Category: Political Science

Henry writes:

In particular, German parliamentarian Axel Schäfer’s comment that “With
all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of
Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority,” would
have a bit more credibility if, you know, the majority of the majority
of the majority had been given a chance to vote on the Treaty
themselves.

I can imagine a few other lessons:

1. Give people a referendum on a big question and they will use it as a chance to voice their general displeasure with many other matters.  New Zealand made that mistake on electoral reform.  The Irish vote was strongly divided among rich-poor lines.

2. According to polls, the Irish are not especially Euroskeptical.  I guess that is "Eurosceptical".  In any case multilateralism has limits.

3. The option under consideration *was* Plan B.  There is no obvious Plan C.

4. It worked last time (2002) to ask them to vote again.  Few people think that gambit can be played a second time.

5. One Irishman opined: ""We’re told we can vote no, that the system requires unanimity. But
when (a `no’ vote) actually happens, every time, the EU tells us: You
really only have a right to vote yes," said Dublin travel agent Paul
Brady, who voted against the treaty.

6. Some deluded soul in the EU read a copy of John Calhoun instead of Buchanan and Tullock’s Calculus of Consent.  Hadn’t they remembered the history of 17th and 18th century Poland and decided that a unanimity rule is a bad idea?

7. If European nations demand a unanimity rule (which I can well imagine), is that not a sign that they have a free trade area but nothing close to a real political union?

Dani Rodrik writes:

So the "us" and "them" characterization that Tyler attributes to irrational nativism perhaps has more to do with the absence of a common set of international rules on labor standards, environment, consumer safety, and so on.

(There is much more at the link.)  I was surprised to read this.  In the 1980s people were very hostile to Japan and Japanese imports, even though Japan at the time was quite wealthy and had relatively high standards in these areas.  I also receive a fair number of emails — some of them of the hate variety — by people who are suspicious of the rise of China.  I believe it is Chinese success which bothers them even though they sometimes come up with ancillary stories about unfairnesss.  These people are not less upset when other countries use capital rather than labor or when foreign production does not create much pollution.

Most of all, many people in poorer countries object to having to compete with America, with McDonald’s, with Hollywood, and so on.  Those objections are usually more strenuous than the complaints of Americans about a poorer China and of course the poorer countries tend to be more protectionist, in part for this reason.  That’s where feelings of unfairness are truly strong.  There’s nothing special about the "regulatory arbitrage" unfairness story and in fact it is one of the weaker feelings of unfairness out there.  In reality the entire past of the world is unfair but cosmopolitanites can look past that to appreciate the gains from ongoing trade.

Rodrik himself seems to object to when Americans trade with countries in which first world labor standards are violated.  But doesn’t such trade raise wages in these countries and also give a long-run boost to labor standards?  And where does the net unfairness lie?  Haven’t the Western powers — if only through imperialism — usually treated these countries much worse than vice versa?  Didn’t we steal Panama from Colombia for instance and take away a huge chunk of Mexico?  (Were Europeans so nice to the Ottoman Empire?)  Maybe the American worker ought to feel those folks deserve a bit of regulatory arbitrage (and that’s not what most of the trade is based upon) in return.  But it is striking how infrequently such a fairness calculus — whether correct or not — is even considered.  That again is because most people engage in "in group, out group" thinking.

The bottom line is that most people support their countries to a highly irrational degree in most international questions or disputes.  That’s just obvious — watch the World Cup — and yes Jonathan Swift understood that too.   

In a story rich with irony the Senate, led by Democrat Dianne Feinstein, has voted to privatize its restaurants and food services.  The House privatized twenty years ago.  The result?  Sort of like East and West Berlin.

In a masterful bit of understatement, Feinstein blamed [millions of dollars in losses] on "noticeably
subpar" food and service. Foot traffic bears that out. Come lunchtime,
many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the
basement cafeteria on the House side. On Wednesdays, the lines can be
30 or 40 people long.

House staffers almost never cross the Capitol to eat in the Senate cafeterias.

Naturally some of Feinstein’s colleagues were not pleased. 

In a closed-door meeting with Democrats in November, she was
practically heckled by her peers for suggesting it, senators and aides
said.

