to accept the elimination or adjustment of policies targeted at their own special interests. Chances are very good that the benefits each of us will reap when others’ special interest policies are revoked will more than outweigh the losses we will incur by losing our own. The goal should be a government that does not discriminate, rather than the government we now have in which special interest discrimination has become its very foundation.
____________________________________________
Steve Suranovic is an Economics Professor at the George Washington University in Washington DC where he introduces students to the principles of microeconomics and international economics. His recent book is titled “A Moderate Compromise: Economic Policy Choice in an Era of Globalization” published by Palgrave-Macmillan.
10 Responses to “Developing a Moderate Party Platform – Part II”
It’s visible that neither party is really interested in tackling the special interest problem-in fact, it should be accepted as a given, based on recent history (the 1994 congressional turnover, the 2006 return of the Democrats, and the 2010 elections all demonstrate this amply.)
The problem, is power. Power not only corrupts, it attracts the corrupt, like moths to a flame, or hogs to a trough.
Democrats ranted against the PATRIOT ACT until their party was in a position to let it sunset-they have yet to find a provision, even among the most egregious, that they are reluctant to renew. Republicans have expanded government in every direction under the sun, plus pandering to the Religious special interests in much the same way as their opponents across the aisle.
Because every new law, every new restriction, every tax, every regulation, loophole, stimulus, subsidy and favour expands their power.
Steven Suranovic said:
I concur with every statement made by the author in this very perceptive paragraph. In fact, if I disagree with anything that was said here, it is merely that I believe that every single criticism made here with regards to special interest policies could be made with regards to the institution of government itself.
The French classical liberal theorist Frederic Bastiat once wrote:
In other words, virtually every individual has his/her own view on things that would be good for society and things that would be bad for society, and most of these individuals try to effect changes that will promote or increase what they believe is good and that will discourage or minimize what they believe is bad.
The problem, however, is that various people have different views upon what they believe is good or bad for society, and as a result, even the brightest minds and the most effective debators have great difficulty in convincing all of society that a specific change must be implemented. And thus government–which is an institution that is differentiated from any other institution by virtue of the fact that it enjoys a monopoly on the use of initiation of force–has become–in the eyes of most people–the most effective method for effecting change.
Those who see the government as the most effecive method for effecting change will naturally desire to use it to effect the changes they want. The changes may or may not be bourne out of having good intentions. But regardless of the intentions, these changes will always have at least some adverse consequences, and even if these adverse consequences are outweighed by the good consequences, neither the good consequences nor the adverse consequences will be bourne out equally by all people. Thus, we live in a society where most individuals view systematic coercion as being the most effective solution to most of society’s problems (real or perceived).
As Mr. Suranovic pointed out above, we live in a society where so many individuals decry special interests while denying that they–themselves–are either direct or indirect beneficiaries of special interests. Most Americans can agree–it seems–on the existence of elites who wield disproportionate control over government. Unsurprisingly, however, they all seem to define elites so as not to include themselves or any politician who is implementing the policies that they like. Moreover, most Americans agree that certain sacrifices must be made and certain responsibilities be exercised by all individuals for the good of society. Unsurprisingly, however, it would seem that most of them expect the bulk of these sacrifices and responsibilities be bourne by others.
In short, I fear that as long as we have a government that can pass laws on behalf of some people at the expense of other people, we shall always have special interests. Most Americans lack the money and power that traditional special interests do. However, virtually every American wants to receive his/her fair share from the government, and conversely, no American wants to be on the losing end of a law that might adversely effect some people more than others. And so they agree to promote and vote for those candidates who best reflect what those individuals believe is best for society (which, unsurprisingly, tends to be what is good for them too), even as these politicians use the coercive power of government to enact policies that will inevitably adversely affect certain people.
We need to stop pretending that there is some kind of magical new law that will significantly curb the power of special interest groups. As long as the government has the power to enact policies that reward some people while punishing others, there will always be special interest groups.
Good thoughts all. Another reason efforts to curb special interests’ influence are doomed is there’s no one else at the table. There’s no such thing as a “general interest group.” Even groups representing very broad sections of the population such as taxpayers tend to be operated by cranks and feel like special interests. Rather than weaken the special interests’ lobbyists, we need to strengthen the other side–to hire some people to look after the general interests.
Time was, politicians did more of that. Back when communication was poorer and politicians weren’t necessarily careerists who needed to win the next election, they were freer to vote their conscience. But between politics going professional and 24×7 media coverage, we’ve shortened our representatives’ leashes too much.
Humph…!
I cannot fathom how a third party could possibly be an improvement over what we have now. Adding a third product to argue with in Congress is exactly what the Tea Party has done. It only adds more indecision, and more reasons to disagree rather than agree.
Compromise has been nearly impossible for so long now because there are two bodies of constituent power, the minority with all the money and the majority with no money and a growing lack of intelligence which keep it easily divided.
