Practical Implications of Governance By the Power-Hungry

Will Wilkinson is curious about “what Matt takes to be the broader implications of the idea that ‘we’re fated to be ruled by the sort of people who are really desperate to cling to power.’”

I’m not entirely sure. I know some people are inclined to respond to these facts by saying “and so you see, that’s why we should believe in small government and limit the power of politicians” but I don’t really understand how to operationalize that idea. The only practical alternative to rule by politicians is rule by dictators, which seems to work out well in Singapore but not elsewhere, and the election of politicians who profess belief in small government has, in practice, brought the United States illegal surveillance, torture, indefinite detention, aggressive war, a boondogglish drug benefit for senior citizens, and then on the small government side of the ledger cuts in the very inoffensive Section 8 housing voucher program.

But a few thoughts:

— This is why it’s important to be a civil libertarian and to be much more skeptical than the political/media mainstream is of the idea that what’s at stake in these debates is really a “balance” between a “security” imperative and some airy “values.” It is overwhelmingly likely that various secret police powers are simply going to be abused, rather than put to some productive-but-liberty-infringing use.

— This is also a reason to be skeptical of ideas about discretionary regulatory fine-tuning. You always could improve outcomes by abandoning rigid rules (with “do what you want” counting as a rigid rule) but in practice you probably won’t.

— I think this also counts on a reason to prefer systems that rely more on career civil servants and less on political appointees. Bureaucrats have their own distinctive psychopathologies, but they’re different, and it’s helpful to have them in more tension and balance than exists in the United States.

— It’s also important to have in place systems for effective monitoring of elected officials. A Canadian voter elects one federal official—a Member of Parliament. An American elects four—a President, two Senators, and one Representative. Americans don’t have four times as much time as Canadians to pay attention to what politicians are doing or to learn the issues; our politicians are just being monitored less. When you consider the proliferation of things like independently elected school boards, district attorneys, sherrifs, etc. keep in mind that this diffusion of responsibility is a good way for the egomaniacal to evade responsibility.

— If that leaves us with too few veto points, the thing to do is not to have additional houses of legislature, but Swiss-style (as opposed to California-style) direct democracy, where the actions of a unicameral legislature can be checked by the voters.

This all might be wrong, however. I think the underlying issue is one of the most profound ones humanity faces so I don’t think I have it all figured out.