"I know what happens with privatization. Workers lose jobs, and the
next generation of workers make less in wages. These are some of the
lowest-paid workers in our country, and I want to help them," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a staunch labor union ally, said recently.

The reporter adds without comment, "The wages of the approximately 100 Senate food service workers average $37,000 annually."  Who says we can’t get a better press corps?

Feinstein had an ace in her sleeve, however, and when push came to shove she unleashed her threat.  Feinstein warned "that if they did not agree to turn over the operation to a private
contractor, prices would be increased 25 percent across the board."  Well that was it – the Senate voted to privatize.

…A commitment to the defense of the particular habits, mores and
institutions of the United States against those socioeconomic trends
that threaten to undermine them, and those political movements
(generally on the left, but sometimes on the right) that seek to change
them radically in the pursuit of particular ideological goals.

Here is the post, which is interesting throughout.  I should not speak for Ross but having read his blog for a while I believe he would prefer a modified definition to allow some of those habits and mores to be judged.  Ross circa 1958 for instance need not defend segregation.  But it is hard to invoke a standard of judgment without moving away from conservatism in the philosophical sense and becoming a rationalist.

Insofar as I am conservative (debatable) I would rewrite the definition:

A realization that we will do best by building on the strengths of the particular habits, mores and
institutions of the United States (and other successful nations) rather than trying to reshape the nation radically in the pursuit of particular ideological goals.

You can then pick a rationalist standard of judgment (e.g., utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Rawls, whatever) while keeping this vision intact.  Conservatism is then an empirical claim about the resilience and power of national and cultural strengths.  There is no "pro status quo" trap lurking in the background here and no reason why you can’t be both a conservative and a rationalist at the same time.

Christopher Hayes writing in The Nation.

The vast majority of interest groups in
Washington, from the Sierra Club to the AFL-CIO to Planned Parenthood,
are pursuing what Edsall calls "substantive reform"–attempting to push
legislation and enact policies that will provide public goods, protect
citizens from harm and redistribute benefits, rights and privileges away
from the powerful and toward middle-class citizens and disenfranchised
minorities.

And if you believe that, might I mention that if you act quickly I have some land in Florida just ripe for development.

By Christopher Hayes.  Lessig is now determined to fight the influence of money in politics, a possibly Quixotic quest.  Whether you think his program is either possible or desirable is a major question of politics.  Excerpt:

"There’s a speech that Reagan gives in
1965," Lessig says, "where he talks about how democracy always fails
because once the people recognize they can vote themselves largess, they
just vote themselves largess and the fiscal policy is destroyed. Well,
Reagan had it half-right. It’s not as if it’s the poor out there who
have figured out how to suck the money out of the rich. It’s exactly the
other way around."

Here is a good report on my libertarian heresies, summarizing a talk I gave at the Institute for Humane Studies a few weeks ago.  Excerpt:

Russia, he pointed out, is failing as a free society not because it
is poor – Putin’s shrewed management of high commodity prices has put
paid to much Russian poverty – but because Russians tend to privilege
their friends and contacts above all else, leading to epic levels of
corruption. Corruption, of course, is a signal rule of law failure.

He then asked, somewhat rhetorically, if liberty was confined (and
defined) by culture: ‘We should not presume that our values are as
universal as we often think they are’. What happens, he asked
rhetorically, if – in order to enjoy the benefits of liberty and
prosperity – societies have to undergo a major cultural transformation,
including the loss of many appealing values? Cowen focussed on Russian
loyalty and friendship, but there are potentially many others. Think,
for example, of the extended family so privileged throughout the
Islamic world, or the communitarian values common in many indigenous
societies.

