THIRTY-THREE years ago, the gubernatorial debate hosted by the Saipan Chamber of Commerce discussed, among other things, the need for better infrastructure and healthcare. As for their campaign ads, the gubernatorial candidates and other politicians seeking office went all out.
One candidate expressed commitment to vocational education.
Another touted his “honesty, integrity and experience.”
One candidate proclaimed that he was “Our Hope for the Future” while another said he was “The Man who will bring back Honesty and Integrity [to] the government.”
One candidate said, “I will return the government back to the people.”
According to his opponent: “The people first all of the time. Vote for the man who always puts the people first!”
Another candidate vowed to “make a difference.”
More campaign promises from 1989:
“We know he will help us all.”
“I will produce quality legislation for the education of our children.”
A “good listener, a doer and a hard worker.”
Voters were urged to choose “the candidates who will bring an end to waste [and] corruption,” and who were for “the restoration of competence and the revival of confidence.” They would “make a difference because [they] care!” So “vote [for] the candidates you trust!”
“For the sake of your children,” you had to vote for him.
Yet another candidate said he was for the “common cause.” Which should take care of everything. To paraphrase a dialogue from a Marlon Brando movie:
“What’s your platform Mr. Candidate?”
“Whaddaya want?”
I don’t think all politicians make promises they can’t keep. Many of them actually believe they can keep their promises — that they will “make a difference.” As economist and author Bryan Caplan would put it, “Good intentions are ubiquitous in politics; what is scarce is accurate beliefs.” Accurate meaning mathematically sound.
How indeed can any politician or group of politicians “end” this, and “bring back” that, while “delivering” everything else that voters demand? Who’s paying? What’s the funding source?
But voters, for their part, are selectively irrational, Caplan said. Emotion and ideology, he added, “not just facts…powerfully sway human judgment.” Many believe that democracy fails because it does not do what voters want. Actually, Caplan said, democracy fails because it does what voters want. Or tries to do what voters want. A legitimate business executive with basic accounting knowledge would not have created the NMI Retirement Fund system — or the medical referral program. A legitimate business entity does not hire more employees than it needs, and doesn’t pay them salaries that exceed their actual worth to the company. Legitimate banks would not have approved many if not almost all the loan applications submitted to the government.
But then again, Caplan said, if politicians defy the public’s policy preferences (“free this, free that”), they will be thrown out of office. And their opponents who promised to do what voters say must be done (“free this, free that”) will be elected into office. Now if “voters are systematically mistaken about what policies work,” Caplan said, “there is a striking implication: They will not be satisfied by the politicians they elect. A politician who ignores the public’s policy preferences looks like a corrupt tool of special interests. A politician who implements the public’s policy preferences looks incompetent because of the bad consequences.”
The problem then, as P.J. O’Rourke would put it, “is not really politicians. The problem is politics.” Which I no longer find exciting, let alone inspiring, and which nowadays always reminds me of the following story recounted by a, who else, politician:
A national mental institution was celebrating its anniversary, and a popular politician was the guest speaker. His audience included government officials, doctors, caregivers and the patients themselves. The politician spoke and whenever he paused his audience clapped and cheered. They laughed when he made a joke. They nodded their heads when he stressed a point. By the end of his speech, they gave him a standing ovation. The mental institution’s director congratulated the politician for his “inspiring” remarks.
“Thank you,” the politician said. “But I noticed that one member of the audience never showed any emotion while I spoke. Didn’t laugh at my jokes. Didn’t nod his head. Didn’t even clap his hands! Who’s that man?”
“Don’t mind him,” the director said, “he’s no longer insane.”
Send feedback to editor@mvariety.com
