The Washington Monthly

February 1, 2010

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN (BUT PROBABLY DON'T NOTICE).... It's easy to lose sight of these developments, especially when we're caught up in the day-to-day fights over various political disputes, but the federal government has changed in some pretty dramatic ways over the last year. When we talk about the differences between Obama/Biden and Bush/Cheney, we tend to think about economic, national security, legal, and social policy.

But John Judis reminds us of regulatory policy, which on a day-to-day level, is just as important as the other policy areas.

[T]here is one extremely consequential area where Obama has done just about everything a liberal could ask for -- but done it so quietly that almost no one, including most liberals, has noticed. Obama's three Republican predecessors were all committed to weakening or even destroying the country's regulatory apparatus: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the other agencies that are supposed to protect workers and consumers by regulating business practices.
Now Obama is seeking to rebuild these battered institutions. In doing so, he isn't simply improving the effectiveness of various government offices or making scattered progress on a few issues; he is resuscitating an entire philosophy of government with roots in the Progressive era of the early twentieth century. Taken as a whole, Obama's revival of these agencies is arguably the most significant accomplishment of his first year in office. [...]

Republican presidents didn't just undermine scientific administration by making poor appointments; they also slashed or held down the regulatory agencies' budgets, forcing them to cut personnel. This was a particular problem in the all-important area of enforcement: If regulatory agencies can't conduct inspections and enforce rules, it doesn't matter how tough those rules are.... Now Obama is reversing these trends.

Judis added that Obama's regulatory appointments "could not be more different" from those we've seen in recent years, and "the flow of expertise into the federal bureaucracy over the past year has been reminiscent of what took place at the start of the New Deal."

These are the kind of changes that have an enormous impact on the public, but which few of us even consider when evaluating a presidency. We're dealing with obscure government officials in unseen government offices. When they do their jobs well, we have no reason to even notice. When they do their jobs poorly, it's probably because there's a Republican in the White House who's unconcerned about public safeguards.

It's the kind of detail few Americans consider before voting, but when a president takes office, he/she does more than just become the head of the White House and a political party; he/she also leads a large federal bureaucracy with vast regulatory power.

Over the last three decades, through Republican administrations, that regulatory power was deliberately stunted, favoring business interests over consumer interests. The bureaucracy has some discretion over which laws are enforced more vigorously, and the Bush administration, for example, chose a lax attitude when it came to consumer and worker protections,. Obama, in contrast, is using the executive branch in a very different, more progressive fashion, emphasizing strong federal oversight, and evidence-based analysis, with the public's interests in mind.

Progressive victories like these have occurred repeatedly over the last year, but they're largely under the radar, and don't generate headlines. But these regulatory changes nevertheless constitute change we can believe in.

We can only hope they last.

In 1993, Clinton, too, attempted to revive the regulatory agencies by appointing well-qualified personnel and increasing funding. But, after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, they managed to cut Clinton's budget proposals and delay or block the implementation of regulations. If Democrats lose Congress this November, the same thing could happen again. In that case, what has been Obama's most significant achievement to date would come to naught -- and liberals would have yet another reason to despair.

—Steve Benen 4:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Comments

These are the kinds of things that Obama should be touting and selling the public on their importance. Instead of saying "I'm not ideological," why not clarify that this is how the Democratic Party differs from the other party. Regulation matters. Remind the people why. The other side is constantly saying how it "hamstrings" business. Explain why it's necessary. I don't understand why the Democrats and Obama in particular aren't selling how this way of governing is better.

Posted by: Sagacity on February 1, 2010 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Keep posting stuff like this and you risk annoying all the people who believe that (a) it doesn't matter who's in charge so (b) we might as well all just stay home during the next election.

Posted by: N.Wells on February 1, 2010 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

This is why the Republicans keep harping about the budget deficit. They think that because the deficit acquired during the Regean years preventing Clinton from "expanding" the federal government, they can do the same thing to Obama using the Bush deficit.

Posted by: Kurt on February 1, 2010 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

A strong regulatory infrastructure is essential for an economic recovery. You could pass every law in your wildest dreams, and it wouldn't matter if they aren't enforced effectively.

A lot of the housing bubble and attendant financial collapse could have been avoided if competent, well funded regulators had been manning the watchtowers.

The GOP also has to be called out publicly on their obstruction of the confirmation process, which is severely hampering the recovery effort.

As Obama himself pointed out, the campaign cycle is endless, and the administration must relentlessly point out how GOP strategy is damaging the recovery efforts.

Posted by: bdop4 on February 1, 2010 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Food inspection, food inspection, food inspection. Tainted food scares the shit out of Republican voters just as much as Democratic ones and needs to be front and center. There was an article in the Atlanta newspaper that the inspections of the peanut processing plants has not improved even after the peanut butter poisonings. That is unacceptable and really bad politics.

Posted by: Th on February 1, 2010 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

The points made in this post speak to why I still and will always loath Ralph Nader, a man for whom I once admired, as he proved, beyond reason. His unrelenting "there's not a dimes worth of difference" grunt about Democrats and Republican, which continues to this day, remains one of the most rank and monumental instances of numbskullery imaginable.

Posted by: tsynnott on February 1, 2010 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Good coverage of a little noticed part of governing. Absolutely, Obama should be talking about these changes. Further, publicizing these changes could serve as a way to co-opt part of Frank Luntz's latest messaging memo where he argues that the "public" wants better enforcement of existing laws -- not new legislation.

Granted there also are massive loopholes in some existing law, but messages to support changes in financial regulation and consumer protection regulation can be developed seperately.

Posted by: David on February 1, 2010 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

If Obama doesn't get control of PR the way FDR did, he won't be in office to continue his policies and as was made clear in the Bush years, all the laws and regulations in the world are worthless if they aren't enforced. Obama is not selling the good things he has done and this is a real problem. He's a great rhetorician and a lousy communicator.

Posted by: Christine on February 2, 2010 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you for doing the job one would have expected the White House and DNC Communications apparatus to do! The Obama administration now as in the campaign have dropped the communication ball. Only Barack can communicate what is his administration's activites, accomplishments or plans for our futures. Even the Congress, is unable or unwilling to take the message to the people directly. Not only is the media working to make relevant the Repugs and their Blue Dog cohorts, the DNC and the WH is letting them.
Barack is still way ahead of the game and head and shoulders in all relevant categories as compared to all other holders of power. That said, we can't and shouldn't allow the "others" including the media to make the lies of the other side empowered as in the case of the proverbial "Big Lie".
It's shakeup time in the White House and in the DNC. "Gibby" needs to go, and likely Kaine as well. Some if not all of the Senate leaders are also in need of a shakeup too, what's he got to lose.
I'm so happy to see the re-emergence of Plouffe as at least in the House and ready for more change, not only which we can believe, but were even told!

Posted by: Michael A. on February 2, 2010 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK