The Rise of the Technocrat?
By Shaun Kenney | Tuesday, November 15th, 2011 | Economics, PoliticsGreece and Italy have promoted “technocrats” as their new leadership. Newt Gingrich is rising in the polls. There’s even new-found respect for the likes of Timothy Geithner.
Is the technocrat on the rise?
Technocrats got their initial rise during the Soviet era as a solution to socialist regimes — find a “technocrat” that understood how the machinery of government worked, and they would instantly go in and fix what the bureaucracy could not and the people would not. Once the technocrats fixed the machinery, the philosopher kings would recede back to their respective professions and life would continue on for another 50 years or so until the technocrats were needed to save us again…
So what the heck is a technocrat precisely? Slate offers one perspective:
An expert, not a politician. Technocrats make decisions based on specialized information rather than public opinion. For this reason, they are sometimes called upon when there’s no popular or easy solution to a problem (like, for example, the European debt crisis). The word technocrat derives from the Greek tekhne, meaning skill or craft, and an expert in a field like economics can be as much a technocrat as one in a field more commonly thought to be technological (like robotics). Both Papademos and Monti hold advanced degrees in economics, and have each held appointments at government institutions.
Quite popular in Italy and Greece, but not so for America.
…and yet.
The idea of a nation or polis run by experts is as old as Plato. Sometimes it manifests itself in the form of Sulla or Caesar, other times such “philosopher kings” manifest themselves in the American Founding Fathers. Sometimes the technocrats fix the problem (Germany in the 1950s) while other times the technocrats fail massively (Gorbachev in the late 1980s). Sometimes the result is a massive expansion of personal liberty (America in the 1800s) while other times the technocrats inspire a regime of terror (Europe in the late 1840s).
All in all, there are times when leaders are needed to cut through the noise and establish some sort of common sense that the politicians and bureaucrats have created for themselves. In other occasions, those leaders can establish horribly new and devastating polities where the math may work… but the human factor is squeezed entirely out. The 20th century is replete with evidence of this, as is classical antiquity.
The bottom line is relatively simple. Technocrats will not save us from ourselves. Nor will they be able to save a society intent on feeding upon the very engines of prosperity for short-term gain. But the technocrats — whether in Europe or America — may very well set the stage and the conversation for how we will tackle our problems.
Whether we listen to them — or whether they are worth listening to — is another matter.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
10 Responses to "The Rise of the Technocrat?"
From the Greek “tekhnikos”, meaning to know what the #/!% you are talking about. Frowned upon by the idle class for causing hands to become dirty, and limiting ideas to ones that can survive clashes with reality.
Paul Johnson’s Modern Times talks about the breakdown of personal guilt among the dictators of the 20th century.
Millions were killed in the name of “applied science.”
Nice post.
I’ve also contemplated the rise of a technocratic government at the federal level. While I disagree with such an outcome on a philosophical level, I do wonder it it’s in the near future.
I don’t see either party dipping below 41 seats in the Senate. And therefore, unless there is a rule change….we’re going to be plagued by this horrendous partisanship that is causing the good ship America to take on a lot of water. Neither party is going to budge an inch as long as they have some lever of power.
At some point, if neither party gets its act together and we keep piling up trillion dollar deficits on an annual basis….there’s going to be a technocratic installation that will simply force cuts in Social Security and Medicare AND raise taxes. The math will simply overwhelm the democratic society…much like Greece and Italy.
That’s why I hope that both parties can start to ratchet down the rhetoric and make good faith efforts to find some common ground. Partisan gridlock is leading to these massive deficits and we’re blind if we don’t see it.
I have trouble with some of your your examples of technocrats but I suppose that’s quibbling. I think we have an issue of semantics here because when so-called technocrats make policy as opposed to execute policy they become politicians. Similarly when there is a military takeover the general in charge is now the politician in charge.
Why isn’t any one including the technocrats asking the simple question “why are we now seeing a rapid increase in hyperpartisanship?” Wouldn’t it make sense to identify the factors sustaining hyperpartisanship and address them with the voters who could then decide whether they prefer the hyperpartisanship or hate it? I can think of one plausible factor off the bat: gerrymandered districts.
Great point valentinus….I know that it’s unpopular with some, but I favor a non-partisan redistricting commission at the state and local levels. It is absurd as a voter in the Commonwealth that out of 100 seats in the House, only 27 (if I heard this correctly on the radio) actually had both a Democratic and Republican nominee. I don’t care what party you’re a part of, that’s just bad for voters and democracy. The districts should not be feifdoms for one party or the other which leaves voters without any true options. I think a lot of it has to do with technology. The technology is so granular now, that both parties can truly craft impregnable districts for their incumbents.
Instead of “technocrats”, think “sacrificial lambs”.
The poltiicians lack the courage to fix the mess that they caused.
I wonder if ANYONE really understands the current “government or politicial system” in Europe now??
The problems of hyperpartisanship have more to do with “the daily me” problem identified by Cass Sunstein than anything else. We no longer read the same news, listen to the same pundits, or read the same set of facts. Citizens read the information that confirms their own bias… and act accordingly.
It’s important to realize that “technocrats” really are the experts we ask to run things when government no longer functions. America hasn’t had a truly technocratic government since the 1920′s-1930s and the days of Hoover and FDR. Our system is fairly well insulated against technocrats or experts running amok… though you never know.
As for redistricting… gerrymandering has been part of the American fabric from day one, and yet we still haven’t experienced one-party rule. In fact, gerrymandering worked very well for the Democrats in the South (and Virginia) after Reconstruction, and no one complained about it from the 1870s to the 1990s.
Why the reference to Newt in the lead? He is not discussed, either pro or con, in the post. Are you implying he is a “technocrat” or something else?
“Throw Them All Out” by Peter Schweizer. Will buy this book today one way or another.
“The club Schweizer calls the `Permanent Political Class’ makes rules for itself. Members with no time to meet small business constituents do not spare any trouble to legally enrich themselves through earmarks, real estate deals, securities violations, trading on inside information, self-dealing with stimulus funds and literally every budget item.”
“What I find particularly eye-opening is the persuasive power of Schweizer’s argument. He says that the political class deserves to be in power because they have the deviousness to stay there. I couldn’t agree more because the political class is so intelligent that they–get this!–compel CEOs to let them buy lucrative shares in IPOs at very low prices in exchange for passing favorable legislation for those CEOs! And all the while, the stupid idiot people of America–that would be you and me who have a 9 to 5 job, worship God and like to go to a ballgame every now and then–just carry on with their ignorance-is-bliss lives while the political class keeps enriching their wealth, power and influence in this way!!”
Should one consider the “Permanent Political Class” to be technocrats?
Jim Moran is in chapter two.
“In fact, gerrymandering worked very well for the Democrats in the South (and Virginia) after Reconstruction, and no one complained about it from the 1870s to the 1990s.”
Are you saying this in outrage or are you actually trying to use it as support for the notion gerrymandering is no big deal in maintaining hyperpartisanship or worse??
Leave your response