Wunderkind Ben Casnocha summarizes a talk:

David Brooks, columnist, New York Times:

• "I’ll be brief because many of you are academics, and you’re not here to hear me talk, you’re here to hear yourselves talk."
• He likes Edmund Burke.
• People learn when there’s an emotional connection.
• All factions of conservative movement united around distrust of government – this ain’t enough.
• Obama’s perceptiveness / self-awareness / stability is striking.
• McCain’s morality is based on honor, not morality. #1 trait is aloofness – somewhat detached personality.
• Conservatism shouldn’t have permanent policies (like tax cuts): don’t get moral about a situational policy issue.
• Conservatism is about not knowing much; modest about what we can know/do.
• Conservatism is philosophy first, policy second. Liberalism is policy first, philosophy later.
• Conservatism values social mobility more than equality.
• Top issues in the election: bipartisanship, immigration, healthcare.
• People aren’t solely self-interested economic rational creatures.
  If this were the case, why would 30% of students drop out of high
  school even though it’s econ ruinous to do so?
• What’s the point of being a democrat if you can’t play the class card?
• Bush seems 40 IQ points smarter in private than in public.

Here’s a QuickTime version of Brooks’ speech.

I agree with many of these, although I am not sure that conservatism puts philosophy first.  Does it not put experience first?  Also, I think the main issue in the election is George W. Bush.

Between Clinton and Obama, that is.  One thing we learn is just how unpleasant a politics of confrontation can be and that’s no matter what your political point of view.  Most voters don’t define their views along the distinctions set down by the policy wonks.  So if you wish to start a political conflict to get your way on the wonky issues, that means you also end up starting a war — possibly unintended — on identity politics and also power politics.  Furthermore at least one of the sides in that war will care more about winning and seizing/keeping power than about policy per se.  Over time that’s the side most likely to get its way.

We also learn that the American public polarizes along undesirable fault lines, observes a fight and puts a pox on both houses, and in general becomes more cynical about politics.  Think about this before pursuing polarization and quasi-class warfare.

The implication, however, is not that you always should stay put.  After all, today’s status quo is a) highly imperfect, and b) the result of the ugly identity wars inherited from the past and surely that is not sacred either.

Nonetheless constructivist attempts to remake America will, by political debate, be reshaped along traditional fault lines.  That means your good idea — be it libertarian, progressive, or whatever — had better be pretty robust to mangling by the stupid, the emotional, the cynical, and the ill-informed.  It also means your policy analysis had better start with a good understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the United States and try to build in a sustainable direction with the weights and the angles favoring what you wish to accomplish.  Tocqueville, Montesquieu and Madison look smarter and smarter all the time.

A while ago the progressives told us that we needed to fight a battle against the Republicans to reshape America.  Now there is a prior battle within the Democratic Party itself, noting of course that the hedge fund managers are sending most of their donations that way.  And even Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein can’t agree on which candidate is the real progressive.  How many steps further backward will be taken?  We haven’t even gotten to the point of trying to write progressive legislation or get it through Congress.

Resist the temptation to put the backward steps into the category of "the utopian should."  Such a move runs as follows: "OK, we didn’t do that, we should have done that.  I never predicted we would do that.  I just should we should have."  (Libertarians I might add often commit a similar vice.)  That response is non-falsifiable and so you can hold on to it all you want, but you’d get further by embracing the evolutionary yet non-Panglossian tradition in political thought.  Similarly, libertarians should take more seriously the idea that Sweden should build on its current strengths as well.

I’ll be frank: I’m not rooting for Hillary Clinton.  But that’s not for any instrumental reason or for that matter for any quasi-libertarian reason or not even for the many reasons you’ll find outlined by Andrew Sullivan.  It’s for purely subjective and arbitrary reasons and I won’t say more than that (though I could).  Maybe I’d drop that dislike if she’d wave around a copy of Fredric Bastiat but in the meantime there you go.  Note also that I am hardly the most biased person evaluating this political race and that I didn’t feel this way a year ago.

The bottom line is this: real world political debate is not fundamentally a macro-cosm of the thought processes of a smart person, or of one smart person debating another.  The politics of confrontation usually turn ugly. 

A small but passionate minority is deeply dissatisfied
with current political systems.  These people seek the autonomy to live
under and experiment with different political, social, and economic systems
than currently exist. It is this search for sovereignty, for the freedom of
self-government, which is the fundamental motivation for seasteading.

That’s Patri Friedman (son of David, son of Milton) and Wayne Gramlich in their seasteading manifesto. In interesting news, The Seasteading Institute has secured funding of $500,000 from PayPal founder Peter Thiel to help make the idea a reality.

