"I've come to be increasingly baffled by the high degree cynicism and immorality displayed in big-time politics."
Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias is apparently shocked that liberal politicians would rather maintain their own power than work for "the public good." George Mason University law professor (and Reason contributor) Ilya Somin patiently explains to Yglesias how the political world actually works:
A politician willing to do anything to take and hold on to power will have a crucial edge over an opponent who imperils his chances of getting elected in order to advance the public interest. The former type is likely to prevail over the latter far more often than not. This is especially true in a political environment where most voters are often ignorant and irrational about government and public policy. Candidates have strong incentives to pander to this ignorance and exploit it in order to win elections. Those unwilling to exploit public ignorance because they place the public interest above political success are likely to be at a serious disadvantage relative to their less scrupulous opponents. Thus, those who value power above other objectives are more likely to succeed politically. As economist Frank Knight wrote back in the 1930s, "[t]he probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nothing brightens my day more than seeing people complain about how immoral people in power are.
Maybe we should finally elect good and moral people.
That'll fix it.
That'll fix everything.
"This is especially true in a political environment where most voters are often ignorant and irrational about government and public policy."
Most people tolerate government. They have better things to do and don't feel like they can do much anyway. But at some point it gets so bad that they won't tolerate it anymore and the great unpolitical masses start to take an interest. I am not sure where that point is, but I am getting the feeling that multi-trillion dollar (versus good old multi billion dollar) deficits and plans for the feds to take over healthcare is getting very close.
Those who seek power are the least suited to possess it.
Keep that in mind when any new program is advanced.
Yglesias was also baffled that day trips to Canada have fallen off as the currency exchange became less favorable.
Not the brightest bulb, Matthew.
Quite true. As I like to put it, believing in a benevolent all powerful guy in the sky is much more rational than believing in a benevolent all powerful guy in the white house.
Maybe we should finally elect good and moral people.
Finally, someone's talking some sense here instead of getting all wee-weed up.
As Hayak said, at some point people start to say "what we need is a planner who can make a plan work". Yglesias is a douche of the highest order. But his shock and disappointment show how easily he would follow a charismatic dictator. If only we had someone in power who didn't care about themselves and only cared about the common good, things would turn around. Implicit in Yglesias's complaint is the idea that we can have leaders who are somehow above petty human motivation and only motivated by the better angels. That is not only a childish fantasy but a dangerous one because only the demagogue can effectively pretend to be such a person.
"I've come to be increasingly baffled by the high degree [of]'sic' cynicism and immorality displayed in big-time politics."
A liberal blogger baffled by moral relativism in politics? I'm baffled.
Three words, Sr. Yglesias....
Lord.
John.
Acton.
This thesis is true only if those candidates have better judgement of who's going to vote for whom. Just because you're willing to pander dosn't mean you'll succeed at it.
Yglesias is retarded.
It is time for concerned citizens to push for Congressional term limits.
Did Mr. Yglesias ever take a course in political theory? Unfortunately, things are working just as they should be.
In Other News:
"Black wolves enjoy eating sheep just as much as grey wolves!"
Yglesias:
Regulatory Capture
You can look it up.
For fuck sake, do the world a favor and quit fucking quoting this clown. The nuts in my shit have a higher IQ than Yglesias. And I get sick of condescending fucks like him who claim the public good is shit that the majority of the fucking public doesn't want, ie Obamacare, Cap and Trade, EFCA, etc. And funny how the public good is ALWAYS some "progressive" (a bullshit misnomer for fucks stuck in the New Deal 30's)policy.
Please quit fucking giving legitimacy to the dim-bult that is Matt Yglesias.
Did Mr. Yglesias ever take a course in political theory?
He graduated magna cum laude with a degree in phliosophy from Harvard. You'd think somewhere in all that education he might have encountered a clue, but apparently not. What a fucking dolt.
"Good and moral people"
Why is it whenever you see that expression used by the left, it almost always means "those willing to confiscate money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't"?
Wikipedia lists his DOB as May 18, 1981 which makes him 28 years old. Aside from the fact he made his name as a blogger by focusing in politics, he is just about the age, albeit a bit tardy, to have accumulated the appropriate amount of information that would cause him to abandon his youthful idealism and naivete.
Welcome to the adult table Matthew!
"Those who seek power are the least suited to possess it."
[citation needed]
Wikipedia lists his DOB as May 18, 1981 which makes him 28 years old.
Good grief.
This, of course, makes him a member of the Praise-For-No-Reason generation.
