The Politics of Collective Choice

October 23, 1994|By GEORGE F. WILL

WASHINGTON — Washington. -- Democrats are trying to revive their flagging spirits and reverse their sagging fortunes by attacking the ''contract'' that Republican congressional candidates have signed. The core of the contract is a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget, an idea many Democrats and much of the intelligentsia call ''simplistic.''

But now comes James Q. Wilson, past president of the American Political Science Association and no simpleton, defending the amendment as a sound response to the current tensions between American's political and constitutional systems.

In an essay for a book on public policy forthcoming from Johns Hopkins, Mr. Wilson argues that different eras are defined by different problems. From the founding to the Civil War, the defining problem was the federal government's legitimacy. From the Civil War until the New Deal the problem was power: Under what limits did the federal government operate? From the New Deal until recently the problem was representation: Were all groups appropriately involved in Washington's increasing importance?

The defining issue of today's era, Mr. Wilson says, is collective choice: Can Washington, which now acknowledges no limits to its scope and responds to rapidly proliferating factions, make choices that serve society's long-term interests?

For individuals, hard choices are unavoidable. But for Americans acting collectively -- acting through a federal government that is no longer constrained by either the old constitutional understanding of its limited power or the old stigma against deficit spending -- hard choices are avoidable, and thus are avoided.

These changes have come about since midcentury. FDR's policies did not involve a constitutional revolution because most were compatible with then-existing notions of Washington's proper purview. After FDR's first 100 days, states' rights were reasserted as serious restraints on federal power. FDR would not have dared to try to do many of the things that have been done since the 1960s, such as federal supervision of elections where minorities are deemed ''underrepresented,'' direct payments for health care for the elderly (with guidelines for hospital and physicians' fees), funds and regulations for local school systems, etc.

Is there any human want or difficulty that is not now considered a federal policy problem? Policy-making, says Mr. Wilson, has been nationalized in the sense that there no longer are arguments about whether the Constitution bars federal action in particular spheres. The last barriers fell in 1964-65, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Medicare.

Thirty years later the public's patience with, and the intellectuals' confidence in, government have been eroded by what Mr. Wilson calls frustrations with ''an activist government enmeshed in the countless details of everybody's business.'' Electoral politics has become more disorderly as parties have weakened and factions have multiplied. Elections have become less important because policy-making increasingly is done by courts, bureaucracies and legislatures operated by a political class increasingly ambitious and decreasingly oriented to broad public preferences.

That class has increasingly shifted decisions from arenas where public opinion is most powerful -- state and local governments, and private institutions -- to institutions such as courts and the central government, where elites have privileged access. No wonder many substantial policy changes, from affirmative action foreign interventions, reflect not popular desires but elite interests.

Pursuit of these interests by the elite is facilitated by abandonment of the old stigma against peacetime deficits. This abandonment by conservatives as well as liberals underscores why the political class is best understood as a class: it is more united by professional interests than divided by ideas.

Until approximately the mid-1960s, the public's desires for incompatible things were less important than they are now for two reasons. Until then, the federal government was thought to have no constitutional authority to act in many spheres. But now the incompatible demands for increased government benefits and decreased taxes are accommodated by borrowing from future generations.

Hence, says Mr. Wilson, it is no longer as clear as it once was ''what, if anything, an election might settle.'' However, the elections Nov. 8 might produce sufficient votes in Congress for a balanced budget amendment. If so, the rules of collective choice will be re-written, and these off-year elections will have produced change more profound than most presidential elections produce.

George F. Will is a syndicated columnist.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.