http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_23-2009_08_29.shtml#1251127451Prominent Blogger Matthew Yglesias recently [1]expressed surprise that
most politicians are willing to sacrifice the public good in order to
hold onto power:
Iâve come to be increasingly baffled by the high degree cynicism
and immorality displayed in big-time politics. For example,
Senators who genuinely do believe that carbon dioxide emissions are
contributing to a global climate crisis seem to think nothing of
nevertheless taking actions that endanger the welfare of billions
of people on the grounds that acting otherwise would be politically
problematic in their state. In other words, they donât want to do
the right thing because their self-interest points them toward
doing something bad. But itâs impossible to imagine these same
Senators stabbing a homeless person in a dark DC alley to steal his
shoes . . .
Making it all the odder, the level of self-interest at stake isnât
all that high. Selling the public good down the river to bolster
your re-election chances isnât like stealing a loaf of bread to
feed your starving children. The welfare rolls are hardly stocked
with the names of former members of congress. Indeed, itâs not even
clear that voting âthe wrong wayâ poses particularly serious
threats to oneâs re-election. But even if it did, one might assume
that people who bother to dedicating their lives to securing vast
political power did so because they actually wanted to accomplish
something and get in the history books, perhaps, as one of the big
heroes of their era.
[2]Tyler Cowen and [3]Arnold Kling correctly point out that
professional politicians are likely to be people who place a high
value on power and prestige. To such people, there is a lot at stake
when they risk losing their positions. True, they won't starve. But
they will lose the power they have dedicated most of their lives to
achieving. Yglesias notes that the same politicians who routinely
sacrifice the public interest to preserve their positions wouldn't
think of committing murder. That, however, is at least partially
because in the US, committing murder usually destroys a politician's
career rather than bolsters it. In countries where killing people does
help your political career, (think any of numerous Third World states
where political leaders can get ahead by killing or repressing
political opponents), the political class is indeed full of murderers.
One might still ask why the power-seekers tend to predominate over
those who place a higher value on the public good. The explanation is
systemic selection effects. A politician who is willing to do anything
to take and hold 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 [4]often ignorant and irrational
about government and public policy. Candidates [5]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.
Finally, Yglesias suggests that a politician who prioritizes the
public good could potentially be remembered as one of the great
political "heroes" of the age, which should give leaders a strong
incentive to prioritize the public good. There are three problems with
this argument. First, you are unlikely to become a great political
"hero" unless you get into power and stay there for a considerable
length of time. Doing so usually requires prioritizing political
survival. Second, cynical political manipulators also can be
remembered fondly by history if they build a successful political
coalition (think FDR or Disraeli). Finally, and most important, the
odds of being remembered by history as a great political hero are
generally very low, even if a politician makes it his top priority. By
contrast, the average politician stands a much better chance of
getting a position of power and prestige in the here and now, if he
puts his effort into that. For most politicians, a 50% or even a 10%
chance of fame and power today is more valuable than an 0.1% chance of
being remembered as a great hero many years later.
References
1.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/political-lifes-mysteries.php 2.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/the-addiction-of-fame-and-power.html 3.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/08/status_greed_an.html 4.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=916963 5.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_14-2008_09_20.shtml#1221851645
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
