Institutions are supposed to temper the mood swings of democracy

I don't have time for a proper post. But I just read a great article over lunch: Mamdani is Learning How to Rig the System, by Maximillian Garely in The Spectator. He discusses the rent-control policies Mamdani is pushing in NYC. But what I found so fascinating was his discussion of the different ways that the right and the left try to get existing institutions to enact policies they want:

Right-wing populists have long been accused of attacking independent institutions and undermining their credibility. Their left-wing counterparts appear to have developed a subtler, more insidious approach. Instead of attacking institutions, they capture them. In doing so, they predetermine outcomes and present the result as an independent judgment.

He makes an interesting point. At first, I found this odd, because of the left's overriding desire for revolution - to tear it all down. But he addresses this:

There is a wider story here. Right-wing populism announces its hostility towards institutions through open confrontation: denouncing them as corrupt, attacking their leadership, attempting to overrule policy decisions, and threatening their funding. Left-wing populism, meanwhile, is more comfortable operating through the language of procedure and expertise. It preserves the original form of an institution while ensuring that those in control of each stage of the decision-making process understand which conclusions are acceptable. It’s ironic, because the far-left of old is famous for their love of revolution and the destruction of institutions. Nevertheless, among the new generation of socialists, the institution survives while the democratic process dies. Both left and right populists seek to bend nominally independent bodies to their will. The left, however, is proving more effective.

Again, I find some of his insights to be brilliant. Please go read the whole thing.

Democrats are the party of government. They're good at it, while Republicans really aren't. Probably because Democrats are more willing to work within existing institutions, while Republicans correctly perceive those institutions themselves as a big part of the problem, and avoid them.

Institutions are supposed to temper the mood swings of democracy. Democrats have gotten good at preventing institutions from fulfilling their purpose. In fact, they've gotten good at using institutions to enhance the mood swings of democracy (emphasis mine - please read the last sentence 2-3 times):

But a democratic mandate does not erase the distinction between political power and independent judgement. An institution can only be meaningfully independent if it is able to reach a conclusion that politicians dislike. Elections determine direction; independent bodies are supposed to test whether particular interventions are justified by the evidence. When those functions collapse into one another, expertise simply becomes a means by which political preference can be laundered through institutional authority.

Again, please read the whole thing. Slowly - it's dense.

After work, I may have some comments on his ideas.

In the meantime, what do you think?