Pragmatism and the Long Path of Reform

The past quarter century has witnessed the terrorist attacks of September 11, two protracted wars, the financial crisis and Great Recession, and a pandemic that claimed more than one million lives in the United States. And then there is the two-term presidency of Donald Trump, which brought election denial, an insurrection at the Capitol, and, more recently, an aggressive and often violent program of deportations, large-scale reductions in force in the federal government, and a rapid erosion of constitutional norms. The next decade may witness the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare, stripping vulnerable citizens of income and healthcare security. Ongoing failures to address the causes of climate change may push the climate system toward irreversible tipping points. We live in turbulent times.

As a nation, however, we have weathered tumultuous periods before. Citizens born in the early twentieth century experienced the panic of 1907, World War I, the 1918–19 influenza pandemic, the devastation of the Great Depression, and World War II—all by the time they reaching middle age. They also lived through the Red Scare and sweeping violations of civil liberties, intense industrial warfare, flirtations with fascism, and the racial violence of Jim Crow.

Yet, in the face of these challenges, pragmatism prevailed. Reformers embarked on an extended period of institution-building and policymaking that fundamentally recast domestic and international politics and economics. Landmark statutes like the Social Security Act (1935), the Employment Act (1946), and the Civil Rights Act (1964) reduced poverty, created new tools for managing the business cycle, and initiated a transition away from Jim Crow toward greater racial inclusion. New international institutions helped lay the foundation for decades of economic growth and reduced the likelihood of great-power war.

In each case, the initial policies and institutions fell short of reformers’ aspirations. Mistakes were made. Compromises—inevitable in a Madisonian system—often blunted the scope of change. But over time, pragmatism reasserted itself, producing decades of incremental adjustments that extended and deepened earlier reforms. The path was long and often circuitous, but more often than not, it moved in the right direction.

When I was a college student and later a young professor at Wesleyan, I was struck by the limits of reform. Yes, we constructed a welfare state, but we never eliminated poverty or achieved universal access to healthcare. Yes, we enacted a series of civil rights laws, but we fell short of full inclusion. Two cheers for reform! Over time, however, I came to appreciate that these pragmatic reforms nonetheless produced gains that would have been unimaginable to those who survived the upheavals of the first half of the twentieth century.

The present moment, once again, is ripe for reform. Many of the crises of the past quarter century could have been prevented—or at least mitigated—had elected officials updated and improved existing policies and institutions. Instead, rising political polarization has divided the public, weakened Congress, and strengthened incentives for presidential unilateralism. Claims of expansive executive power, Congress’ reluctance to defend its Article I prerogatives, and ongoing efforts to deconstruct the administrative state and roll back postwar reforms must be understood in this broader political context.

In the coming decade, there will be a pressing need to rebuild an administrative state that has been depleted and to shore up policies that have become ossified after years of drift. Absent changes in the broader political environment, reform will likely be a fitful process. But each period of institution-building creates opportunities to incorporate new values, to recognize group claims that were invisible to earlier generations, and to rethink the purposes of governance itself.

Rather than living in a world of despair, there is room for hope. We are fortunate, at least for now, to inhabit a world of ideas and civil discourse. As we await the next wave of reform—and it will come—we can think critically about the legal and institutional foundations of public policy, engage seriously in conversations about the values that should guide change, and develop the analytical tools needed to contribute to debates about the future.

Marc Eisner is the Henry Merritt Wriston Chair of Public Policy, Professor of Government, and Professor of Environmental Studies, and can be reached at meisner@wesleyan.edu.