No less important is bringing Rauch’s analysis into a discussion of the proposal of new reforms. The argument taken primarily in that direction is sure to activate the same tired debates, feeding into the standard fear that politicians, “rolling back” reforms, are taking care of themselves at everyone else’s expense.
It would be mistake, and maybe a trap, if Rauch’s analysis were taken to call only for re-evaluation of reforms already enacted. He faults the reforms, for exacerbating this and other problems, just as he appreciates that revisions in the 1970’s reform model won’t somehow alone bring order out of the chaos. For example, he cites the “politphobes” among voters who are convinced that there are clear remedies, beyond reasonable disagreement, to the nation’s ills, and that only the politicians and their political shenanigans and dark conspiracies have gotten in the way. Writing perceptively about this problem of reform’s “unintended consequences, ” Rauch recognizes that there are “other, larger trends” in the political culture responsible for this syndrome. But, he says, by scaling back or adjusting certain of these reforms, something can be done to restore functionality to our politics-to contain the “chaos.”
Rauch does not claim that the reforms all without merit, or that we can or should leapfrog back to the end of the 19th or early 20th century. The result of the change has been what he calls “chaos syndrome.” In an article just published in Atlantic, Jonathan Rauch argues that modern political reform has contributed to a disastrously weakened capacity for responsible, functional self-governance.The damage has been done to critically needed intermediary institutions, such as parties, whose effectiveness depend on allowances and practices now associated with old-style politics: less transparency in the conduct of government business, more resources for parties and their leadership, more of a role for party leaders and elites in screening candidates, and more flexibility for congressional leaders to utilize tools like “pork” to induce cohesion in the legislative ranks.
0 kommentar(er)
