Should the EPA be independent of the executive branch? Does the civil service generally need greater insulation from politics?
All political entities will, by their very nature, suffer from political partisanship. Any office that has an affiliation with the government will still be attached the superstructure of government. On a humorous level, comedy show Parks and Recreation highlight how even the remedial aspects of government are infused with political tension. An innocent zoo promotion becomes the catalyst for a controversy over gay marriage. A time capsule and the Twilight novels becomes a flashpoint in the community. Throughout, the show, we see the different characters and interest groups of Pawnee, IN clash over minor policies and initiatives.
Politics is the process of group decision-making. Civil services have been delegated power by the people to regulate for the interests of people--classical idea of a social contract between the government and the people. So we have a fork in the road. One, we either insulate civic entities from politics (and thus separate it from people, i.e. the "group" in "group decision making"). This would address the issue of partisanship at the expense of establishing a fundamentally un-democratic institution. Alternatively, we remain in the status quo and allow partisanship to influence critical environmental policies.
The EPA can only regulations which build upon Congressional statues. For example Congress passes the Clean Air Act of 1970 which requires the EPA to reduce green house gases. The EPA would come in to establish and enforce specific regulations to carry out the statutory objective. They are inherently a part of the executive branches since they are tasked with, well, executing the law. For better or for worse, the EPA is tied to the executive branch of government.
However, there is something to be said for limiting direct presidential oversight. The laws regulating political participation and partisanship are shoddy at best. There is the outdated Hatch Act originally enacted in the late 1930's), but that pretty much just prevents civil servants from sponsoring or participating in campaigns (1). The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 was enacted to protect congressional oversight of nominations and offices. However, President Trump has utilized the act to install "acting" members of the government without congressional oversight (2). If the installment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court means anything, it indicates that partisanship has infiltrated every aspect of our government. The EPA is not an isolated incident; it is the symptom of a systemic problem.
Now we get to the heart of my argument: change will NEVER be initiated by governmental big wigs. The superstructure of society inevitably suffers from inertia. Partisanship will always be present in the EPA. The true path to reform will be found in educating the public. In the tradition of Rawls's political liberalism, we have to find a common ground that all factions can agree upon to serve as the foundation. That is, public opinion must fundamentally shift to solidarity on the front of environmentalism before we see a unified, bipartisan support for environmentalism. Case in point, public awareness of environmental issues was heightened after the Cuyahoga River in OH burst into flames. Responding to public outcry, President Nixon pushed for reforms and established the EPA to address these issues (4).
In conclusion, one can definitely make a case for policy reform that would insulate civil services from partisanship. However, that is a system-wide issue, not unique to the EPA. If we want the government to united for the cause of the environment, we must first unite the public. How does one go about that? We must mind a common ground, a common interest that spans both sides of the aisle to unite the public on environmentalism.
1. https://people.howstuffworks.com/epa.htm (not the best source, but easy to understand).
3. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/14/nepotism-partisanship-us-civil-service
"there is something to be said for limiting direct presidential oversight" - right, insulation not from politics in general but from venial presidents in particular. We don't get that many of those, but when we do...
ReplyDelete