Serious and comprehensive Lobby reform is a very good idea, but three different interests voting on it will only insure that it will never happen. A third party will never decide itself on anything except siding with one side or siding with the other, which is a subservient role no political party having needy or wanton constituencies can accept for itself.
I suggest we elect Queen Beatrix, or the Pope, or the Dalai Lama, or Dr. Sakis, or similar disinterested party to have one vote equal to thirty percent of our congress with each legislation. That would be much better than the horrid mess a third whole party would create. More over it would force the remaining congress to work together far more often.
I just cannot take third party suggestions seriously because there is no evidence that it would make any improved diference what-so-ever.
A very good article.
I wouldn’t use the term “moderate”, because working against the system seems to be considered extreme today.
Prof-
It is.
That is why we have a “system” in the first place; To solve problems, not screw everthing up by refusing to work within the “system” such as the minority Republican party has done.
@Allen
I’m talking about the lobbyist/favoritism system, which was, you know, the point of the article. I don’t care who it is, the system needs to be changed.
A centrist third party could appeal to voters by pledging to take no funds from lobbyists or special interests. This would allow candidates to decide issues on the basis of what’s good for the country, instead of particular groups.
It is possible now to raise huge sums over the Internet from ordinary people if they believe in your political message as shown by Obama, Howard Dean and Ron Paul. Candidates don’t need to be in thrall to special interests and lobbyists to run successful campaigns using the Internet and social media as the primary means of communication. Unless a centrist third party is able to differentiate itself from the corrupt current parties, people won’t be interested in supporting it. A pledge not to take any money from special interests or lobbyists is bound to catch the public’s attention and should generate support.
http://www.robertlevinebooks.com
Well, if you add all the “special interests” together pretty soon you have ALL the interests. Some so-called special interests are pretty universal, i.e. environmental, safety net, law and order, and of course the availability of jobs – without which most of us would be out on the street. Any moderate third party would need to be a hell of a lot more than a watered down appeal to centrists, it would need to be inspired by science, reason, logic, and the realization that we are all in this together.
We almost need to find a way or means to get the two extremes into truly gridlocked condition, where a third party can then effect real change by picking and choosing when to support one of the other two-which isn’t something that appeals to the kind of megalomaniac willing to undergo a general election’s media anal-exam (much less bearing the cost of the election itself).
Then again, in strategy games I tend to pick teh smallest, least visibly consequential side to play, and use that position to influence the bigger factions into destroying each other, so it may be a symptom of how I think.
I suspect the polarization problem in our political climate may extend beyond easy categories-would the GOP have won in 1994 if Clinton had vetoed the Brady Bill, or reined in Reno’s DOJ and thus, prevented Waco the year before? Could the Democrats have won in 2010′s midterms if BHO hadn’t followed a party-approved playbook with his economic policies, or if the (then Democratic) Congressional Leadership had acknowledged that it might be a good idea to read all 2000 pages of the Health-care law before the vote, as their critics insisted?
Could McCain have won in 2008 had he NOT marched in Lockstep with the Party on the AIG and Bear Stearns bailouts or TARP? it didn’t hurt Obama, but nothing short of video of him doing something truly offensive involving small children and animals would have done that-2008 was the Democrats’ election in every possible way, made possible by a GOP so in love with itself that they did not see their own hypocrisy, failure, or, indeed, obliviousness to what was happening around them.
There is also the not-insignificant cultural differences that are rising in the U.S.A.-where in the 19th century, it was north-vs-south, today, it’s become largely coasts-vs-interior. Most of the West is locked up in Government hands, and has had a stagnant economy even in the so-called ‘boom’ times, much of it (rightly or wrongly) blamed on Government, leading to a more antigovernment sentiment in spite of higher raw dollar spending in those areas BY government.
Likewise, your “energy states” like Alaska and Texas feel a bite from regulation that does not impact areas like New York, California, or Illinois, and the farm belt’s seen the erosive impacts of subsidy addiction, but can’t get off the habit, leading to a certain amount of bitterness there.
Then, there’s the Water rights issues. The 9th Circuit Federal court awarded the entire western rocky mountain watershed to the state of California, water’s kind of important to those states, losing the rights to it to people who dump it into the air to grow cabbages in the San Joachin, or Grapes for wine…and then, there’s mining. ONe of the few high-pay jobs the region supports, restricted into nonexistence and replaced by minimum-wage ‘service jobs’ that evaporate when ski season or hunting season ends.
This creates a cultural drift, a rift, a divide, and handing out cheques from the U.S. treasury doesn’t heal it. Being the summer destination for retirees from the Coasts doesn’t help, either-imagine being dependent for your income on people who consider you less than human, and who come to your state from states they’ve already screwed up, just to try and bring the things they screwed their states of origin with, to you, while denying you the right to make your own way in your own way, because it might screw up their ‘view’.