Key Takeaways
1. Demosclerosis: The Silent Killer of American Government
It is no secret that the American people are dissatisfied with government. But while the frustration and anger are real, the way we tend to view the problem is all wrong.
A pervasive problem. Americans are deeply frustrated with their government, often attributing it to "gridlock" or "special interests." However, author Jonathan Rauch argues that the real issue is "demosclerosis"—a condition where government, despite increasing activity, loses its ability to effectively solve problems and make things work. This isn't a sudden crisis but a gradual hardening, akin to arteriosclerosis in the human body.
Beyond gridlock. The problem isn't a lack of governmental motion; Washington always "gets things done," passing numerous laws and regulations. The core issue is the effectiveness of this activity. Government's problem-solving capacity has diminished, leading to frantic efforts that often create more problems than they solve, like killing a fly with a cannon.
A systemic malady. Demosclerosis transcends political parties or personalities. It's a deep, structural issue where government becomes crippled by its own success. The public's frustration stems from a feeling that despite America's immense wealth and technological advancements, its government is less capable of addressing challenges than in previous decades.
2. Mancur Olson's Logic: Small Groups Dominate for Self-Interest
"In short," wrote Olson, "the larger the group, the less it will further its common interests."
The free-rider problem. Economist Mancur Olson's groundbreaking work revealed that forming large groups to pursue collective benefits is inherently difficult. Individuals in large groups are tempted to "free-ride," hoping others will bear the costs of organization while they still enjoy the benefits. This means small, narrow interest groups have a permanent advantage over large, diffuse public interests.
Redistribution over production. Olson argued that groups have a stronger incentive to organize for "redistributional activity"—capturing a larger share of existing wealth—rather than "productive activity" that grows the overall economic pie. A small group can reap significant per-member benefits from a targeted tax break or subsidy, even if the overall societal cost is much higher.
Accumulation of groups. In stable societies with democratic freedoms, interest groups tend to accumulate over time because they rarely disappear once formed. This continuous piling up of groups, each seeking its own slice of the pie, gradually rigidifies the economy and society. Olson's theory explained why economies like post-WWII Germany and Japan, with their old interest groups shattered, experienced "economic miracles," while stable Britain suffered from "economic anemia."
3. Hyperpluralism: The Explosion of Interest Groups
We have met the special interests, and they are us.
From individual to group. Historically, lobbying was dominated by powerful individuals or "robber barons." However, since the mid-20th century, there has been an "advocacy explosion," transforming lobbying into a group-driven, professionalized endeavor. The number of associations listed in the Encyclopedia of Associations doubled between 1970 and 1990, with an average of ten new groups forming every week.
Democratization of influence. This proliferation means that "special interests" are no longer special. Seven out of ten Americans belong to at least one association, and one in four belongs to four or more. These groups represent every conceivable interest, from retired persons (AARP, with over 30 million members) to home builders, state employees, and even niche hobbies like bass fishing.
Falling costs, rising benefits. The surge in group formation is driven by two factors:
- Decreased organizing costs: Modern technology (fax, internet, direct mail) and a robust infrastructure of consultants and experts make it cheaper and easier to mobilize members.
- Increased potential benefits: The federal government's budget and regulatory reach have expanded dramatically since the 1960s, making Washington an irresistible target for groups seeking subsidies, tax breaks, or favorable regulations.
4. The Parasite Economy: Diverting Wealth from Production to Redistribution
Every bit of energy we spend fighting over existing wealth is that much less energy spent producing more wealth.
Making vs. taking. The "parasite economy" describes the sector where individuals and groups invest time and money not in creating new wealth, but in transferring existing wealth from others to themselves. This "transfer-seeking" activity, whether through lobbying or litigation, is economically rational for the individual but detrimental to society as a whole.
A self-perpetuating game. The parasite economy grows because successful lobbying efforts advertise the value of transfer-seeking, drawing in more players. When one company hires a lobbyist to gain an advantage, its competitors are forced to hire their own to defend themselves, creating an escalating, open-ended game. This diverts precious capital and talent from productive investments (like new machines or factories) to unproductive battles over existing resources.
Motive doesn't matter. Whether transfer-seekers are cynical opportunists or idealistic moralists, the economic outcome is the same: resources are consumed in distributive struggles. Idealistic activists, believing in the righteousness of their cause, can be even more persistent and costly than purely greedy actors, driving up the societal expense of these battles.
