DISQUS

adina · 1 year ago

Excellent point When we complain that "insert political movement" is "holding us up," we often fail to consider the fact that efficiency is not our only value. I've been asking Democrats if there would be a downside if they continue to maintain or gain control over the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. They've mostly said it wouldn't be a problem, because Republicans, to them, would still be very powerful.
Even if fascist governments were more efficient, I'd still prefer a some-what less efficient democracy. But considering that fascist countries don't have to deal with all the messiness of people holding up their endeavors, why are they generally less efficient than democracies? Is there a threshold beyond "too much democracy,' as well as "too much tyranny," where efficiency starts to go down?

Dave · 1 year ago

The parallels you raise aren't entirely comparable, however.

One of the chief arguments against "big, good government" is that it is, when implemented, not effective. And a plausible reason that it is not effective is that people who oppose it actively work to undermine it. So there is a feedback loop and those who believe that "big, good government" will not be effective (and thus oppose it) end up causing "big, good government" to be ineffective through impeding its effective implementation. So they validate their own argument through opposition.

But take just one of your parallels:

"Government attempts to ban handguns would work a lot better if so many people weren’t ideologically opposed to banning handguns."

No one I know opposes government attempts to ban handguns because they think those attempts will be ineffective. Their opposition is to the principle of banning handguns and therefore the actions they take to oppose the implementation of handguns don't end up "proving" the validity of their arguments against banning handguns in the first place (by impeding the effective implementation of handgun bans). The same with all your other examples: people object to the proposed policy in principle, not because of a belief that it will be ineffective, and thus their opposition to the policy would persist even if the policy should prove to be effective in practice.

So, there is a plausible point to the era of Obama argument you cite. If everybody got on board with "big, good government" and stopped trying to impede its implementation in countless ways, it might be more effective. And if it were more effective, a primary argument people use against "big, good government" (that it is not effective in practice) would be (to some degree) invalidated.

So active opposition to government policies on the grounds that those policies will not produce effective outcomes is in fact self-fulfilling because such people gum up the works by their opposition and thereby prevent the policies from being effective.

Will Wilkinson · 1 year ago

Dave, Excellent reply. But consider that there are some people who object to "good, big government" whether or not it would work. It might require a high level of taxation, and many people may have sincere moral objections to high taxes. Or you might have people like me, who think that the government might be more effective than it is, but that the MOST effective thing would be to do more to harness market incentives, etc., and that less-resisted government would likely crowd out a much better alternatives. The existence of enough of these people may be enough to keep these programs from working. At which point, more pragmatically-minded people are right to point out that given the actual range of opinions of the citizens certain initiatives will be relatively ineffective. Pointing this out isn't self-fulfilling, it's just accurate. The real fight is over the complexion of public opinion. I think "good, big government" types think everyone who isn't on board should be chided for it. Of course, I think they all should be chided for not even trying to understand why their favorite policies aren't the best ones. Which means we should just honestly debate what policies would be best, not argue about who's to blame for not getting what we want.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · 1 year ago

No one I know opposes government attempts to ban handguns because they think those attempts will be ineffective.

Are you serious? You've never heard the claim, "If you make it a crime to own a handgun, only criminals will own handguns?" Is this not an argument against the effectiveness of handgun bans in reducing crime.

"Clap harder!" is not a serious response to people who have real concerns over the effectiveness of proposed government intrusions.

GU · 1 year ago

Yeah, I had a chuckle at that line too. The government banned marijuana production, possession, & use as well, and look how "effective" that has been. Regardless of what you think about our right to own firearms, a gun-free U.S. is simply not possible.

Dave · 1 year ago

Will, your point is entirely fair. It's perfectly fine to be opposed to bigger government purely on philosophical grounds and independent of whether it would actually be effective. And the "if everybody got on board with a bigger government, it would work" argument is not a valid response to such objectors. From my personal experience, though, I'd say that the belief that a bigger government would be ineffective in practice informs, in a pretty serious way, most philosophical arguments against bigger government. But it's certainly not, as you rightly point out, the only basis for philosophical objection to big government.

