In a must-read piece, William Stuntz argues that historically top-down, micro-management as a mode of governance has been less than successful. More Lincoln and less FDR, he contends, would serve us well. He concludes:
The lesson seems clear enough. Banking on the innovation, hard work, and entrepreneurial spirit of ordinary Americans is smart policy. Betting on the wisdom of staffers in the White House and on Capitol Hill isn’t.
Saving the nation’s banks may be an unavoidably complex enterprise that necessarily depends on the judgment of those who craft the relevant strategy. Not so the rest of Obama’s agenda. On health care, John McCain’s campaign proposal offers a good model: Create a working national market for health insurance that is not tied to employers. Then, let the medical and insurance markets work, as they will. With respect to education, Congress could give troubled school systems money for more charter schools–the best education idea of the last generation–then step back and watch test scores rise. As for greener energy, a wise Congress would take two steps. First, fund the construction of nuclear power plants, which would create jobs and provide greener energy than oil and coal. Second, fund energy research. According to Bjorn Lomborg, that is the only cost-effective move on climate change. America has the best scientists in the world. Given the needed funds, there are few problems they cannot solve.
Unfortunately, the president and congressional Democrats are placing a different bet. They seem to believe that America has the best politicians in the world–that, given enough tax dollars, there is no problem they cannot solve. We will see who wins that bet. America’s taxpayers may turn out to be the losers.
(Many would argue that even in the banking crisis, the less wizardry from Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke the better.)
The Obama team is betting that the lack of confidence in the business sector and free markets more generally has given them an opening to try things and expand government in ways which the public would normally not tolerate. But we may, in fact, be experiencing a crisis in confidence in all large institutions and a general skepticism about the ability of government. Certainly, the AIG debacle was not a confidence builder.
But aside from the “Can we get away with it?” query, the Obama administration has spent precious little time arguing whether such massive intervention is likely to produce beneficial results and whether they have the expertise to intervene in every nook and cranny of the economy. They are liberals, so they simply assume it is so.
Stuntz makes an important contribution by raising a fundamental question: why should we believe the Obama administration’s micro-management is going to be any more successful than past efforts?