Long-term trends are somewhat favorable for seasteading because with a cell phone and internet access more and more people could live on a seastead and make a living.  Cruise ships are already floating cities with few regulations or taxes.  Harold Berman argues that the rise of the West was due to competitive law.  Homeowner’s organizations, hotels and condos are private governments (for more see my edited book The Voluntary City.).

Competitive law appears to increase efficiency but it’s less clear that competition among governments gives rise to a libertarian world.  Homeowner associations, for example, often impose stricter zoning regulations than cities.  You could say that the system as a whole is more libertarian, but no one lives in the system as a whole.

Maybe liberty comes not from choice of government but from forcing people who are unlike to live together.  Isn’t the real reason the First Amendment has any force not that people agree on the value of freedom of speech but rather that they disagree on who they want to shut up?  Is religious freedom a product of agreement on the value of religious freedom or is it a product of disagreement on who is going to hell?      

Still I hope for the best and congratulate Patri.  Seasteading has come a long way.

Why do affluent, middle-class, and poor voters all seem so exquisitely sensitive to election-year income growth for the wealthiest families?

Oddly, the voting of lower-income voters is relatively insensitive to their own election-year incomes.  One option is that media reporting is biased toward coverage of the rich and famous.  Another option is that we, as voters, are biased toward considering our pleasure or displeasure with the strength of the high-ranking members of our tribe.

That question is from Larry Bartels’s Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age.

Here is a previous installment in the series.

I’m always one for airing grievances:

Tyler, Common among economists and some among the autisitic spectrum is the tenedency to belive the map is more real than the landscape, the model complete and accurate and that everything you were taught in econ seminars came donw on tablets. The Candide, America love it or leave it attitude is a tad tiresome. There are problems out there big guy and the Solow model or the Romer Model don’t mean shit.

Here is a compendium of my anti-American attitudes:

1. The number of Americans in prison remains an underreported scandal, as well as the conditions they face.

2. Problems of race relations are underestimated, to this very day.

3. For whatever reasons, smart American women seem to be more insecure than are Western European women.  Yes that’s a vulnerable overgeneralization and I will take some lumps for it in the comments but I still think it’s basically true.

4. I could not live in rural America and be happy.

5. America faces a massive current and future problem resulting from the apparent uneducability of a large chunk of its citizens.  While I do favor school choice, it’s not just government education which is at fault; many better school systems around the world are government-run.

6. Gun owners may well be happy, but it is not a culture I relate to.

7. The American culture of individual freedom is closely linked to the prevalence of mental illness and gun-based violence in this country.  We can’t seem to get only the brighter side of non-conformity.

8. America is the worst offender when it comes to factory farming and the treatment of animals.

On the brighter side, America has a decent economic track record, the Solow model does matter (try living and earning in countries with poor Solow indicators), America remains the world’s leading innovator, and most Americans — at least those not in prison or on drugs — can expect a bright future.  It’s not as if I’m pushing the future economic prospects of Suriname. 

I also believe (contra the blogging progressives) that America is fated (for better or worse, but in my view not worse) to remain predominantly captured by corporate interests and that America does a better job absorbing and elevating immigrants than perhaps any other country. 

Many Europeans fear deep down that America will have a permanently higher growth rate and that the European way of life will, sooner or later, be forced to disappear.  Right now I would bet against this proposition, as I see a new Europe revitalized by intra-EU immigration.  But there is still, say, a 30 percent chance it is true and polemics against Uncle Sam are in part a reflection of that deep insecurity.   

Here is James Surowiecki on the economic problems of Iceland.  Google tells me that Iceland has about 316,252 people.  Fairfax County is over three times more populous but it hardly receives any out-of-state attention.  Of course Fairfax County has neither its own language nor its own culture (apart from a lunch tradition, that is) but for economic questions that should not matter much.

One question is whether we should be trading asset claims to the future creditworthiness of very small units.  Let’s say there were tradeable shares in the future prospects of assistant professors.  A low share price wouldn’t do much for your mid-contract review and maybe not for your mortgage prospects either.  It seems that noise traders can wreak more havoc on small units, if only because volatility relative to retained earnings may be larger.  Maybe the real problem is when the small units cannot self-insure; imagine the public uproar if the Icelandic government were caught selling itself short.