And, as you also point out, the existence of people who object purely on principle to bigger government might also impede it's effective implementation. And such people should not be lumped into the same group as those who oppose bigger government because of practical reasons and then "validate" their beliefs by ensuring that government is not effective.

And this is also, of course, not to say that if everybody got on board with bigger government, it would actually be effective. I'm merely trying to say that there is some logical validity to the Obama-era argument on practical grounds.

In response to Noisewater, that's not exactly the same case. People who offer the argument you raise ("If you make it a crime to own a handgun, only criminals will own handguns") are questioning the benefit of enacting such bans (or questioning the possibility of enacting such bans in a way that will be effective; i.e., you can't make criminals respect the law). But their objection in no way impedes the implementation of such handgun bans. They merely think it would be a bad idea (or that it is impossible) to implement such bans.

These bans would result in the exact same outcome (or have the exact same possibility of being effectively enacted) whether or not they get on board the attempt to ban handguns or not. So telling them "if you got on board, it would work" does not speak to their objection (that even if it does work, I don't want it to happen). Whereas the Obama-era argument we're discussing asserts that people's opposition to bigger government actually results in bigger government being ineffective when it is enacted and thus serves as "validation" of their opinion.

Paul Opinion · 1 year ago

Consensus does not always work best in government, but it has been the best form of government for 232 years and counting. Opposing views are what define the nature of our democracy.
Fascism works very well in a company. Successful visionaries who run successful companies are nimble, savvy, surround themselves with smart people (who don't drink their kool aid all of the time) and they get things done. If they lose their way, they fail because of competition. As companies get larger, they often resemble our bloated government and decisions are done by consensus. The resulting diluted compromises often fail to satisfy whatever objectives they were intended to meet. As long as they are not bailed out by our generous government, this leaves an excellent opening for their competitors.
The (primary) problem with fascism in government is that there is no competition and, as they say, power corrupts. In a democracy, if the folks calling the shots (real or perceived) are ineffective, they get voted out. It is up to us to figure that out.

Steve M. · 1 year ago

There's room for an astonishingly bad pun about the general Will, but I'm much to dignified to do so. And, as you can see, the use/mention distinction allows me to mention it, dignity intact.

Steve M. · 1 year ago

Er, "too."

Ron · 1 year ago

Right. And libertarians constantly say that free markets would produce better social outcomes if people who are ideologically in favor of state intervention would just shut up and go away. So what's your point exactly? That it's annoying when people disagree with you? This is a little murky, Will.

Will Wilkinson · 1 year ago

Ron, The point is that you should actually try offering arguments to people instead of hoping they shut up and go away. I try to do that.

webgrrl · 1 year ago

"try offering arguments<"

And we appreciate your pure-hearted but futile efforts, WW. Politics Isn't About Policy, as you know. That doesn't make your commitment to the impossible any less admirable, however. I do find it inspiring.

But "we wish those people who aren't my friends, the friends on behalf of whom we fought to achieve this political power so we could give ourselves candy, would just migrate to another part of the tree canopy" is in fact what democracy is about.

Why do wish that they should gild it with noble lies? The talking point schema you so dislike has at least the virtue of honesty.

Will Wilkinson · 1 year ago

I love your cynicism. I really do! Politics is not about policy. It's about signaling, and it is, by and large, a game of coercive redistribution. But what signals what is a matter of convention, and it is possible to change convention through persuasion. And, as the actual limits on government power demonstrate, it is possible to structure the game in ways that does limits the damage. We can expand and reinforce those limitations by changing what people think signals moral fashion. Easy? No. But it's what I get paid for, and I'll be damned if I don't give it all I got.

izforever · 1 year ago

Will: without going through all the logical labyrinths (no time at the moment), let me ask this:

If you owned a company and needed to hire executives and managers, would you be well-advised to hire people whose fundamental, stated wish is to drown your company in a bathtub?

