Turns Out the Elites Like the Administrative State Better than Democracy

The tension between the "administrative state," which operates through unelected bureaucrats, and the principles of democracy in the United States. It highlights the views of progressive elites, particularly in relation to recent Supreme Court rulings and the perceived limitations on the power of federal regulatory agencies.

1. Progressive View on Democracy: Progressive elites often proclaim their dedication to democracy, yet they may prefer governance by experts when electoral outcomes do not align with their objectives. This inconsistency is evident in their reactions to key political issues, such as abortion rights and environmental regulations.

2. Supreme Court Ruling Impact: The article references a Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA, where the Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot unilaterally regulate carbon emissions without congressional authorization. This ruling reinforces democratic principles by requiring elected officials to legislate rather than allowing bureaucratic agencies to impose regulations.

3. Reaction from the New York Times: The New York Times criticized the ruling, arguing it undermines the federal government's ability to effectively manage various regulations crucial to public health and safety. However, the article counters that the ruling merely affirmed the limitations of bureaucratic authority in a democratic context.

4. Critique of the Administrative State: The article argues that the administrative state can be autocratic, contradicting the values of democracy. It points to examples of failed policies implemented by so-called experts that have led to negative consequences, questioning the effectiveness of governance by bureaucrats.

5. Misplaced Trust in Experts: The article suggests that the belief in regulatory agencies as capable decision-makers is misguided. Bureaucrats may not bear consequences for their decisions and are often motivated by external pressures from interest groups rather than the public good.

6. Contradictory Positions on Governance: The New York Times maintains a belief that agencies like the EPA are necessary for making complex decisions in a representative democracy, yet this belief conflicts with its claims about democratic governance. This inconsistency highlights the progressive desire for expert-led management over democratic accountability.

The article ultimately asserts that the administrative state is less democratic and often fails to serve the public effectively. Despite elite preferences for expert governance, especially seen in environmental regulation and other complex issues, the argument reinforces the idea that empowerment of elected officials and democratic processes is essential for genuine governance. The critique calls into question the efficacy of bureaucratic control and challenges the notion that experts are inherently better suited to govern than the elected representatives of the populace. 

https://mises.org/mises-wire/turns-out-elites-administrative-state-better-democracy