The late Milton Friedman commented recently that he had concluded that the best political make-up for the federal government was one that had the greatest likelihood to develop gridlock because of the damaging policies that the government enacts when one party or the other controls both the legislative and executive branches. In this TCS Daily op-ed, Arnold Kling of EconLog channels that thought:
The conventional wisdom is that we would be better off if politically powerful leaders were less mediocre. Instead, my view is that we would be better off if mediocre political leaders were less powerful. [. . .]
We have to expect mediocrity from political leaders. They are selected by a very unreliable process. In general, I try to avoid contact with narcissists who spend their time pleading for money. Those are hardly the intellectual and emotional characteristics that make someone admirable, yet they are the traits of people who go into politics. [. . .]
The libertarian view is that private institutions, both for-profit and non-profit, are better at problem-solving than government institutions. Regardless of whether political leadership is wise or mediocre, our goal should be to limit the damage that public officials can do. Do not demand that they “solve” health care, “fix” education, or launch a “Manhattan project” for energy independence. Even for experts, those are impossible tasks. The harder we press our existing leaders to address these issues, the more trouble they are going to cause.
The belief that the problem with government is the particular individuals in power is dangerous. The myth is that somewhere out there we could find great leaders who could use government to solve all of our problems. Instead, we need to be vigilant against the enlargement of government, by either mediocre or expert leaders.
Do not look upon the electoral process as a search for great leaders. At best, it gives us an opportunity for damage control.
(As a sort of classical liberal Democrat who values liberty quite a bit, may I throw a rhetorical haymaker?)
What kind of a libertarian view has Kling written? I’m sure its a great point for political libertarianism, which seeks to limit the role of government.
But wouldn’t someone who’s concerned with reducing the constraints on personal liberty (which is what I thought a libertarian was) be in favor of effective governmental activity to stop things that actually limit liberty? To that end, if people decide that their liberties are restrained by the necessities of fossil fuel consumption, wouldn’t a REAL libertarian seek to solve the problem with the fewest extraneous contraints on personal liberty, not just say, “the private sector will do this”.
—Adam
Adam, I think you address a different question than what Kling’s piece does. Kling’s op-ed expresses skepticism regarding central planning to solve economic problems. You question whether government should protect individual liberty. Kling would not disagree with government protecting civil liberties, although he would define those liberties different than you would (i.e., there is no such thing as a “liberty” to be freed from the necessit of fossil fuel consumption).
I couldn’t agree with Kling more on this. I’d seen it myself at TCS and thought it quite insigtful. Sadly we seem to live in an era where ever more people seek the ultimate answer from some omnipotent government leadership. And sadly I fear they are going to get it and when they do, they may not be very happy with what Big Brother imposes upon them. I haven’t seen or found any qualitative analysis on this issue but is occurs to me that one of several things are happening here. Perhaps it’s the case that to the point a “people” become ever more dependent upon third party service providers rather than thier own efforts and initiative, people subconsciously become increasingly fearful and dependent and thus naturally begin to seek solutions to their problems from “outside”. Or perhaps its simply the case that as a country ages and fills up that at some point the effort of cat herding leads to ever more government intrusion and onerous regulation. I must say that I personaly have come to feel the oppressive “presence” and expect the pall of opression to become ever more heavy as those in gov’t try to out do one another in the solution of the percieved problems of the day. I’ve noted for example that Mayor Bill and Rodney Ellis have joined forces to promote Cal. air standards for new vehicles sold in Texas. It would seem a small thing, but there are those who claim that such legislation would add $3,000.00 to the cost of a new vehicle. It makes me wonder about the economic demographics of the District Ellis represents. How much extra cost does he believe is fair to force upon his constituency? And that’s only a sidebar reflection, but indeed, at what point do we say “enough” and vote with our feet and move away? Ask some of the new residents who’ve moved here from California!