It's possible that dedicated, decent, devoted, and hard-working public servants simply don't exist.

But if you allow that they do exist, how do you attract those type of people?

Patrick · 1 year ago

Will, I think you're right, but I don't think the issue is as easy to dismiss out of hand as you'd like.
Is it possible to have a moral argument that X is more important then the benefits of dissent? What if dissent only results in a system that is half as effective, or stuck between worlds, or inaction? And thus, we get the worst of all possible worlds by choosing to dissent? As a moral entity, given the option of dissenting resulting in everyone worse off, should it be done? Is it fair to say that a person is evil for dissenting, if the dissent results in all being worse off, while only making himself or no one better off?

I ask because assume a scenario where someone might opposed the Iraq war, and their dissent was broadcast on international television, and this pushes a man who was on the fringe between killing Americans or joining a death squad, into engaging in terrorism (because he now feels dissent in the US has pushed these actions into a winnable strategy). Can we not say that the dissenter is the critical factor, the catalyst for violence? That if he had just kept his mouth shut someone would be alive that wasn't? That the world would be better? Is the political discourse, and ideological diversity worth having here? I don't think it's a clear cut answer. This postmodern era complicates things. It's easy to be for discourse when arguing can only make things better or neutral. But we live in different times, where confidence, belief, symbols and ideas matter and must be weighed.

I suspect the correct answer is time and manner. There is a way to have ideological diversity, but there are times where it is inappropriate and ways that we can engage in it that make everyone worse off. As dissenters we should keep this in mind for how we show our objection.
==
It may be better to see this at the individual level rather then one of national importance. Is it best to always argue with ones significant other or family? Is it best to always disagree with one's boss? Can we not make a moral argument that it is sometimes better to not engage in dissent or to promote a diversity of ideas for the purposes of unity, solidarity, or even, in a selfless act, making the other person feel better about themselves?

piniella · 1 year ago

True or false? I don’t know. But both are at least plausible.

Your post isn't plausible and you are another blogger who can only
think in cliches.

Joe Max · 1 year ago

If you owned a company and needed to hire executives and managers, would you be well-advised to hire people whose fundamental, stated wish is to drown your company in a bathtub?

Hear hear. As P.J. O'Rouke put it, Republicans are the party that says that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it.

I would add that the Norquist types do it deliberately, and with malice aforethought. If your basic political philosophy is that a big government is at best a necessary evil, why would you bother to try to make it actually work and thereby invalidate your own beliefs?

Michael Sullivan · 1 year ago

I don't know, maybe the necessary part?

What's really going on is that government has worked just fine for the norquist followers. Who it hasn't worked very well for is actual libertarians whose intellectual arguments Norquist et. al. like to mine for talking points. Or anyone who thinks that national security depends on effective alliances and an appreciation of what we do and do not have the power to achieve. Or anyone who thinks that a social safety net is more important than corporate giveaways.

TomT · 1 year ago

These comments scare the hell out of me. Normal people can't really think this way. If you think that the only thing standing in the way of effective big government is the people who dessent, you need to have your head examine. I now understand why 150 million people were killed during the last century. I guess our education system has succeeded.

John Markley · 1 year ago

Will,

Great post. This line of argument always reminds of alleged psychics who explain their inability to bend spoons or reads minds in front of a witness by saying that their mystical powers don't work when a skeptic is present because of all the negative vibes his disbelief puts out.

Joe Max,

"If your basic political philosophy is that a big government is at best a necessary evil, why would you bother to try to make it actually work and thereby invalidate your own beliefs?"

Should we also assume, then, that liberal/leftist attempts to regulate the private sector are actually intended to cause economic chaos and destruction? I suppose that would actually explain an awful lot.