Democracy is fair, but is it good?
Great interview with an interesting fellow over on TCS Daily, picked up via Commentary South Africa. The subject is an author, who makes a controversial point: Typical voters are ignorant of economics - in fact, popular, strongly-held beliefs are often the exact opposite of what you’d learn in economics class. They also exhibit certain common systemic biases. These result in policies that hurt not only the voters themselves, but everyone else. When markets apparently fail, turning to democracy for solutions is often a guaranteed way to make things even worse.
Excerpt:
In general, though, I think it’s better to focus on improving the quality of public opinion than changing the form of government. After all, if you can convince the majority to change the form of government, why not cut to the chase and just convince them to support better policies?
Excerpt:
I’ve gotten a much more sympathetic reading than I expected from other scholars. But the conclusion least likely to sink in with this audience, I think, is that free-market policies are a lot more attractive than they seem on the surface. Economists can often figure out ways to make markets work better, but the democratic process tends to adopt policies that makes markets work worse.
For a broader audience, I suspect the most difficult claim (or perhaps it’s more of a tacit assumption) is that democracy is not sacred. In our society, we are used to the idea that we should do whatever the majority wants. In fact, people often treat the majority opinion as the standard of both truth and value - how often have you heard a pundit say, “The American people want X” as if that were a sufficient reason to do it? I emphasize that popular policies can be very bad - and when they are, I don’t see why we should give the American people what it wants.
Is this paternalism? Not exactly - after all, people who support bad policies are not just hurting themselves. When my colleague Pete Boettke tells me “According to you, we get the policies we deserve,” I always answer, “Actually, we get the policies they deserve - hardly the same thing.”
These questions aren’t exactly new. Plato knew all about the problems of democracy. I too have some some views on this issue, but can’t claim to offer a solution that is both fair and practical. It’s worth thinking about, though. Even if only because this justifies time spent writing and blogging in the hope of “improving the quality of public opinion.” ;-)
The best form of government is probably a smart benevolent dictatorship but how often do Joseph Titos come along and how do we know that we are putting a smart benevolent dictator in power?
Democracy has worked relatively well for us and could continue to work well even with a 2 party system if the polital parties would be more responsible about whom they endorse.
The GOP had to have known that GW Bush was totally unqualified to be President and they sold their soul to the Devil when they let the Neocons with GW Bush as their front get in a position to control the President of the USA.
Too many people will unconditionally vote for one or the other party. We have now seen that it is possible for someone to be good at campaigning for high office but little else.
Democracy has some inherent advantages over a dictatorship. The input of various points of view may slow down the decision process but it makes for better decisions.
The question then becomes who determines what constitutes “benevolent”. You and I may differ greatly on the subject, and so may two learned experts. John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman were both well-educated and respected economists, but which would have made the right benevolent dictator? (I know which one I’d pick.)
What if the dictator usurps the very market freedoms that the TCS interviewee (Bryan Caplan) argues work better than most voters think? If he adopts some or all of the same biases that caused the wrong policy decisions under democracy in the first place? And yes, once chosen, how do you ensure that the dictator remains benevolent?
I’m a lot more comfortable with Caplan’s conclusion: “it’s better to focus on improving the quality of public opinion than changing the form of government.”
I am in total agreement with you. I hoped to say that benvolent dictators are very hard if not possible to find. .
Democracy is not perfect but it is the best we have.
The 2000 election showed (to me at least ) that there is a problem when a political party endorses a candidate who is good at campaigning but not qualified to be president.
Heh, well, if true, you guys had four years to figure that out and send him packing. You didn’t… ;-)
Yep. The Democratic party in their infinate wisdom made my 5th choice Kerry the candidate for president anf my 6th choice Edwards vice president candidate.
Still I am glad that Kerry lost because otherwise the GOP would be blaming Kerry for the mess Bush created and saying that things would be wonderful in Iraq if Bush had gotten a 2nd term.
Lemme get this straight. You think the war in Iraq is a mess, but that would only be a problem if Kerry were president? It’s cool as long as you can blame Bush for it? No wonder Iran thinks it can walk all over the US. Divide and conquer, it’s called.
Correct me if I am wrong. Was’nt it GW Bush and cheney who insisted that be needed to invade Iraq?
Do you thing that Iraq is not a problem.?
