The American Founders were very worried about the problem of political factions. John Adams wrote in a 1780 letter that, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
Sixteen years later, George Washington’s Farewell Address includes numerous cautions about the dangers of political faction.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
All these concerns about factionalism and the dangers of escalating conflicts between political parties chime well with political theater as currently performed in the United States. No two parties, it seems, could possibly be farther apart than today’s Democrats and today’s Republicans. The divide is unbridgeable. The divisions on all lines are as clear and as stark as they ever have been. And while one might not like either party, while one might, indeed, feel perfectly justified in despising both parties, the sense is that the reasons for despising each are very different.
It was with some surprise, then, that I read a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal that began:
The rap on Washington is that it’s too partisan and accomplishes little. We’ll take that if the alternative is this week’s budget deal that is a win for the political faction that really runs the place—the bipartisan spending party.
The deal announced Monday between the White House and leaders in Congress blows past the spending caps of the 2011 Budget Control Act by $320 billion in 2020 and 2021, and kills the caps thereafter. The budget act was supposed to enforce fiscal discipline, but it has devolved into a bipartisan trade in which Democrats get more on domestic accounts in return for giving Republicans more on defense. Everybody’s happy except the future taxpayers who will pay for it.
It was a bracing reminder, at just the right time, that the only thing worse than political parties that can’t get along and get to work is political parties that can. The Democrats and Republicans may be in complete disagreement about every single political issue of the day, but they will still find a way to get into a room together and agree to spend more money.
Wise as the Founders were to warn us of the dangers of political faction and political party—who can read the news and think they were wrong?—perhaps an equally necessary source of wisdom this year is Adam Smith. He writes about tradespeople here, but I think these words from the Wealth of Nations are just as applicable to the men and women engaged in the business of politics. “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
READER COMMENTS
nobody.really
Jul 31 2019 at 2:59pm
Uh … was this the same bipartisan majority that voted to cut taxes, even though we were running a deficit while the economy was booming? If you’re not willing to oppose tax cuts under these circumstances, then spare us the crocodile tears for that poor “future taxpayer who will have to pay for [the deficit].”
That said, prior Congresses were able to get closer to a balanced budget. What changed? And did this change correlate with increasing partisanship, or decreasing partisanship? While libertarians are fond of seeing competition as the solution to all problems, arguably the deficit was smaller when Washington was governed by an old boy’s club who were able to strike bargains with each other without fearing retribution for being insufficiently “pure” by the standards of their constituents. Sometimes culture provides social benefits, and when competition destroys the culture it destroys the associated benefits.
Our current government is not a result of Congressmen being insufficiently responsive to the majority of their voters. Rather, it is a result of congressmen being utterly beholden to the opinions of the majority–even though the voters live with a “rational ignorance” about how Washington works. Yet this is nothing new. Edmund Burke said that “[y]our representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion”–and his constituents promptly threw him out of office in favor of a representative who was willing to subordinate his judgment to their opinions. Plus ca change….
Mark Z
Jul 31 2019 at 7:58pm
Was the bipartisan congress that passed the budget oblivious to the revenue constraints? Even if we accept that premise that the tax cuts were horrible, what do you do when you’re approaching a green light, and you see a car on the perpendicular street speeding towards the intersection, slow down? Or step on the gas in order to t-bone the guy because damn it, it’s my light!
The Old Boy’s Club also had the advantage of not having to deal with a rapidly aging and retiring population in a world where medical technology is rapidly improving.
Thomas Sewell
Jul 31 2019 at 9:06pm
Federal government inflation-adjusted revenue per person is up over the past few decades. Congress has just managed to spend even more than the revenue increases. Are you getting more for your tax dollars from the government now than you did a few decades ago?
The Federal government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. If anything, we should be able to cut taxes further as the government manages to provide the same services each year for less cost. If that sounds laughable, it’s only because everyone knows the government doesn’t operate anything like businesses, which do face pressure to supply more for less to their customers each year.
You ask “what changed?” Congress ultimately determines how much gets spent. The Democratic Party took over more of Congress, is what changed. For example, this year the Republicans proposed a tiny budget cut and the Democrats countered with a massive spending increase proposal, then they met in the middle in order to get the votes to pass something.
Mark Brady
Jul 31 2019 at 3:16pm
Sarah writes, “Everybody’s happy except the future taxpayers who will pay for it.”
The resources are consumed at the time that the war is fought, or the bridge is built, so in that sense the cost is the opportunity cost of the resources that go to fight the war or build the bridge.
And if we’re talking about financing the debt, let us not neglect two insights: (1) deficit finance is an imposition on future taxpayers, who may choose to save now in anticipation of higher taxes in the future (Ricardian equivalence in part or in whole); and (2) future generations may choose to repudiate the debt, which would likely stymie deficit financing going forward.
John Alcorn
Aug 1 2019 at 9:00am
Tyler Cowen says it’s complicated:
Comments are closed.