Government's End: Why Washington Stopped Working

by Jonathan Rauch

An earlier edition of this extraordinarily prescient, elegantly written book created a sensation among Washington media insiders when it was published more than five years ago under the title Demosclerosis . In it, Jonathan Rauch, a former correspondent for The Economist and a columnist for National Journal , showed with startling clarity the reasons why America's political system (and, in fact, other political systems as well) was becoming increasingly ineffective. Today, as Rauch's predictions continue to manifest themselves in a national politics of "sound and fury" and little effective legislation, and in increasing voter cynicism, this book has achieved renown as the classic and essential work on why politics and government don't work. In Government's End , Rauch has completely rewritten and updated his earlier work to reassess his theory, analyze the political stalemate of the last few years, and explain why sweeping reform efforts of the kind led by Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Newt Gingrich aren't the answers. He also looks ahead at what is likely to happen -- or not happen -- next, and proposes ideas for what we must do to fix the system. For anyone who cares about the health of American democracy -- and indeed of international security -- Government's End is a fascinating, disturbing, and vitally important book.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction

304 pages, Paperback

First published December 22, 1999

Reviews

[Michalyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book a year or two ago and have been meaning to give it a proper review. I finally got around to it.

Rauch’s basic argument in Government’s End can be summarized as follows: Special interest groups are bad. They are bad because they engage in lobbying (rent-seeking) which is economically wasteful and unproductive and they stymie government by preventing it from being flexible, from acting nimbly and decisively. He concludes that regardless of the motives of different groups, the end result of their actions is the same--an enfeebling of government.

As much as I agree that special interest groups are problematic I was just not convinced by Rauch's argument that they are all equally harmful.

Perhaps the problem is not the presence of special interest itself but the assumption that all special interest results in the same negative effect. If one believes, like Rauch that no motives serve a better public good than others, then this would be stymieing indeed for any government trying to act. In fact, it would be impossible to even know which groups to excise to remove the enfeebling, cancerous areas of government.

If we extend Rauch’s cancer metaphor, imagine a doctor faced with a patient who exhibits symptoms of cancer; however, the source of that cancer is undeterminable. That doctor can, like Rauch, decide that all tissues and organs are equally culpable in the malady and so, cutting out a liver, a heart, a hand, a foot, will have the same result as excising the cancer. The other option is to do nothing. Neither really addresses the issue that the cancer exists, or at least, that the patient is exhibiting symptoms which are cause for concern.

This points to the weakness of Rauch’s proposed solutions. If the problem with American government is not, for the most part, a system which necessitates that politicians have deep pockets in order to survive and the problem is not politicians having too long-tenures, nor is it a general decline in the quality of American leadership, from whence does the power of special-interest groups arise? How is it that they are able to “hold government hostage” so to speak and calcify the mechanisms of change? If this mysterious source of their power is not identified, why should anyone suppose that making government smaller will be the answer?

What this highlights is that special-interest groups in a democracy are not at all like barnacles on the bulwark of government, nor are they life-sucking parasites on the jugular of the host.

The first implies a kind of commensalism, with interest groups gaining benefit from latching on to government, while government is taxed, but is ultimately unharmed. The second implies that government would be healthy but for the presence of special interest groups. Yet, if special-interest groups are the American public itself then it is impossible for any democratic government to exist without its constituents. Such a government signifies nothing.

In the spectrum of special-interest groups there are certainly some frivolous hangers-on and some deadly parasites, but the relationship between government and special-interest groups is by and large a mutualistic one. Shaking off special-interest groups like a bracing dash of sea-water is not simply a question of revitalizing the body-politic but radically altering the body-politic itself--an option which is, in fact, not as moderate a solution as Rauch suggests.

The point of all this is not to deny that Americans now more than ever have a keen sense that something is not quite right in the relationship between the people and the government. However, isolating one aspect of government such as special-interest groups without systematically examining the interconnected historical, social, economic and institutional conditions acting to produce a phenomenon is a self-defeating exercise.

That is why, despite Rauch’s calls for change, all we are left with is the uneasy notion that government has not “ended” as he suggests but that the only way to revitalize it is either to do away with democratic government itself, or to wish for some violent social upheaval such as the kind Germany, South Korea and Japan experienced. Most people would find this an unacceptable option. So what are we left with? We can't quite put our finger on the problem but given the choices presented, we shrug and say “well, that's the way it is"--which in the end is what Rauch concludes himself.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 1 out of 5]

one of these books that repeats their main points endlessly
yet a lot of the arguments, amazingly ignore fundamental issues or realities
with all the odd oversimplifications

It feels like there's so many black and white thinking going on,
where you don't see the distinctions between different styles of lobbying

or if you're dealing with billionaire special=interest groups in the same way
as you deal with special-interest groups with the disadvantaged.

---

One of his strangest quotes

"Clinton and Gingrich, as I saw first-hand, had brains, talent, determination. They both attempted 'revolutions' to rival Stockman's. And they both failed, each more spectacularly than the last."

[Anand · Rating 4 out of 5]

What I found most startling about this book was the assertion that all political action is simply a struggle between different groups for having some resources directed to their cause of choosing. This is a platitude, maybe. But looking beyond moral claims and focusing on the operationalization did help me think about the struggle in clearer terms - which is the only reason for awarding the fourth star.

