Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The Declaration of Independence affirms that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This principle is often understood in terms of elections and representation, but it rests on a more fundamental requirement: the people must possess sufficient knowledge of the conditions under which they live to give meaningful consent. Where information is obscured, incomplete, or inaccessible, consent becomes attenuated—reduced to form rather than substance. In the early twentieth century, Upton Sinclair played a pivotal role in exposing conditions that were largely hidden from public view. While Sinclair’s work helped catalyze public demand for government action, the long-term preservation of self-rule required mechanisms—such as the notice-and-comment process—that transform public reaction into disciplined, informed consent.

At its core, self-government depends upon an informed citizenry. Individuals must be able to assess risks, evaluate the actions of institutions, and make choices—both political and economic—based on reasonably accurate information. Without such awareness, participation in markets and in governance becomes compromised. Consumers cannot make informed decisions, and voters cannot meaningfully judge the actions of those in power. In this sense, transparency is not merely a desirable feature of a free society; it is an essential condition for the exercise of liberty.

The rapid industrialization of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries created new challenges for this principle. As production became more complex and geographically concentrated, the distance between producer and consumer widened. Goods were no longer made in small, visible settings, but in large, often opaque industrial facilities. This transformation brought significant economic benefits, but it also introduced a profound information asymmetry. Consumers, increasingly removed from the processes that produced the goods they purchased, had little ability to observe or evaluate the conditions under which those goods were made.

This gap in knowledge created a corresponding gap in consent. Individuals were participating in an economic system whose inner workings were largely invisible to them. They could not easily determine whether products were safe, whether production methods were sanitary, or whether risks were being managed responsibly. In such an environment, the ability of the public to exercise informed judgment—whether through purchasing decisions or political action—was significantly constrained.

Sinclair’s own life helped shape his sensitivity to these problems. Born in Baltimore in 1878, he experienced both poverty through his father’s unstable circumstances and relative affluence through visits with his mother’s prosperous family. Moving to New York while still young, he supported himself by writing while attending the City College of New York and later studying at Columbia University. These experiences exposed him to stark economic contrasts and reinforced his conviction that ordinary Americans often lacked the information necessary to understand the institutions shaping their lives.

It was into this context that Upton Sinclair undertook his work. By the early twentieth century, Sinclair had already established himself as a prolific young writer whose growing interest in social reform led him to investigate the conditions faced by industrial workers firsthand. Rather than relying solely on secondhand accounts, he immersed himself in the environments he sought to describe, believing that careful observation was essential to exposing realities the broader public could not otherwise see.

Sinclair was not a regulator, nor was he a policymaker. He was, rather, an investigator and a writer who sought to bring hidden conditions into the public eye. His efforts were marked by persistence and a willingness to immerse himself in environments that many would have preferred to ignore. By documenting the realities of industrial food production, Sinclair aimed to reveal aspects of the modern economy that had remained largely concealed from the public.

Sinclair spent weeks working undercover and conducting extensive research in Chicago’s meatpacking district before writing The Jungle, seeking to ground his fictional narrative in careful observation of actual industrial conditions. The publication of The Jungle brought these conditions to widespread attention. Readers were confronted with vivid descriptions of practices that raised serious concerns about sanitation and safety in the production of food. The reaction was swift and intense. Public awareness gave way to public alarm, and public alarm translated into political pressure. Citizens demanded that their government respond to the conditions that had been exposed.

It is important, however, to understand both the power and the limits of this reaction. Sinclair himself famously remarked that he had aimed at the public’s heart and hit it in the stomach. The emotional force of his writing galvanized attention, but it also underscored a key reality: public reaction, while powerful, is not always precise. Emotional responses can amplify concerns, but they do not necessarily provide a clear or balanced foundation for policy. Outrage can identify a problem, but it does not, on its own, produce well-calibrated solutions.

Nevertheless, the exposure of these conditions marked a turning point. Public awareness made inaction untenable, and the federal government responded with new measures aimed at ensuring food safety. These developments were part of a broader period of regulatory expansion in the United States, in which growing complexity and public demand led to the creation of new institutions and frameworks for oversight. Sinclair’s work did not dictate the specific contours of these policies, but it played a critical role in bringing the underlying issues to light.

