By DAVID BROOKS
The people who pioneered democracy in Europe and the
United States had a low but pretty accurate view of human nature. They knew that
if we get the chance, most of us will try to get something for nothing. They
knew that people generally prize short-term goodies over long-term prosperity.
So, in centuries past, the democratic pioneers built a series of checks to make
sure their nations wouldn’t be ruined by their own frailties.
The American founders did this by decentralizing
power. They built checks and balances to frustrate and detain the popular will.
They also dispersed power to encourage active citizenship, hoping that as people
became more involved in local government, they would develop a sense of
restraint and responsibility.
In Europe, by contrast, authority was centralized.
Power was held by small coteries of administrators and statesmen, many of whom
had attended the same elite academies where they were supposed to learn the art
and responsibilities of stewardship. Under the parliamentary system, voters
didn’t even get to elect their leaders directly. They voted for parties, and
party elders selected the ones who would actually form the government, often
through secret means.
Though the forms were different, the democracies in
Europe and the United States were based on a similar carefully balanced view of
human nature: People are naturally selfish and need watching. But democratic
self-government is possible because we’re smart enough to design structures to
police that selfishness.
James Madison put it well: “As there is a degree of
depravity in mankind, which requires a certain degree of circumspection and
distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain
portion of esteem and confidence.”
But, over the years, this balanced wisdom was lost.
Leaders today do not believe their job is to restrain popular will. Their job is
to flatter and satisfy it. A gigantic polling apparatus has developed to help
leaders anticipate and respond to popular whims. Democratic politicians adopt
the mind-set of marketing executives. Give the customer what he wants. The
customer is always right.
Having lost a sense of their own frailty, many voters
have come to regard their desires as entitlements. They become incensed when
their leaders are not responsive to their needs. Like any normal set of human
beings, they command their politicians to give them benefits without asking them
to pay.
The consequences of this shift are now obvious. In
Europe and America, governments have made promises they can’t afford to fulfill.
At the same time, the decision-making machinery is breaking down. American and
European capitals still have the structures inherited from the past, but without
the self-restraining ethos that made them function.
The American decentralized system of checks and
balances has transmogrified into a fragmented system that scatters
responsibility. Congress is capable of passing laws that give people benefits
with borrowed money, but it gridlocks when it tries to impose self-restraint.
The Obama campaign issues its famous “Julia” ad, which
perfectly embodies the vision of government as a national Sugar Daddy,
delivering free money and goodies up and down the life cycle. The Citizens
United case gives well-financed interests tremendous power to preserve or
acquire tax breaks and regulatory deals. American senior citizens receive health
benefits that cost many times more than the contributions they put into the
system.
In Europe, workers across the Continent want great
lifestyles without long work hours. They want dynamic capitalism but also
personal security. European welfare states go broke trying to deliver these
impossibilities.
The European ruling classes once had their power
checked through daily contact with the tumble of national politics. But now
those ruling classes have built a technocratic apparatus, the European Union,
operating far above popular scrutiny. Decisions that reshape the destinies of
families and nations are being made at some mysterious, transnational level. Few
Europeans can tell who is making decisions or who is to blame if they go wrong,
so, of course, they feel powerless and distrustful.
Western democratic systems were based on a balance
between self-doubt and self-confidence. They worked because there were
structures that protected the voters from themselves and the rulers from
themselves. Once people lost a sense of their own weakness, the self-doubt went
away and the chastening structures were overwhelmed. It became madness to
restrain your own desires because surely your rivals over yonder would not be
restraining theirs.
This is one of the reasons why Europe and the United
States are facing debt crises and political dysfunction at the same time. People
used to believe that human depravity was self-evident and democratic
self-government was fragile. Now they think depravity is nonexistent and they
take self-government for granted.
Neither the United States nor the European model will
work again until we rediscover and acknowledge our own natural weaknesses and
learn to police rather than lionize our impulses.
.
.
Excellent and nicely written. I confess to having to look up transmogrified.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this. I always read David's column but was in a hurry when I saw it the other day and didn't get back to it until just now.
ReplyDeleteAnd I confess to referring to "David's column" as opposed to "David Brooks" or even "Mr. Brooks" because I have never been good with 's vs. s'.
Brooks and Will are my favorite rational conservatives although I find myself agreeing with Brooks's editorials more than with Will's these days.
DeletePS My editor (how pompous is that) tells me that it should be s's however "essey" it sounds.
PPS My editor is my wife.