From the file. Written for the paper dated April 1974. Opened in the public stacks July 14, 2026.
As the United States navigates the complex landscape of governance, federal agency rulemaking remains a crucial yet often overlooked aspect of our democratic framework. The past week has underscored the bipartisan habit of selective memory regarding the implications and outcomes of these regulations.
The Role of Federal Agencies
Federal agencies are tasked with the implementation and enforcement of laws enacted by Congress. Their rulemaking process is designed to ensure that these laws are applied effectively, addressing the needs and concerns of the American populace. However, as observed in recent developments, both sides of the political spectrum tend to forget the consequences of the rules they champion when they find themselves in power.
Consider the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has been at the forefront of regulatory discussions. In its efforts to protect the environment, the agency has faced backlash from those who argue that excessive regulation stifles economic growth. Yet the same voices often overlook the environmental catastrophes that necessitate such regulations, conveniently forgetting the past crises that brought us to this point.
Selective Memory and Political Expediency
On the other side of the aisle, liberal lawmakers frequently laud the achievements of regulatory bodies while ignoring the bureaucratic overreach that can accompany such zeal. The recent push for increased safety standards in the workplace, spearheaded by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), is a prime example. While there is no denying the importance of protecting workers, the rapid implementation of stringent rules without adequate consideration of their economic impact can lead to unintended consequences, harming the very individuals they aim to help.
"In the heat of political battles, the lessons of the past can be easily forgotten, leading to a dangerous cycle of reactionary policymaking."
This selective memory is not unique to one party; both the left and right are guilty of cherry-picking history to fit their narratives. The constant back-and-forth between deregulation and regulation often leaves the public confused and disillusioned. When the pendulum swings toward deregulation, the horrors of past failures, such as the disastrous effects of the 1960s on air and water quality, fade from memory. Conversely, when regulations tighten, the potential for economic downturns and job losses is often downplayed.
Case Studies in Bipartisanship
A recent case that exemplifies this phenomenon is the debate surrounding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its regulations on broadcast standards. In the wake of the Watergate scandal, there has been a surge in calls for increased regulatory oversight of media outlets. While the intention is to safeguard against misinformation, one must consider the implications for free speech and the potential for governmental overreach. Ironically, many of those championing these regulations today were staunch defenders of media freedom just a few years ago.
Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has faced scrutiny regarding its approval processes for new drugs. The push for faster approvals is often met with resistance from those who argue that safety must come first. However, in earlier decades, the same agency faced criticism for being too slow, leaving patients without access to potentially life-saving medications. This highlights the inconsistency in the narratives pushed by both parties, depending on the political climate and public sentiment.
Moving Forward
As we move forward, it is imperative for lawmakers and the public alike to embrace a more nuanced understanding of federal agency rulemaking. Bipartisanship should not mean a blind allegiance to one ideology or another but rather a commitment to learn from the past and apply those lessons thoughtfully in the present. It is essential to recognize the complexities of governance and the need for regulations that strike a balance between protecting the public and fostering economic growth.
In a time when trust in government is waning, it is the responsibility of both sides of the aisle to engage in honest conversations about the implications of rulemaking. The American people deserve transparency and consistency, rather than a continuous cycle of reactionary policymaking fueled by selective memory.
✦ ✦ ✦