5. Hidden Costs: The Invisible Burden of Entrenched Benefits
Benefits from lobbying—subsidy checks, tax breaks, favorable regulations, court awards, and so on—are highly visible; but the costs—the waste, the inefficiency, the rigidities, the complexities, the policy incoherence as subsidies and deals redistribute money in every direction at once—are diffuse and often invisible.
The iceberg effect. The direct costs of feeding the parasite economy—lawyers' fees, lobbying expenses, political contributions—are in the tens of billions annually. However, these are just the tip of the iceberg. The true costs are far greater and often invisible, making it difficult for the public to perceive the damage.
Three orders of cost:
- First-order (Direct): Payments to transfer agents (lawyers, lobbyists, politicians). For example, tort litigation costs (lawyers' fees) consumed about half of the $29-36 billion spent on litigation in 1985, leaving the other half for actual compensation.
- Second-order (Defensive): Costs incurred to fend off potential transfer-seekers. This includes increased liability insurance, defensive medicine (costing $20 billion in 1989), and companies maintaining large legal and lobbying staffs. This creates business uncertainty and deters beneficial enterprise.
- Third-order (Distortion): The steepest cost, arising from the subsidies and anticompetitive rules themselves. These distort resource flows, slow innovation, and create economic inefficiencies. Examples include:
- Agricultural subsidies leading to overproduction and destruction of good food.
- Tax breaks for real estate contributing to the savings-and-loan crisis.
- Health benefits exemption from income tax artificially inflating healthcare costs.
Economic drag. Most estimates place the total cost of transfer-seeking at 5% to 12% of GNP annually, potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. This diversion of capital from productive investment is a significant factor behind America's post-1973 productivity slowdown and sluggish rise in living standards.
6. Government Calcification: The Inability to Adapt or Eliminate Programs
It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that, in Washington, every program lasts forever.
The permanence of programs. Once a government program or subsidy is established, it is almost impossible to eliminate or significantly change. This is because beneficiaries (both direct recipients and administrators) quickly organize into entrenched lobbies with money, votes, and passionate conviction to defend "their" program.
Asymmetry of change. Creating a new program is hard, but eliminating an existing one is much harder. A few well-placed congressmen can create a new subsidy, but it takes immense effort to remove it, as any attempt incurs the wrath of powerful, organized groups. This prevents the government from adapting through "trial and error," a crucial mechanism for complex systems like capitalism and science.
The living dead. The Reagan and Bush administrations, despite efforts to cut programs, managed to eliminate only a handful of trivial ones. Programs like the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) or the wool and mohair subsidy, whose original missions were long accomplished or obsolete, persist indefinitely due to fierce lobbying. This means old programs gobble up resources, crowding out new, potentially more effective initiatives.
7. Bogus National Poverty: Robbing the Unborn Through Deficits
If government today is "poor," if it is unable to "afford" things, that is because of its inability to unlock resources from entrenched claimants and reallocate them for new needs.
Wealth vs. paralysis. Objectively, the United States is wealthier than ever, with per capita disposable income and economic output significantly higher than in 1960. Yet, the government feels "poor" and unable to afford new initiatives like the Marshall Plan or moon landings. This "bogus national poverty" is a symptom of demosclerosis: government's resources are locked in by existing commitments and lobbies.
Deficits as a symptom. Unable to cut existing programs or raise taxes sufficiently, politicians resort to borrowing, leading to persistent budget deficits. These deficits are a way to "pilfer from generations yet unborn," financing current consumption by absorbing national savings that would otherwise go to long-term productive investment.
The cycle of decline. Deficits and demosclerosis reinforce each other:
- Deficits feed lobbies: By offering benefits at a discount (unfunded by current taxes), deficits fuel public demand for more programs.
- Lobbies feed deficits: Entrenched groups add to fiscal demands, pressuring politicians to incur more debt rather than make difficult cuts.
This cycle leads to a steady "denudation of the future," diminishing future wealth and living standards, manifesting demosclerosis as a form of societal degeneracy.
8. Process Reforms Are Insufficient; Substantive Change is Needed
The process isn’t the problem; the problem is the problem.
Limited impact of procedural fixes. Common political reforms like tighter lobbying restrictions, campaign finance reform, and term limits are often proposed to curb "special interests." However, these are largely insufficient because they fail to address the fundamental incentives driving demosclerosis. As long as seeking government transfers is lucrative, ingenious lobbyists will find ways around any new rules.
