Now we can work on the problems. Of course, the first one is that many of our
elected politicians don’t really understand the problems. I cringe when some congressman exclaims, “but
evolution is only a theory”, then goes home to take medicine tested for safety
and effectiveness under rules that come out of evolutionary principle. There’s always some of that around. But part of the problem is because of
something that organizational sociologists call “trained incompetency.” That’s when one’s learned occupational values
and methods make you blind to problem definitions and solutions that are not usable
within the skill set of your occupational training. It’s a little like, but not
the same as, the economist’s “If your only tool is a hammer, the whole world
looks like a nail”, only in this case, your occupation makes you blind to all
the other tools lying around, and to the fact that the solution might involve
growing a garden. Lacking understanding
of the actual problems, like climate change and crumbling infrastructure and
the looming impacts of robotic manufacturing and people starving while the
equivalent of a whole state’s corn production is turned into soft drinks, the
politicians occupy themselves with what they understand - the mechanics of
legislating, filibustering without actually filibustering, passing budgets in
one house they know will go nowhere in the other house, etc.. England’s famed Prime Minister, Lloyd-George,
once was asked by a young member whether knowledge of Latin was required to
serve well in the Parliament.
Lloyd-George’s reply was, “No. It
is necessary to have forgotten Latin.” And
sometimes it’s necessary to have forgotten the nuances of Robert’s Rules of
Order. The trained ineptitude of
legislators is measured as much by the legislation not even introduced as by
that that passes or fails, and much has not been introduced. The inability to address the problems extends
also to the Supreme Court, as witnessed by the recent Citizens United and Lily
Ledbetter decisions. Justice Holmes
would have cringed at the current Court’s inability to deal with real world
consequences.
A legislature filled mainly with lawyers is apt
not to treat all that seriously a lack of high-speed internet access among the
poor, or the danger of drought (and what to do about it) in the Midwest, or
rail alternatives for decreasing fuel consumption, etc., etc.. I say mainly: I realize that some members come from backgrounds other than law, but the proceedings seem dominated by those with legal backgrounds, I have no grudge against lawyers; one of my
sons is a highly successful lawyer and I’m very proud of him. The law is a valuable and an honorable
profession. And a legislature filled
mainly with engineers would be as blind to a different set of problems. But, in the language of business, specialists
should be on tap, not on top. That should also be the case in the legislature,
and the law is a specialty there also, not its purpose. Of the four faces on Mt. Rushmore, only one, Lincoln,
is the face of a practicing lawyer. Jefferson
studied the law but spent his life doing other things. Neither were any of them, by the way, outstanding
businessmen. Yet some of our finer
Presidents, Wilson and LBJ come to mind, began with careers in education. Half the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention were ministers. It is no
coincidence that other nations which have far more diverse and technically
knowledgeable legislators than the U.S. are making substantial progress on
urgent issues we seem unable to address.
The third world will eventually make far better use of solar energy than
we are likely to.
America’s problem with a mainly-lawyer legislature
is strangely and almost uniquely American.
De Tocqueville commented on our pervading reverence for the occupation;
perhaps we substitute rule by lawyers for rule of law and think that will work
for planning our infrastructure needs.
FDR, after his experiences with the phenomenon, exasperatedly commented
that “The Constitution was not written for lawyers.” That the focus of the legislature should be
on solving problems rather than debating legislation seems to be a blind spot
we have always had. In part at least, it
comes from our national ideology that the impact of government on that part of
the “real world” we label as private sector should be minimal. But of course, having an impact for the
better on all of us is part of the purpose of government. “The government which governs least governs
best” should be understood in the context of the least action which effectively
solves the problem.
Now, at the start of another four-year cycle seems
the time we should begin thinking of how best to enable problem solving in the
legislatures. Fareed Zakarias has proposed establishing expert Commissions, like the Military Base Closing Commissions, whose recommendations must be accepted or rejected by Congress without amendment, on topics ranging from climate change to transportation. Devising reasonable term
limits would be a start on structural change. Most
legislators these days seem to divide their time between filibustering and fund
raising. Some ways and means are needed
to short circuit that so that legislators actually have time to read the
legislation they argue about and to be educated on the issues. Changing the term of members of the House to three, rather than two, years might be another structural start. We generally decry one-issue candidates, but
but a few one issue ones such as an engineer with a burning passion to improve the transportation systems or
communications systems of this nation could be valuable. Perhaps professional societies might nominate members for consideration by voters. Teachers Unions do that now for school board elections. The qualifications of judicial nominees are
reviewed in a non-binding way by the American Bar Association. Why should not the American Academy of
Science review proposed members of the science committees of congress? Perhaps we should even consider constitutional changes that add something besides just having lived to a certain age to the qualifications for congress, though what those those qualifications might be would require wisdom that is perhaps beyond us. Fewer members of the House with higher qualifications might be a help. But the real need is for the American people
at the congressional district level to recognize that in this complex society
of ours, adequate congressional service requires more than average
understanding of the issues; that will be a long time coming. But other countries have managed to do it; we
can too.
No comments:
Post a Comment