At this juncture, a distinction becomes essential. There is a meaningful difference between public reaction and public consent. Reaction is immediate and often emotional; consent, in the context of a republic, must be more deliberate and informed. If policy is driven solely by reaction, it risks being shaped by incomplete information or transient pressures. For self-government to function effectively, there must be mechanisms that allow public concerns to be expressed, examined, and refined.

This is where the development of structured processes for public participation becomes significant. In the decades following the initial wave of regulatory expansion, the United States established formal procedures to guide how regulations are developed and implemented. Among the most important of these is the notice-and-comment process, through which agencies propose rules, invite input from the public, and are required to consider and respond to that input before finalizing their decisions.

The notice-and-comment process serves several critical functions. It creates an opportunity for citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders to provide information, raise concerns, and offer recommendations. It requires agencies to engage with these contributions, fostering a level of transparency and accountability that strengthens the legitimacy of regulatory actions. Importantly, it also helps to distinguish between different types of input. Public comments may range from highly technical analyses to expressions of personal concern or broad statements of opinion. The process does not eliminate this diversity, but it channels it into a structured framework where it can be evaluated more systematically.

In this sense, notice-and-comment can be understood as an institutionalization of consent. It does not replace the role of elected representatives, nor does it guarantee perfect outcomes. What it does is provide a mechanism through which public reaction can be transformed into more disciplined, informed participation. It encourages the submission of evidence, the articulation of reasoning, and the consideration of competing perspectives. In doing so, it helps ensure that regulatory decisions are not merely responses to momentary pressures, but are grounded in a broader and more deliberate engagement with the public.

Seen in this light, Sinclair’s contribution takes on a particular significance. His work helped initiate a process by which hidden conditions were brought into public awareness. That awareness, in turn, generated the demand for action. But the preservation of self-rule required more than exposure; it required the development of processes that could translate awareness into informed decision-making. Sinclair helped make consent possible by illuminating what had been concealed. Processes like notice-and-comment help make that consent meaningful by structuring how the public’s voice is incorporated into governance.

This balance remains essential. Too little opportunity for public input risks technocratic decision-making that is disconnected from the concerns of the people. Too much reliance on unstructured reaction risks policies that are unstable or poorly calibrated. A functioning republic must navigate between these extremes, ensuring both that the public is heard and that its input is engaged in a disciplined and thoughtful manner.

The relevance of these principles extends to the present day. Modern communication technologies have dramatically increased the speed and volume of information available to the public. Issues can gain national attention almost instantaneously, and public reaction can be swift and widespread. Yet the fundamental challenge remains the same: distinguishing between reaction and informed judgment. The need for structured processes that can channel public input into effective governance is, if anything, more pressing in an age of rapid information flow.

Ultimately, the principle of consent of the governed depends not only on the ability of citizens to express their views, but on the conditions that make those views informed and meaningful. Upton Sinclair’s work stands as a reminder of the importance of exposing hidden realities and ensuring that the public is not excluded from knowledge that affects its well-being. At the same time, the evolution of processes like notice-and-comment underscores the necessity of transforming awareness into structured participation.

The enduring lesson is that self-government requires both the awakening of public concern and the institutions that refine that concern into informed consent. Sinclair helped bring the former into being. The development of procedural frameworks for public input has made the latter possible. Together, they illustrate how a republic can move from reaction to reasoned self-rule, preserving the principle that government ultimately derives its authority from a people that is both informed and engaged.

Andrew is a seasoned broadcaster and public policy professional with more than 15 years of experience in radio, television and online media, and more than three decades in public policy. Currently, he serves as Director of the Center for Regulatory Freedom at the CPAC Foundation, as well as the Executive Director of the Coalition Against Socialized Medicine, drawing from his more than three decades in public policy and politics in those roles.

Since 2011, he has worked as a talk radio host, filling in for nationally-syndicated and major-market radio shows, like WMAL in Washington, DC. In addition to his radio work, he hosts several podcasts, including the Federal Newswires “Lunch Hour” podcast and “Andrew and Jerry Save the World.”He has been named one of Maryland’s top political influencers, has testified before Congress on regulatory issues more than two dozen times and in state legislatures around the country. A graduate of William & Mary with a degree in international relations, he holds a Masters in Public Administration from Troy University. He has also taught regulatory policy at the university level.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.