It shows.
"It is time for concerned citizens to push for Congressional term limits"
No. Fucking. Way.
P Brooks,
He grew up no doubt in the praise for no reason generation going to the best schools being fed bullshit by ex radical teachers and having his ass kissed. He has literally done nothing in his entire life beyond go to liberal endoctrination and hang out among the beltway media. Given that fact, it is no surprise that he is a moron.
This, of course, makes him a member of the Praise-For-No-Reason generation.
Whatever, dude. I'm a month older than he is and i turned out ok. Although maybe i missed the cutoff for that generation...
Your innate fascist tendencies may have insulated you from the deleterious effects of baseless reward, X.
Don't get me wrong, i would LOVE to be praised for no reason other than my intrinsic awesomeness.
That's a relief, P.
Anyone voluntarily seeking office should be immediately and automatically prohibited from seeking office.
Political seats should be filled by either a lottery or a draft, both staffed by vicious rubber truncheon wielding henchmen who have a quota to fill and a big truck to hold it.
The Best and The Brightest had their shot and blew it big time. Time to let the Unwashed and Reluctant give it a try.
"Whatever, dude. I'm a month older than he is and i turned out ok. Although maybe i missed the cutoff for that generation..."
The beatings you no doubt recieved throughout childhood, no doubt insulated you from it.
Here, here, and here.
The beatings you no doubt recieved throughout childhood, no doubt insulated you from it.
That, and my mother constantly trying to convince me i was autistic.
He graduated magna cum laude with a degree in phliosophy from Harvard. You'd think somewhere in all that education he might have encountered a clue, but apparently not.
No, I wouldn't expect someone to get a clue from Harvard nor from a philosophy department.
He graduated magna cum laude with a degree in phliosophy from Harvard.
When are people going to stop considering Harvard a place that graduates smart people and instead realize it gives degrees to some of the dumbest people in the world like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, and Matt Yglesias. Meanwhile, Bill Gates dropped out so he could produce something of value and earn billions of dollars in private industry.
"No, I wouldn't expect someone to get a clue from Harvard nor from a philosophy department."
Actually the magna cum laude part makes it worse. If he had been kicked out or gotten Ds, you might think that he had some balls or the ability to think independently. But getting that good of grades, just meant he kissed a lot of ass and told a lot of people what they wanted to hear, which in the case of the Harvard faculty is not a good thing.
My personal feeling, the longer I spend in DC and working in the political domain, is that I get better and better at understanding other people's ideologies./i
Tous les jours ? tous points de vue je vais de mieux en mieux.
"That, and my mother constantly trying to convince me i was autistic."
Autistic kids rock...
In Other News:
"Black wolves enjoy eating sheep just as much as grey wolves!"
RACIST!
"That, and my mother constantly trying to convince me i was autistic."
Autistic kids rock...
Well, yeah. They'll rock back and forth for hours, staring at nothing. You can't fucking stop them.
Actually the magna cum laude part makes it worse. If he had been kicked out or gotten Ds, you might think that he had some balls or the ability to think independently. But getting that good of grades, just meant he kissed a lot of ass and told a lot of people what they wanted to hear, which in the case of the Harvard faculty is not a good thing.
Knowing how to kiss ass and tell a lot of people what they want to hear is harder than it sounds, which is why it gets confused with intelligence. I knew a person at my undergraduate school who was about as dumb as a box of hair, but who had the uncanny knack for getting As by giving the profs what they wanted to hear. Last I heard, this person had gone off to Harvard Law School, become a member of the Law Review, and was hired by a big white-shoe law firm.
"Knowing how to kiss ass and tell a lot of people what they want to hear is harder than it sounds,"
It is for you and I Seamus because we have this bad habit thinking and telling the truth. For creatures like your friend and Yglesias it comes naturally. As a matter of fact, lying and kissing ass comes so naturally, they can't help but do it.
"Well, yeah. They'll rock back and forth for hours, staring at nothing. You can't fucking stop them."
That was the whole fucking point of the joke!
Maybe it would have been better seeing the t-shirt?
http://omg.wthax.org/AutisticKidsRock.jpg
I've only known one autistic child. He was truly a delight to be around. Funny that.
This is why we need to repeal the 17th amendment. The popular election of Senators allows them to accrue an unbelievable amount of power.
That "autistic kids rock!" joke went right over my head.
Thanks, RC.
