Commentary
One of the primary goals of the populist Make America Great Again movement is to dismantle what they refer to as “the administrative state.”
The populist perspective on the administrative state is that it consists of a vast bureaucracy, comprising millions of civilian employees in the executive branch, who regulate a significant portion of the U.S. government, foreign policy, and economy. While Congress is supposed to oversee their activities, in reality, the administrative state largely operates independently, which has caused friction with the small-government, conservative populists aligned with the MAGA movement.
How Did We Get Here?
The American administrative state traces its roots back to President Woodrow Wilson’s 1887 essay, “The Study of Administration,” penned years before he assumed office.
Wilson, a progressive academic with a Ph.D., won the presidency with just a 42 percent plurality in a three-way race and is considered one of the least democratic U.S. presidents. He advocated for a government led by an expert class, similar to Britain’s Whitehall. Wilson wrote:
“We have enthroned public opinion; and it is forbidden us to hope during its reign for any quick schooling of the sovereign in executive expertness or in the conditions of perfect functional balance in government. The very fact that we have realized popular rule in its fullness has made the task of organizing that rule just so much the more difficult. In order to make any advance at all we must instruct and persuade a multitudinous monarch called public opinion—a much less feasible undertaking than to influence a single monarch called a king.”
It is clear how these views and the resulting bureaucratic expansion, which has only grown since Wilson’s tenure, clash with the ideals of the populist MAGA movement, which aims to curb unaccountable governance by an alleged “expert” class—the core mission of MAGA.
Government by the Experts
Despite opposition from the MAGA movement, Wilson’s vision of a government led by “experts” has become ingrained in American governance. Other presidents, like Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, further promoted this concept, leading to the proliferation of bureaucracy in subsequent administrations.
One of the most prominent examples of government by experts is the Federal Reserve, established in 1913 and technically independent of Congress and the White House. However, perhaps the most significant manifestation within the executive branch is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), founded by President Wilson in 1914.
A Law Unto Herself?
Lina Khan, the current chair of the FTC, epitomizes unaccountable governance by an unelected “expert” class. Her rise to prominence began with a groundbreaking article in the Yale Law Journal in 2017, where she critiqued U.S. antitrust laws and highlighted Amazon’s alleged monopoly power.
Appointed as FTC chair by President Joe Biden in March 2021, Khan’s actions have sparked controversy. Critics accuse her of disregarding the rule of law and due process, leading to resignations within the FTC and allegations of neglect and mismanagement.
Even some Biden administration supporters have criticized Khan for her handling of large mergers and evasion of congressional oversight. Despite initial praise for her appointment, dissent against Khan’s methods has grown, highlighting the ongoing battle over the role of experts in government.
Assessing Chair Khan’s Performance
After evaluating Chair Khan’s performance on mergers like Jet Blue and Spirit Air, two management experts concluded that she is overreaching from enforcement into active policy making.
Time to Move On
Chair Khan may have valuable insights into the intricacies and shortcomings of U.S. antitrust law, particularly in regards to Amazon. However, it is important to note that she has never been elected to any position. It seems that she, like some in the bureaucracy, believes that her expertise grants her the authority to legislate, shielded from public scrutiny and the will of the voters.
This approach may have been favored by Woodrow Wilson, but it does not align with the vision of the Founding Fathers as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. They intentionally distributed power across multiple branches of government to prevent centralization.
If Chair Khan wants to shape laws, she should consider running for Congress. If she prefers to enforce the law, she should adhere to congressional legislation. It is crucial for her to distinguish between these roles in her public service.
