The Changing Understanding of Democracy in the United States

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Michael R. Ford
July 8, 2024

I have written several columns about the deconstruction of the administrative state and its impact on governance in the United States (U.S.). Last month, the latest chipping away of administrative power occurred via the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the Chevron Doctrine. The Chevron Doctrine, as CNN put it, “told courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute in circumstances in which the law in question is vaguely written.” The basic idea of administrative authority is that while legislators create high-level policy, it is the subject area experts that create day-to-day guidelines regarding implementation of policy.

An example I used when I taught administrative law was airline safety. We can have legislation requiring licensure for commercial pilots, but we want people who understand what it requires to safely fly a plane and train a pilot deciding what that licensure actually entails. We certainly do not want a pilot selected via a popular vote among potential passengers. They might select someone who knows how to fly a plane safely. But they might select someone who claims they can fly a plane but really cannot, someone that craves the power over the plane without the expertise needed to fly it, or someone who says they can get them to their destination sooner even if it means flying faster than the plane is designed to fly. It would be a democratic process, but it would also imperil safety.

Critics of administrative authority claim such authority is inherently undemocratic. I did not vote for that city manager, that superintendent, that city inspector, or that FDA scientist, so who are they to make rules that limit my freedom? The tension between administrators and legislators over what constitutes the legitimate exercise of power is nothing new. Early in my career I spent many an afternoon at administrative hearings regarding the implementation of regulations from Wisconsin state agencies. The hearings were fairly predictable. State agencies laid out how they implemented a regulation, and opposing interest group representatives argued that agencies were overstepping their authority. Eventually, at least in Wisconsin, legislators dramatically reduced agency power, giving elected officials more power over rule-making than agencies. The results have been fewer rules, but the lasting impact is still unclear.

Another court ruling regarding presidential immunity was released as I was penning this column. Though more details are no doubt coming, the initial interpretation is that presidents have broad immunity for official acts. The decision, along with the reversal of the Chevron Doctrine, dramatically change the nature of U.S. democracy. Democracy, at least as I was taught and practiced, involves majority rule with protections for individual liberty and collective safety. Those protections and collective safety are driven by institutions that create logical regulations and provide rights and recourse for those outside the political majority. However, our institutions are steadily eroding to a point where democracy is understood as majority rule over everything. It sounds extreme, but the end state of this movement is a competitive authoritarianism where we have democratic elections to select our leaders, but those leaders become rulers with carte blanche authority once they take office.

I personally struggle to understand how we have arrived at this point. I do think there are plenty of examples of overregulation of private industry, of administrative actors overstepping their authority and outdated rules that create governing inefficiencies. I also think that paradigms like New Public Management and New Public Governance provide viable paths to governance reform that incorporate both the private and nonprofit sectors in service delivery. But turning regulation into a purely legislative function, and granting a broad immunity to the executive branch, are steps beyond reform.

So what do those of us in the administrative community do about it? What is the future of a field based on expertise, trust and merit in a political climate where expertise is vilified, trust is absent and merit is a secondary concern? Per usual, I have more questions than answers. But I do know that we cannot collectively continue on the paths we are on. We need to incorporate political savviness into our MPA programs. We need go beyond paying lip service to bridging the academic-practitioner divide. We need to find ways to support smaller MPA programs producing so many state and local government leaders. But most of all, we need to be clear-eyed about the extent of the challenge we are facing.

---

Author: Michael R. Ford is an associate professor of public administration at the University of Wisconsin  Oshkosh, where he teaches graduate courses in budgeting and research methods. He frequently publishes on the topics of public and nonprofit board governance, accountability and school choice. He is a former member of the Oshkosh, WI Common Council.

(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...