Money vs. votes. Campaign finance reform, for instance, may limit money but doesn't diminish the power of organized groups to deliver votes, organize grassroots campaigns, or influence public opinion. The root problem is that these groups represent millions of American voters who like their benefits, making it politically risky for legislators to defy them.
Diverting attention. While some process reforms (like better disclosure or partial public financing) are worth trying, they are merely "buffering layers" that don't fundamentally alter the underlying dynamic. Over-reliance on them diverts attention from the deeper, substantive reforms needed to tackle demosclerosis at its source.
9. Hammering the Parasites: Strategies for Reinvigorating Government
Eliminate subsidies and programs—including tax loopholes, which are subsidies administered through the tax code.
Systematic housecleaning. To fight demosclerosis, a systematic approach is needed to weaken interest groups and restore government flexibility. This involves:
- Stopping raids on the future: Balancing the budget by raising taxes and cutting spending, forcing voters to confront the true cost of benefits.
- Cutting lobbies' lifelines: Systematically eliminating low-priority programs and ancient subsidies. The 1986 tax reform, which swept away many tax breaks, demonstrated that a determined president with a comprehensive package can succeed.
- Domestic perestroika: Stripping away anticompetitive protections and exposing both private and public monopolies to competition (e.g., deregulation of industries, school vouchers). This forces entities to compete on merit rather than political clout.
- Foreign competition (Gaiatsu): Expanding free trade agreements (like GATT, NAFTA) to expose domestic lobbies to external pressure. Foreign competition forces efficiency and makes it harder for local interest groups to secure cozy, protected deals.
Guiding principles for cuts: To avoid arbitrary cuts, principles should be forward-looking and pro-adaptive:
- Favor the poorest, diffuse constituencies, and the young.
- Favor long-term investment over consumption.
- Disfavor organized interests, market-provided services, and sentimental justifications.
- Apply the "scratch test": If a program didn't exist, would we start it today?
10. The Clinton Experiment: A Missed Opportunity for Systemic Reform
"I have to say that we all know our government has been just great at building programs," he said. "The time has come to show the American people that we can limit them, too, that we can not only start things, but we can actually stop things."
A president's dilemma. Bill Clinton, elected on a promise of change, faced the full force of demosclerosis. His campaign promised "more of everything to practically everyone" at little cost, making it difficult to later sell the "hard choices" needed for systemic reform. Despite his stated desire to "stop things," his initial economic plan largely punted on fundamental restructuring.
Limited impact on calcification. While Clinton achieved some successes, like passing NAFTA and minor reforms to student loans and rural electrification, his administration largely avoided a systematic attack on entrenched subsidies and anticompetitive deals. His budget plan, for instance, proposed eliminating almost no major programs, relying instead on defense cuts and administrative tinkering.
The persistence of lobbies. The Clinton years demonstrated that even unified party control doesn't automatically overcome demosclerosis. Lobbies continued to exert immense pressure, successfully defending programs like the wool and mohair subsidy (though it was eventually phased out) and western land-use subsidies. The "awesome power of the Washington nomenklatura" to thwart change remained evident.
11. The Politics of Blame is Obsolete: We Are All Implicated
Who will repudiate the politics of blame and tell the people the truth? Who will tell them that they—we—are the special interests?
Tragedy of the commons. Demosclerosis is akin to the "tragedy of the commons," where a shared resource (government's problem-solving capacity) is depleted because individuals, acting in their self-interest, over-exploit it. Each group rushes to secure benefits, fearing others will take first, leading to collective loss.
Self-defeating mentality. The "blame-someone-else, don't-touch-mine" mentality exacerbates the problem. Politicians and lobbies exploit public fear and anger, reinforcing the idea that "special interests" (always someone else) are the problem. This prevents the broad, common agreement needed to limit transfer-seeking appetites.
A call for attitude adjustment. America's electorate, despite its immense wealth, often feels entitled and whiny, demanding more from government while simultaneously complaining about its dysfunction. Overcoming demosclerosis requires a fundamental shift in public attitude, moving away from the politics of entitlement and blame towards collective responsibility. This means acknowledging that "we are the special interests" and that managing demosclerosis requires a disciplined, persistent effort from all.
Last updated:
