Marc J. Dunkelman > Quotes

“Here, taken together, was a Hamiltonian approach to solving the problem Jeffersonianism had tried to crack with an entirely different formula. Rather than chip away at the centralized institutions that were wreaking havoc on American life, the Hamiltonians would create new, publicly minded bureaucracies capable of keeping any rapacity in check. The problems of industrialization wouldn’t be solved with renewed competition, but rather with new, competent organization. The nation’s scientifically oriented middle class would swoop in to save the day.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“Reformers tout an achievement, but then a housing plan is abandoned after local opposition, a high-speed rail line is shelved for exorbitant costs, or an offshore wind farm is blocked by local fishermen. Often enough, both sides in any given debate—those who want to change things, and those who fear that change will be destructive—are well-intentioned. But the movement’s inability to resolve its conflicting impulses has turned progressive policymaking into what drag racers call “warming the tires.” A driver steps on the brake and accelerator at the same time. The wheels spin. The track screeches. But the car remains in place.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“Here, reformers faced elements of the same skepticism that thwarted fanciful desires to break up the trusts. Patronage was a staple of the nation’s political system. During Democrat Grover Cleveland’s first term as president, he forced forty thousand Republican postmasters out of their positions, replacing them with Democrats. When Republican Benjamin Harrison subsequently defeated Cleveland, he replaced fifty thousand Democratic postmasters with Republicans. This churn was based not on ability or talent, but on political connections—those seeking appointments were required to contribute financially to their local parties.84 For Hamiltonian reformers, the policy salve for this corruption was just as apparent: They would have to replace the “spoils system” of executive appointments with a civil service system based on merit—a project begun when Congress passed the Pendleton Act of 1883.85 To insulate a new breed of publicly minded public servants, they would pull power up and away from the vulgar political class.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“Many of the figures who had so enthusiastically championed centralized bureaucracy before 1912 came away from the First World War disillusioned. For as much as the War Industries Board appeared a beacon of professionalized management, insiders knew that it had often been twisted in knots, paralyzed by infighting.138 Many of the same figures took umbrage at the way Wilson’s administration had used public authority in a seemingly coercive way.139 Wilson’s decision to join the hostilities sparked a wave of domestic unrest, prompting the federal government to what some viewed as political suppression.140 More than two thousand people were arrested during the war for speaking out against American involvement, some sentenced to as many as twenty years in prison.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“No one should be denied an opportunity to voice their opinion on a question that affects them in general or in specific. But neither should voice give any figure the ability to hijack the decision-making process altogether.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“By curtailing opportunities for centralized power brokers to wreak havoc, reformers risk immobilizing the public sphere, rendering the big, hulking bureaucracies that were once the apple of progressivism’s eye incompetent.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“This book’s first argument is that both of these narratives—one Hamiltonian, the other Jeffersonian—frame elements of the progressive worldview. They were both part of the movement’s origin story in the late nineteenth century, and they have both framed progressive thinking ever since, despite being largely at odds. When progressives perceive a challenge through the Hamiltonian lens, the movement tends to embrace solutions that would pull power up and in. When, by contrast, a problem appears born of some nefarious centralized authority, the movement argues for pushing power down and out. But rarely does anyone notice that these two narratives, and their ensuing prescriptions, cut directly against one another. That’s not always a problem—the two impulses can, and do, coexist. Few, for example, would so much as raise an eyebrow if a young progressive today professed that her two top voting issues were reproductive rights and climate change. What is remarkable is that they are each respectively born of the two antithetical narratives. The fight for reproductive freedom is an explicitly Jeffersonian endeavor—it’s designed to protect women from outsiders intent on controlling their bodies. The fight against climate change, by contrast, is explicitly Hamiltonian—activists want to imbue some institution with the power to stop people and businesses from spewing carbon and destroying the planet.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“Put succinctly, it wasn’t just that reformers wanted to exchange the government’s incompetent hacks with educated experts—it’s that they wanted those experts to wield authority unencumbered by the political patrons who had undermined faith in public bureaucracy.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“It’s a tragedy of the commons in reverse. Everyone is boxed into pursuing their own interests even as the proverbial asteroid speeds toward Earth.110”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“Beneath their good intentions, many progressives came to believe that, to put it indelicately, the general public was too stupid to be trusted with any real influence. And that wasn’t simply born of prejudice—it reflected the country’s newfound draw toward new sources of expert wisdom. Progressivism, in short, was being shaped by a cultural turn toward science. And the progress, driven by rationality, appeared to be everywhere. Researchers were unveiling new approaches to treat and protect against horrors ranging from cholera to scarlet fever, diphtheria, tuberculosis, smallpox, and typhoid. Engineers and doctors were spreading the miracles of improved sanitation, vaccinations, and medicine. And to the degree that the promise of scientific and engineering expertise spurred many progressives to call for replacing backwater public health officials with trained professionals, the same worldview began to frame the movement’s approach to public policy more generally.42 Matters of state, in the progressive worldview, should not be left in the hands of charismatic country bumpkins; they should instead be placed in the responsible hands of professionals, of experts, of the well-heeled and well educated.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“During the First World War, the federal government had initiated construction of a dam near Muscle Shoals, Alabama. The gigantic facility was designed to harness the river’s flow to power the machinery required to produce nitrates for use in both bombs and fertilizer. At the end of the war, War Industries Board chairman Bernard Baruch proposed selling the facility off to Henry Ford, who promised to use the dam to power a “Detroit of the South.” But Senator George Norris, a progressive Republican from Nebraska, balked, arguing that what had been a federally constructed facility should be used for the public’s benefit.4 And that disagreement led to a long stalemate. Both Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, avatars of private industry, vetoed bills that would have used the dam to provide “public power.”5 Through the 1920s, laissez-faire prevailed, leaving those farms and families in the region that were not served by private electricity producers largely to go without.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“A region as a whole may benefit from a new rail line—less pollution, fewer traffic jams, improved mobility, a surge in economic growth. But as is true in any tragedy of the commons, the individual neighborhoods and hamlets inconvenienced by a new line are almost sure to be worse off. No tax break, no promise of a new community center, no noise-controlling barrier is going to convince them that they should bear the burden of the broader region’s progress.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“Put more simply, if housing remains forever a symbol to ordinary citizens of why progressives can’t be trusted with power, the movement undermines its own viability. To make a serious claim on shaping the nation’s future—to offer a more compelling argument than the conservatives, populists, and demagogues—progressives need to make the public-sector work. And while acknowledging that perfect balance of Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian impulses will always prove elusive—that any public policy decision comes with trade-offs—progressivism’s best foot forward is to create a system that can be trusted to look at public concerns, weigh the choices, and come to a reasonable decision.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“By tipping the scales too far from Hamiltonianism, and too far toward Jeffersonianism, progressivism became, in short, a movement of do-gooders unable to do enough good. The diffusion of power hasn’t just undermined government—it has short-sheeted progressivism’s political appeal. And that is perhaps the most important lesson of the last several decades. Absent a progressivism that works, what reformers get is a progressivism left vulnerable to demagoguery. When government appears incompetent, voters turn to figures like Donald Trump.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“It was, and is, easy to argue that the downsides of any given decision could have been avoided if everyone affected had been given sufficient voice. But the reality was, and is, that progress involves ratifying trade-offs that distribute burdens across communities, fair and unfair. And so a progressive agenda centered in almost every context on providing ordinary citizens with new tools to thwart that centralized authority—opportunities to use their voice to lobby an official, to file a lawsuit, to register a complaint—too frequently fails to answer a crucial question: Who, after everyone has spoken, should make the final choice?”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“But if progressives might once have had faith that government officials could be trusted to weigh the pros and cons, Jeffersonianism’s cultural aversion to power has denuded the system’s capacity to make tough calls. The movement had very purposefully granted various countervailing concerns with what amounted to vetoes. And while each veto may serve to protect a worthwhile interest, piled together they almost inevitably foment paralysis. Almost worse, the contemporary impulse to limit creativity has had the perverse effect of incentivizing projects less likely to take climate concern into account.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“Previously, during the Progressive Era, when electrical wires had first been strung across the country, municipalities had often taken the lead, establishing locally owned electrical systems under the direct control of City Hall. But if that appeared like progress to some, conservatives worried about the creeping tentacles of (often machine-controlled) local government. From that tension, a compromise was born. Rather than choosing between public and private ownership, government would charter “public utilities,” entities that would be run independently and for profit, but with the imprimatur of public oversight.6 In exchange for controlling the exclusive franchise to serve an area, a utility was contractually required to extend service to anyone who wanted a connection.7 In theory, the public would get the benefit of municipal ownership with the efficiency born of private industry. Or that was, at least, the hope. Already by the mid-1920s, however, many were questioning the wisdom of that arrangement. Legal agreements and secretive financial arrangements had opened the door for shadowy financial interests to claim effective control of the nation’s utilities. Local citizens might have maintained the impression that the small power plant serving their single neighborhood was owned locally—but in many cases it was actually controlled by a corporation headquartered thousands of miles away. That left many Americans—most of them dependent on their little, local electrical utility—powerless to lobby for lower rates, better service, or new connections. Perhaps worse, profit-oriented ventures, however they might be governed, had no real incentive to string wires to faraway places that were unlikely to draw much electricity. And that market-based reality had left the vast countryside in regions like the Tennessee Valley bereft of service.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

“the silent majority didn’t want every authority figure slapped—the White House purposely baited progressives into taking positions out of step with the president’s mainstream appeal.”
― Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back