It's so disappointing, reading the 'discussion' on places like reddit, where the supposed liberal intellectuals cannot grasp a concept so simple as this one. Reading over there, you'd think that Obama is the love baby of Jesus Christ and Ghandi, mixed with some Mother Theresa. The people at the 'place on the internet for smart discussion' just can't fathom how a politician wouldn't have his constituents' best interests in mind.
"Political seats should be filled by either a lottery or a draft, both staffed by vicious rubber truncheon wielding henchmen who have a quota to fill and a big truck to hold it."
As if getting people to actually serve jury duty wasn't difficult enough....
Harvard? Fuck that shit.
Ottumwa Body & Fender!
Fightin' Bondomen rule!
"This is why we need to repeal the 17th amendment. The popular election of Senators allows them to accrue an unbelievable amount of power."
IceTray, I'm with you. But even better than repealing a few amendments---as much as that is sorely needed---would be to abide by the good ones we already have.
Oh, my, what a shock. A progressive who doesn't understand rational actor economic analysis (in this case, as applied in public choice theory).
Sorry, disagree.
Let's try it this way:
"A _restaurant owner_ willing to do anything to _reduce the cost of preparing meal_ will have a crucial edge over an opponent who imperils his chances of _making a short-term profit_ in order to _provide good food_."
Now, I'm not saying that politicians are all boy scouts (or that Yglesias is going to win a Nobel Prize anytime soon, but who among us will), but you can see the flaw in a naive application of Somin's dictum. If you apply it to food.
Yeah, its annoying that these bloggers who've never experienced the messy real world get a major forum, but do they actually have influence on policy?
Are congressional staffers quoting his columns verbatim? Do elected officials set their alarms so they'll be the first to imbibe Yglesias' wisdom? Are speechwriters stealing his lines?
God, I hope not, but if there's evidence that someone powerful might be listening to this tool, then Reason has a duty to continue their search and destroy missions.
Marco, if you equate the relationship of grabbing political power by a politician to providing service customers desire by a restaraunteur, might I suggest you have some personal problems to reconcile first?
I've come to be increasingly baffled by the gambling displayed in Rick's Cafe Americain.
Oh, Anonymous, I have plenty of personal problems to reconcile.
But why wait around to finish that up before I make a comment? Life is short, after all.
The one thing that people like Yglesias who are influential contributors to the opinions of the base of one of the parties is to stop rationalizing whatever depraved behavior the members of their team are up to in general, rather than just when the perdifity endangers their favored policy agenda. Part of the reason politicians can get away with this crap is the vast armies of paid and volunteer rationalizers. The practioners of team red/team blue politics need to take responsibility for the fact that it is their willingness to rationalize away their side's flaws with a "but the other is side is worse" is enabling this - if you only demand that you're side's politicians are marginally better than the other guys, that's all you will ever get.
Yglesias proves that those people fighting so hard against Creationism in school never bothered to read Darwin.
Marco, your analogy to restaurants might have some relevance if:
(1) You had thousands of insurance companies to choose from.
(2) You got to make the choice, rather than your employer or some other third party.
(3) One restaurant wasn't being subsidized by the government which also regulates the other restaurants.
But other than that, very enlightening.
This is by far the best explanation for why we need term limits (ONE term, no reelections) that I've ever read.
R C Dean: shucks, I'm not _that_ enlightening, but I'm always happy to help.
Still, let me point out that in Damon Root's post and the quote from Ilya Somin, there's nothing about insurance companies. They talk about the behaviour of politicians.
And you _do_ have thousands of (at least potential) politicians to choose from, and you do make the choice, as long as you can manage the walk to the polling place. As to politicians being subsidized by the government - well, yes, some are, but nothing's perfect.
Now maybe I've missed the subtext here (I'm Asperger's, so it's always possible), and everybody else is really talking about health care or insurance companies or some such. But what I read was about the market for politicians. So I compared it to the market for food. (I think it's a pretty good metaphor, at least from my viewpoint, since I find very little on either menu that I find appealing.)
Reasoning (har) back from your comment, I percieve it to be about health insurance and politicians - about which (if I read you right) I am in strong agreement with you: they are an unpalatable (double har) combination.
But why wait around to finish that up before I make a comment? Life is short, after all.
I chuckled.
Reasoning (har)
I'm thirsty. If the judges will let me, I'm going to call DRINK! on this. No offense.
steve | August 24, 2009, 12:49pm | #
Wikipedia lists his DOB as May 18, 1981 which makes him 28 years old. Aside from the fact he made his name as a blogger by focusing in politics, he is just about the age, albeit a bit tardy, to have accumulated the appropriate amount of information that would cause him to abandon his youthful idealism and naivete.