I'm not convinced if the book's claims translate directly to non-American contexts - which is the reason for not awarding the fifth star.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't even remember how I found out Jonathan Rauch and his book, DEMOSCLEROSIS, but my love of that book spurred me to read more by him. Now, I come to GOVERNMENT'S END which I, after purchasing, found out was a revised and updated version of the aforementioned DEMOSCLEROSIS. As such, I won't try to rehash my previous review, but provide a brief summary of the differences. The older book came in 1994, after one year of the Clinton presidency. This "current" one came in 1999, towards the end of his second term. The first halves of each book are pretty much the same, with some sporadic additions to account for changes since the initial publication (the sugar and farm subsidies, for instance). The second half is where the biggest changes were made. In the intervening five years, Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich took control of the House and Clinton tried to push through a massive healthcare reform bill. These two events plus failed reform under Reagan form the bulk of the newly added chapter, in which Rauch assesses why reform failed in terms of the theory he put forth in this book's initial publication. The next biggest changes come in the last couple chapters, where he adjusts his attitude towards managing demosclerosis, and his recommendations for treating it (as opposed to the more optimistic "cure" in the previous edition). The title gets more of an explanation in these final chapters and doesn't mean that government will cease, but that it has reached a point where evolution isn't really possible, at least not like it was in the 30 years starting with the New Deal era. He also makes the point that the American public as a whole needs to make an attitudinal adjustment regarding how much they want government to do versus what is realistically achievable. Obviously, there have been unforeseen developments since 1999, but the argument the book puts forth (in either version) still holds up in my opinion. When faced with a choice between this and the previous version, I would recommend this one (because of the updated information), but both books have essentially the same message.

[David]

Mr. Rauch Proves His Point: If you're trying to understand why the federal government is deaf to the needs of its citizens, this book will tell you why. Further, if there is any question why John McCain strikes such a chord with the American people, the answer will be found in here. Yes, the economy is doing great (and the polls say Americans agree). Yes, our position in the world is dominant (and Americans agree). But when it comes to the performance of the government, you can see the vein bulging on the average American's forehead. Washington has "stopped working," in Mr. Rauch's words and in his book, he explains why. The culprit is an explosion of special interests who seek to exploit political and finiancial gain from our nation's capital. The myth of the "national interest" has been quietly put to rest. In its place is the roar of special interests who sap the nation's economy, stifle legislation, and stir public cynicism. Mr. Rauch is a bit too cynical about the prospects for reform; I do not share his belief that government has "ended." Hopefully, the next generation of political leaders, heeding Rauch's warning, will prove him wrong.

[Kevin Kirkhoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book that reduces Washington to many groups of people who fight for their piece of the pie. Whoever can make the best argument gets a bigger slice. Rauch points out how seemingly every single occupation is represented by a special interest group. In the old days you had a few people (rich people) with influence inside the Beltway. Now, everyone has a voice. They are lobbyists.

Rauch points out the failures of Reagan, Clinton, and Gingrich and just exactly what it takes to change things. Any radical swing in either direction is comparable to disturbing an ant bed. Lobbyists and activists mobilize to restore the status quo. All in all, it was an interesting perspective on Washington and why change is best done in slow, small increments.

[Jared · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book fills such a vital role - it provides a clear and accessible understanding of why government has stopped working effectively over the last 40 years. This is a foundational book for my research for Keeping Our Promise and I have found it to be invaluable.

Highlights for me were his reference of the writings of Mancur Olson, his analysis of the Stockman, Reagan, Clinton, and Gingrich reform efforts and why they failed.

I find his final chapters to be a real let down and a bit of a cop-out though - he's great at diagnosing the problem but fails to provide a coherent and actionable vision for how to respond.

[Sherwood Belangia · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a few years, when we are all scratching our heads and asking why Republican ambitions to reform/downsize government have failed, this book will go a good ways toward answering that questions. An extremely cogent and nonpartisan argument about the role of special interests in guaranteeing gov't growth. Brilliant.

[Tom Darrow · Rating 5 out of 5]

A convincing, ballanced and well-argued work. I have never highlighted so many passages in a book. He provides many common-sense arguments of how the US got in the mess it is now and he does it without pointing fingers and any specific political party. He proposes changes WITHIN the system, not huge changes TO the system.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

No left, no right. A book that helps to describe why the political morass Americans are enveloped in today is caused by our hyperplurality and desire to solve everything through group/issue advocacy. The only problem is, groups never go away and continue to clamor for their piece of the pie.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was assigned for a Political Science course on interest groups when I went to ASU, this became my favorite political book. It helped shape my current Libertarian ideologies. Recommended to all.

[Will Conley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Government's End was Conservativism's Beginning in my long and winding road away from somnambulent liberalism. It will be for you, too. Beware all ye liberals who tread here: there be airtight arguments in these pages.

[F.J. Harmon]

A well written presentation of the forces restricting governments ability to solve problems. A political view of "we have met the enemy and they are us".

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a revised and retitled Demosclerosis.