Big Government Is Bad for Democracy

Big Government Is Bad for Democracy

Notre Dame philosopher Gary Gutting examines the extent to which the American system of government is democratic. Drawing on Plato's five kinds of government--aristocracy, timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny (we really can't do better than this?)--Gutting concludes America is is a mix of all them, which he dubs "multarchy." He then goes on to make what seem to me some straightforward mistakes:


Much of our current debate over this challenge focuses on the question of whether we have “too much government,” where “government” means the federal bureaucracy.  Our “Platonic” analysis suggests that this is at best a gross oversimplificaton. The question, rather, is precisely how should we calibrate the relative strengths of all five elements of our multocracy.  Current calls for “less government” actually mean less power for elected leaders and for the bureaucracies that serve them and more power for the “oligarchy” of millionaires and corporations. [emphasis added.]

Gutting's makes several erroneous assumptions. He assumes the bureaucracy is really under the control of elected leaders, but it's not. The federal bureaucracy is largely a creature of the executive branch. The president is elected, but the executive's political appointees are not, though some of them are subject to congressional approval. Anyway, most of the personnel of the state is permanent, and varies only slightly as partisan governments come in and out of power. The actual exercise of power in the various bureaucracies is subject to democratic oversight in only the most tenuous sense. Indeed, when bureaucracies become too large, it becomes impossible for elected representatives to supervise their activities on the behalf of the general welfare.

"More government" can mean different, quite incompatible things. For example, it can mean "more state" or "greater democratic control." If one really means "greater democratic control," an increase in the size and power of the bureaucracy is generally a move in the wrong direction. More state can mean less government in this sense. And this leads us directly to Gutting's most important error: the assumption that elected leaders and the bureaucracy generally work against rather than for the interests of "millionaires and corporations." There's little reason to believe this. Big government and corporatism go together like Hall and Oates.

So, bureaucracies in fact are subject to very little effective democratic oversight. However, corporate and other special interests are profoundly affected by regulatory and other rulings issued by bureaucrats, which creates a strong incentive to either "capture" or otherwise influence these decisions. Because elected officials need to look after the various interests that constitute their base of support in order to win reelection, to the extent that they do supervise the conduct of the bureaucracies, they often do so in a way that helps their allied interests capture and influence the regulatory process.

It is not at all clear that "more government," understood as "more state," would advance the goal of putting the government of the state more firmly in control of the people. "More government" often means less democratic supervision of state power and an increase in the use of state power in the interests of "millionaire and corporations," and other organized interests at odds with the general welfare. Not that "less government" always or usually means "less power for corporations to co-opt" or "a state small enough to be compatible with democratic governance." In the mouths of Republicans, "less government" often means little more than removing the "big government" party's cronies and replacing them with the "small government" party's cronies without actually doing a damn thing to change the size or scope of government. Maybe that's what Gutting had in mind. 

I don't know what to call the status quo American system. "Multarchy" is okay, but that's just an etymologically barbarous way of saying "I don't know." Whatever we call it, if we want our system to become more democratic than it now is, we've got to take seriously the possibility that the American state is way too big for democratic control.

As it happens, I don't think Democrats care about democracy any more than Republicans care about liberty. Both parties have a philosophically jumbled list of things they want the state to do, and both lists imply a pretty big state under democratic control only to the extent that that's necessary to keep the state working off their list.  

A brief history of human dignity

What is human dignity? Here's a primer, told through 200 years of great essays, lectures, and novels.

Credit: Benjavisa Ruangvaree / AdobeStock
Sponsored by the Institute for Humane Studies
  • Human dignity means that each of our lives have an unimpeachable value simply because we are human, and therefore we are deserving of a baseline level of respect.
  • That baseline requires more than the absence of violence, discrimination, and authoritarianism. It means giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness and purpose.
  • We look at incredible writings from the last 200 years that illustrate the push for human dignity in regards to slavery, equality, communism, free speech and education.
Keep reading Show less

Urban foxes self-evolve, exhibiting Darwin’s domestication syndrome

A new study finds surprising evidence of the self-evolution of urban foxes.

A fox at the door of 10 Downing Street on Janurary 13, 2015.

Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP via Getty Images
Surprising Science
  • A study from the University of Glasgow finds urban foxes evolved differently compared to rural foxes.
  • The skulls of the urban foxes are adapted to scavenging for food rather than hunting it.
  • The evolutionary changes correspond to Charles Darwin's "domestication syndrome."

How much can living in the city change you? If you were an urban fox, you could be evolving yourself to a whole new stage and becoming more like a dog, according to a fascinating new study.

Researchers compared skulls from rural foxes around London with foxes who lived inside the city and found important variations. Rural foxes showed adaptation for speed and hunting after quick, small prey, while urban fox skulls exhibited changes that made it easier for them to scavenge, looking through human refuse for food, rather than chasing it. Their snouts were shorter and stronger, making it easier to open packages and chew up leftovers. They also have smaller brains, not meant for hunting but for interacting with stationary food sources, reports Science magazine.

Interestingly, there was much similarity found between the male and female skulls of the urban foxes.

The observed changes correspond to what Charles Darwin called the "domestication syndrome," comprised of traits that go along with an animal's transition from being wild, to tamed, to domesticated.

The study was led by Kevin Parsons, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Glasgow.

"What's really fascinating here is that the foxes are doing this to themselves," Parsons told the BBC. "This is the result of foxes that have decided to live near people, showing these traits that make them look more like domesticated animals."

The researchers are not suggesting you should go out and get a fox as a house-pet just yet. But they are seeing the evolutionary process taking place that's moving the urban foxes along the path towards becoming more like dogs and cats, explained the study's co-author Dr. Andrew Kitchener from National Museums Scotland.

A fox beneath a tree in Greenwich park, south east London

A fox beneath a tree in Greenwich park, south east London on May 14, 2020.

Photo by Glyn KIRK / AFP

"Some of the basic environmental aspects that may have occurred during the initial phases of domestication for our current pets, like dogs and cats, were probably similar to the conditions in which our urban foxes and other urban animals are living today," said Kitchener. "So, adapting to life around humans actually primes some animals for domestication."

The specimen came from the National Museum Scotland's collection of around 1,500 fox skulls.

You can read the study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

fox sleeping beneath stadium seats

A fox at the LV County Championship, Division two match between Surrey and Derbyshire at The Brit Oval on April 9, 2010 in London, England.

Photo by Clive Rose/Getty Images

​'The time is now' for cryptocurrencies, PayPal CEO says

Is Bitcoin akin to 'digital gold'?

Technology & Innovation
  • In October, PayPal announced that it would begin allowing users to buy, sell, and hold cryptocurrencies.
  • Other major fintech companies—Square, Fidelity, SoFi—have also recently begun investing heavily in cryptocurrencies.
  • While prices are volatile, many investors believe cryptocurrencies are a relatively safe bet because blockchain technology will prove itself over the long term.
Keep reading Show less

"Clean meat" approved for sale in Singapore

Singapore has approved the sale of a lab-grown meat product in an effort to secure its food supplies against disease and climate change.

Credit: Adobe Stock / Big Think
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Singapore has become the first country to approve the sale of a lab-grown meat product.
  • Eat Just, the company behind the product, will have a small-scale commercial launch of its chicken bites.
  • So-called "clean meats" may reduce our reliance on livestock farming, which kills billions of animals worldwide every year.
  • Keep reading Show less
    Scroll down to load more…
    Quantcast