The Dobbs draft leak has seemingly added more fuel to the abortion debate over the past week. The real point of contention stilting the embers of the current renaissance in the commentary on Roe v. Wade was the passage of the Texas Heartbeat Bill (Senate Bill 8) last year. The state legislature passed a law that would effectively operate as an informal ban that skirts judicial review; since enforcement was being handled through the deputization of private citizens. Senate Bill 8 is a spectacle of legislative ingenuity; even knowledgeable detractors must admit this point. The design of the Bill is particularly pernicious and could be manipulated for partisan retaliation. For example, last year, California Governor Gavin Newsom talked of engineering his variant of SB 8 tailored to target ghost guns and semi-automatic rifles. The only thing gun owners have going for them in defense against such an action is that the Second Amendment is an enumerated right, meaning they do not need to only rely on stare decisis.
An unlikely coalition formed in 2021 to combat the passage of Senate Bill 8. The kind of coincidental political union that only further justifies the utility of Bruce Yandle’s concept of Bootlegger and Baptist (1983) coalitions. The California-based Firearms Policy Coalition joined the Texas pro-choice faction to oppose the legislation. Even going so far as to author an amicus brief critical of SB 8. Per Statista, of the Republicans, polled 50% owned a gun; 61% lived with a gun owner. Odds are, members of the Firearms Policy Coalitions are right-wingers that would not typically work with the pro-Roe camp. The flawed structure, logic, and versatility of SB 8 could put gun rights in jeopardy. Who would be the Bootleggers and the Baptists in this scenario? Anytime there is a collaboration between different stripes of political activists, these roles are interchangeable depending on the observer’s ideological proclivities. A more even assessment would be that both merging factions are Dual Role Actors (2020). As the pro-gun and the pro-Roe camps, both are defending moral arguments but simultaneously benefit from achieving their own separate policy goals.
The Menu Board Theory of Voting:
If the government is a service provider, a middleman providing goods and services to the public, the policy is nothing more than purchasing choice. Laws, regulations, government programs, infrastructure, and other services are chosen or “purchased” by voters and elected representatives. Every form of government action does incur monetary costs, as it is necessary to pay the program staff responsible for administration, implementation, and compliance. There is a direct parallel between purchasing goods on the private market and the policy selection process. But on a more abstract level, it is like a market exchange since even voters and decision-makers are making tradeoffs in this exchange for a specific policy. Therefore, providing some validation for the observation of politics being an exchange.
The one voting scenario that most proves this point is state-level referendums. The most salient issue placed on state ballots in recent years has Propositions seeking to legalize, tax, and regulation of Marijuana. Choosing to vote in favor of or against the proposition question is somewhat analogous to ordering a combo meal at a fast-food restaurant. Arguably, taxes and regulation are more features of implicit logrolling. In the form of the Marijuana legalization ballot question, they are complementary goods. Most polls indicate that the public favors regulation (especially when it comes to consumer protection), perceiving it as a necessary service necessary to be protected from delirious products. The excise taxes collected from Marijuana sales; can be used to fund other government-provided services. Few citizens are willing to challenge the veracity of sin taxes. The abolition of restrictions on Marijuana sales and consumption would be the proverbial burger, while the regulations and taxes are the fries and drink. It is important to note that a minority of (when compared to all voters) cannabis consumers and vendors will find these concessions onerous.
What about forms of political voting that include bundled goods? The best example is an election where the constituents vote for elected officials. Each candidate (typically corresponding with an established political party) has a platform, in other words, a collection of various policies they support. The political consumer is still selecting options from the menu board, but it is more like purchasing cable television services back in the 1990s. Several packages give a different grouping of 500 channels; the patron cannot simply omit or cherry-pick the channels they want. If a voter selects a Republican candidate because they oppose gun control, they are not just selecting looser gun laws but every other policy in the candidate’s campaign platform.
Click here for the Link
The process of Implicit Logrolling (Buchanan & Tullock,1962) is a form of indirect vote-trading that heavily relies on the bundling of wedge issues. By way of tying specific groupings of policies to attract targeted demographics of voters to a political platform. This political strategy is especially effective in capturing the commitment of single-issue voters. These voters need to tacitly accept the rest of the policies on the political platform to have their one area of interest acknowledged. This is why implicit logrolling is such an effective mechanism in shaping the American political landscape.
