Insti­tu­tions vs. We the Peo­ple

Institutions vs. We the People

New York Times colum­nist David Brooks, who is about as close to a con­ser­v­a­tive as that lib­er­al news­pa­per pub­lish­es, wrote some­thing last week that gets to the heart of why Democ­rats, espe­cial­ly, but also some Repub­li­cans, fear a sec­ond Trump admin­is­tra­tion.

After extolling what he believes to be the per­son­al virtues of some Repub­li­cans (he men­tions Mitt Rom­ney, whose per­son­al virtues are unde­ni­able, but who lost to Barack Oba­ma in 2012), Brooks wor­ries about what he regards as Don­ald Trump’s lack of virtues and the president-elect’s “depart­ment of gov­ern­ment effi­cien­cy” and its declared goal of reform­ing, even elim­i­nat­ing, many pro­grams and agen­cies.

Here’s the prob­lem. Gov­ern­ment agen­cies and pro­grams are not called insti­tu­tions and syn­onyms such as “the deep state” and “the estab­lish­ment” for noth­ing. They con­tin­ue to exist, regard­less of the fail­ure of many to per­form well, because they enjoy a polit­i­cal and finan­cial iner­tia that is dif­fi­cult to slow down, much less stop or reverse.

These enti­ties may not enjoy wide­spread pub­lic sup­port, but they do ben­e­fit from lob­by­ists, inter­est groups and labor unions who make sub­stan­tial con­tri­bu­tions to the polit­i­cal cam­paigns of mem­bers of Con­gress. Those in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives con­trol the mon­ey flow and are reluc­tant, to the point of resis­tance, to end or reform the sta­tus quo.

Any­one who remem­bers the out­cry over the Base Realign­ment and Clo­sure (BRAC) process more than two decades ago, will recall what I mean. Mem­bers of Con­gress, whose dis­tricts were affect­ed by base clos­ings, squealed like stuck pigs. The key to suc­cess was the way BRAC was pre­sent­ed to the pub­lic: “The commission’s pur­pose is to down­size the mil­i­tary infra­struc­ture in a way that is effi­cient and effec­tive, and to increase oper­a­tional readi­ness. The commission’s work is intend­ed to be free from par­ti­san pol­i­tics.”

Memo to the incom­ing Trump admin­is­tra­tion: This is the way you can elim­i­nate or great­ly reduce the size of an under-per­form­ing agency or pro­gram. You make it sound like it is in the self-inter­est of a major­i­ty of Amer­i­cans. In the case of gov­ern­ment down­siz­ing, it is.

Brooks sug­gests in his col­umn that our insti­tu­tions should be pre­served and pos­si­bly reformed from with­in. That’s been tried over and over again and has failed. It is why Trump’s mes­sage about blow­ing up the sta­tus quo and rebuild­ing those which remain use­ful on a new foun­da­tion res­onat­ed with so many vot­ers in last month’s elec­tion. They see their tax dol­lars wast­ed by irre­spon­si­ble politi­cians.

Eter­nal life should be the sub­ject of ser­mons by preach­ers and class­room top­ics in sem­i­nary class­rooms, not gov­ern­ment agen­cies and pro­grams. If some­thing is “pro­mot­ing the gen­er­al wel­fare” and “pro­vid­ing for the com­mon defense” at rea­son­able cost and effi­cien­cy, it should be kept. If it has exceed­ed its “sell-by” it should be dis­card­ed like spoiled milk.

The Founders estab­lished a nation based on the phi­los­o­phy that cit­i­zens are the ones who hold ulti­mate pow­er and they only lend that pow­er to gov­ern­ment. Today it is more like a pow­er grab by politi­cians and bureau­crats telling us how much author­i­ty over our lives they will allow us to have while forc­ing us to pay ever more in tax­es to sup­port their careers and favorite pro­grams.

That is why so many are fed-up with Wash­ing­ton and want to see real change. We are about to learn who is more pow­er­ful – the estab­lish­ment and its insti­tu­tions – or “we the peo­ple of the Unit­ed States.”