You’re wrong. GHW Bush insisted on war with Iraq, at first. The US Congress under Bill Clinton passed a law in 1998 to the effect that regime change was the objective in Iraq. Eventually, GW Bush did something about it. (Rightly so, in my view, but that’s a different argument.)
Of course Iraq is a problem. It’s been a problem at least since the end of the cold war. And the progress of the war is full of problems. Wars are like that. They’re not nice and easy excursions without casualties and setbacks and mistakes and miscalculations.
Blaming Bush isn’t going to solve the problem. Neither is electing a different president whose first priority is to hightail it out of there and let the Iraqis rot. As much as that might be in character. Ask the Cambodians.
But you’re taking a general argument about democracy and economics, applicable worldwide, and turning it into an American party-political slugfest. Ironically, you take the side of exactly those politicians whose statements suggest they share at least some of the systemic biases and economic misconceptions that Bryan Caplan talks about in the TCS Daily interview I linked.
GHW Bush said we had to remove Saddam from Kuwait PERIOD !!
YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE SENIOR BUSH SHOULD HAVE LIED TO THE COALITION AND AMERICANS AND GONE BEYOND WHAT HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO DO.
Clinton had his big chance to invade Iraq in 1998 when Rumsfeld and wofowitz went to clinton and tried to get him to invade Iraq. (GOOGLE CLINTON PNAC)
no ! THE INVASION OF IRAQ WAS THE INITIATIVE OF GW BUSH WHO LIED US INTO THE MESS. OK ….HILLARY ET AL WERE STUPID ENOUGH TO TRUST AND SUPPORT BUSH.
[…] let them vote Apropos the previous post, the Wizard of Id […]
So that’s what they mean when they talk about the “Angry Left” over in the States?
Now I don’t want to be responsible for someone’s death so soon after launching this blog. Especially not the death of an American. So before you have a heart attack, put down that caps lock key and go take your meds, okay? Nice and easy now, before you hurt yourself. Those PNAC fellows know where I live.
Before he went into Iraq the senior Bush said the Mission was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. PERIOD !
So you are saying that the Senior Bush should have lied to the coalition and Americans and gone beyond what he was authorized to do?
No ! The invasion of Iraq was on the initiative of the Bush administration who lied us into this mess. Hillary et al were stupid and irresponsible enough to believe and support Bush.
GW Bush is cool as he makes one blundering stroke and just as cooly you watch him.
Don’t say anyone else would have invaded Iraq.
Why would I say that? I was talking about a review of a book by an economics professor.
But thanks. Normally, economics is a fairly dull topic. Dismal, even. People who discuss labour market regulation and market-clearing price formation are usually all grown up. They’re far too boring to foam at the mouth and get spitting mad on other people’s blogs.
Now I don’t know about you. I’m sure you could talk about you and your anger forever. But I have people to see and things to do, or vice versa.
Why don’t you run along now and go play impeachment-impeachment with your friends over at the Smirking Chimp? The interwebs are already way over quota with neverending BUSH LIED!!! whines. I didn’t start this blog to add to the toxic waste. Bye now.
Wow. It took gasdocpol 5 posts to resort to all-caps, but only 1 post to slam Bush. Such restraint. :)
Run along and play with my impeachment friends?
On the contrary , I routinely say that impeachment would be a waste of time.
Our energy would be better spent on working on resolving the multiple messes created by Bush/Cheney.
Ivo Vegter
GW Bush was telling the truth when he said that we needed to invade Iraq immediately….????
It is toxic waste to say that perhaps we might have been better off if we had not sacrificed 3500+ American lives and diverted hundreds of billions of dollars from things that would have benefitted Americans more to a war whose justification is at least open to question …..??
This the sort of argument that could be given for forgiving a murder because punishing the murderer will not bring the victim back to life.
BTW Economics is interesting enough to me that I took an MBA in my spare time as a hobby.
[…] Group, Daniel Casse, weighs in on the book by the author interviewed in the article I blogged about here. The gist: For [Caplan], democracy fails because it doesn’t produce the most economically […]
[…] Group, Daniel Casse, weighs in on the book by the author interviewed in the article I blogged about here. The gist: For [Caplan], democracy fails because it doesn’t produce the most economically […]
[…] the previous post, the Wizard of Id […]