A banner on a tractor reads “You are feeding others and you want to chase us away” as German farmers protest against the cut of vehicle tax subsidies in Berlin, Germany on Jan. 8, 2024.
“His vast capacity for illusion, his powerful thirst for the not true….”
— H.L. Mencken, describing the “common man.”
SINCE at least the 18th century — and quite possibly earlier — many great thinkers have already noticed a crucial fact about democracy or government of the people: it could lead to mob rule or the tyranny of the majority, and usually followed by bankruptcy. Democracy allows a majority to enact policies that benefit themselves, regardless of long-term economic viability, arithmetic or consequences. Moreover, to paraphrase economic historian Bob Higgs, democracy allows unqualified and irresponsible persons — including well-intentioned, self-appointed messiahs — decide how other people, nearly all of them complete strangers, must live their lives.
And yet in school and in public discourse, democracy is usually depicted as an unalloyed good that can transform lives and societies for the better. All we have to do is to elect the “right” leaders with the “right” platform so they can take over the government and pursue the “right” policies that will allow us to, one day, walk into the sunset, holding hands if possible, and singing Kumbaya if it’s not much of a bother.
Many of us believe that the government led by the intelligent and the virtuous can remedy our defects, which, however, are usually the same defects afflicting many of our would-be saviors, however intelligent and virtuous they are. And then we the people act surprised whenever our fellow human beings act like, well, human beings and abuse the power we gave them. This is the meaning of Lord Acton’s oft-quoted but seldom comprehended observation in 1887 (not a typo) that “power tends to corrupt.” And not just in the “old-fashioned” graft and corruption way. Politics, whose goal is to win power, will eventually turn most, if not almost all, of its practitioners into fibbers, deceivers, demagogues and panderers prone to theatrics.
Political scientists and authors Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels said there is a “set of accessible, appealing ideas assuring people that they live under an ethically defensible form of government that has their interests at heart.” Achen and Bartells call it the “folk theory” of democracy. (See their magnificent book, “Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government” published by Princeton University Press in 2017.)
In real life, however, and as indicated by a growing body of scientific evidence, the people, especially at election time, “are swayed by how they feel about ‘the nature of the times,’ especially the current state of the economy, and by political loyalties typically acquired in childhood. Those loyalties, not the facts of political life and government policy, are the primary drivers of political behavior. Election outcomes turn out to be largely random events from the viewpoint of contemporary democratic theory.”
To quote another great thinker, the economist and author Bryan Caplan, “In theory, democracy is a bulwark against socially harmful policies, but in practice it gives them a safe harbor.” (See his 2007 book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies.”) Hence, “democracy fails because it does what voters want.” Throughout known human history, Caplan added, “emotion and ideology — not just the facts or their ‘processing’ — powerfully sway human judgment.”
Some would say, “The solution for the problems of democracy is more democracy.” However, Caplan said, voter ignorance “is a product of natural human selfishness, not a transient cultural aberration. It is hard to see how initiatives, or campaign finance reform, or any of the popular ways to ‘fix democracy’ strengthen voters’ incentive to inform themselves.”
And so “democracies fall short because voters get the foolish policies they ask for.”
Meanwhile, in the old enlightened democratic nations of Europe, many of their citizens are denouncing their elected officials for daring to implement what they, voters, said they support.
In his recent column in The Wall Street Journal, Joseph C. Sternberg noted that a survey conducted by a think tank in Germany indicated that some 55% of respondents believe their country should play a leading role in the global effort to combat climate change. Net zero! Their preferred measure is the implementation of “targeted subsidies for climate-friendly measures.” But such subsidies must be funded by tax increases or spending cuts — which the same climate-friendly voters oppose. When the German government proposed a tax, a mass protest erupted. (There were similar protest actions in France and the Netherlands.)
In Britain, Sternberg said, a poll found that “85% of respondents described climate change as ‘an important problem’ facing the U.K. (with 46% of respondents describing it as the most important or one of the most important problems).” Do they mean it? Sternberg asked. “Of course not. The same poll found less than a quarter of respondents saying climate-change or net-zero policies would be ‘very important’ in determining their votes in the election due this year.” Most of them are more concerned about healthcare issues and inflation. And like most voters in other democracies all around word, they want their government to “address” these issues, which earlier and/or current government policies have either created or made worse.
And so it goes.
Send feedback to editor@mvariety.com