Welcome to the adult table Matthew!
The first question I had after reading that article was: Did Yglesias just turn 30?
Maybe he is precocious after all.
Still, let me point out that in Damon Root's post and the quote from Ilya Somin, there's nothing about insurance companies. They talk about the behaviour of politicians.
Right you are, Marco.
Still, I don't think you can analogize the likely successful behavior of politicians to restaurateurs. Restaurants deal in the material, in a free market where you can choose among thousands simultaneously, and aren't locked into a choice. Politicians deal in generalities, deceit, and the delivery of rents, in something other than a free market, where you have at best a few to choose among, and your choice is as likely as not to be disregarded.
Yglesias laments politicians not working for "the public good".
Waah, sayeth Yglesias.
Politicians, almost to a man/woman, don't do it for altruistic goodness - they do it to get in power and stay there. The best way to attain and maintain that power, is to convince people they're going to get something "for free".
Those of us who don't grab at the shiny, shiny objects called welfare entitlements, know better.
Except for the Tonys of the world.
This is basically the essence of Hayek's argument in the Road to Serfdom. That in any socialist society the most power hungry and least scrupulous will end up at the top. I.e. All socialist states inevitably end with a Joseph Stalin.
But kudos to Ilya Somin for putting it into clearer selectionist terms. With her phrasing one could almost come up with a computational model describing the rise and fall of individuals within a political system.
'"A _restaurant owner_ willing to do anything to _reduce the cost of preparing meal_ will have a crucial edge over an opponent who imperils his chances of _making a short-term profit_ in order to _provide good food_."
Now, I'm not saying that politicians are all boy scouts (or that Yglesias is going to win a Nobel Prize anytime soon, but who among us will), but you can see the flaw in a naive application of Somin's dictum. If you apply it to food.'
I don't know that it's a good analogy, unless you also posit that the customers are not concerned with the "goodness" of the food versus its cost, due either to lack of taste or different budgetary priorities. But if we're talking about fast food, then I think your analogy actually reinforces that comment -- a lot of progressives wish that the food market would encourage more wholesome eating, but the state of the market tells us that a lot of people, given a certain amount of resources, simply prioritize other things in life.
Somin's point suggests that elections are a sort of fitness test, as in a market or in genetic/cultural evolution. Unless the test for power itself rewards a certain sort of person, there's no plausible reason to expect that person to hold power, aside from wishful thinking. In American politics, the "test" rewards charisma over leadership, style over substance, making inspiring promises over keeping them, and placating politically active/powerful minorities over advancing the public interest. Moreover, and critically, the test rewards cheating on the test (e.g. gerrymandering, smear tactics), which tends to elevate persons who are primarily self-interested and dishonorable.
However, ultimately testing the fitness of politicians is the responsibility of the people, and it's weak to treat the shittiness of our leaders as anything other than a failure on our part (not us us, I mean -- those other idiots who keep electing these assholes)
Hazel, hate to have to correct you, but Somin is a guy.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
Hmm... George Mason University... he's in good company, as Walter E. Williams hangs out there.
Incidentally, this is another observation which the argument that we'd be better off if our representatives were randomly selected from the telephone book.
Stupid foreigners with their girl-sounding names ...
Hazel, perhaps you got mixed up. It happens to all of us. You might have been thinking that Matthew Yglesias was a woman.
anonymous: However, ultimately testing the fitness of politicians is the responsibility of the people, and it's weak to treat the shittiness of our leaders as anything other than a failure on our part (not us us, I mean -- those other idiots who keep electing these assholes)
Good points above. But, I think there are significant differences between elections and markets. One major one being that I don't really have direct control over my "selection" in an election. It's like if the majority voted to eat at Bennie's greasy-Spoon diner, then we ALL have to eat at Bennie's greasy-spoon diner. Even if I hate Bennies, and I think the food sucks, my money is going to reward the fitness of Bennie anyway.
Also, I suspect that part of the difference also lies in the way politicians can effectively shape the rules of the game themselves, through the FEC and the televised debates. If you can control your own fitness function that's got to alter the dynamics too.
I remember Yglesias debating Roderick Long on some Cato forum about the link between malign corporate power and statist intervention into the economy. It was clear from that exchange that Yglesias was wading out of his depth. He's a third rate intellect who is, unfortunately, taken seriously.
You have to take history to get a philosophy degree, right?