Most analysts ignore how voters reconcile selecting programs and political candidates that hold logically inconsistent views. For example, an individual that defends abortion rights on the grounds of a bodily integrity argument concurrently favoring vaccine mandates. Here is where the Paradox of Implicit Logrolling comes in; voters then must rationalize these discrepancies due to the lack of logical consistency. In vote trading, the individual voter expects to make some concessions. However, when these concessions present logical and philosophical contradictions, few people question the conflict. In short, the paradox describes how people are willing to accept contrary political positions if parceled with a party or policy they favor.Clark, Peter. (2021). The Paradox of Implicit Logrolling. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5606090
Below are the blog entries 10-20 of the Bootleggers and Baptists series. Going forward collective volumes of the series will be published for every ten blog posts composing a volume. These volumes include supplemental essays and addendums written within the timeframe of the corresponding blog posts.
***On installments XI & XII there is a sequencing error.
Published by the Casa Grande Dispatch (click here).
A Step in the Right Direction:
Last month New Mexico joined Connecticut, Colorado, and New York in being the first wave of states to tackle qualified immunity. There is some debate as to whether or not the bill passed by the New Mexican state legislature entails a full relinquishment of the legal doctrine (due to the fact it is a federally recognized doctrine). However, it is still a noble attempt to places limits on an abusive legal privilege. HB 4 passed by New Mexican lawmakers overtly prohibits invoking qualified immunity as a defense in court. Providing the complaint against the offending public official is within the statute of limitations (three years).
DEFENSE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.–In any claim for damages or relief under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, no public body or person acting on behalf of, under color of or within the course and scope of the authority of a public body shall enjoy the defense of qualified immunity for causing the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution of New Mexico. (HB 4, P.3, Sect 4)
Regardless of whether this new law functions as an outright nullification of the immunity privilege or operates as an effective restriction, this is still a monumental reform. For any pundit advocating for civil liberties, this is unquestionable a step in the right direction and a model for other states to follow. Such reforms provide the constituency with the assurance that all public officials (not just police officers) will be held accountable.
The Hippies and The Business Man:
Despite this positive change in state policy, the question remains did any outside interest groups support the bill? The answer is yes, outside interest groups did express support for the new law placing limits on qualified immunity. One of the interest groups even urged voters to engage in political action, by encouraging them to write to their lawmakers requesting they pass HB 4. Two of the more high-profile HB 4 advocates form one of the most ironic “odd-couple” coalitions that anyone could imagine. On the left side of the aisle, there was the Vermont-based ice cream producer Ben and Jerry’s. The founders of the ice cream boutique have long publicly and unapologetically embraced a progressive ethos. The right-wing portion of this unusual coalition is the organization Americans For Prosperity a conservative/libertarian group extensively funded by the Koch brothers. This political union can be best described as crunchy granola meets big oil.
Who Is The Bootlegger And Who is The Baptist?
In his seminal 1983 paper, Bruce Yandle explains oddball political alliances through the lens of a “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalition dynamic. At times, the dynamic can be more of an implicit union, where the Bootleggers ride the coattails of the Baptists through quietly supporting the initiative. In other instances, there is an actual coordinated effort towards collective action between the seemingly opposing political actors. Clearly, the bond formed between AFP and Ben & Jerry’s would be an example of the latter coalition dynamic. It is difficult to ascertain who is providing the moral argument for ending qualified immunity and which group benefits from the legal doctrine being prohibited. Leading to the speculation that this activistic relationship between the two groups could be a less common variant of the B&B coalition. Could both groups concurrently assume the role of Baptists despite their divergent interests? Could they both be Bootleggers? Is it even possible that they are both simultaneously Dual-Role Actors?
There are some salient ways in which both groups stand to benefit from advocating for ending qualified immunity. Since the death of George Floyd, public confidence in policing has hit a twenty-seven-year low. Making it popular to support policies that advocate for policing reforms. Both political actors have distinct reasons for vocally endorsing a bill that ends qualified immunity. For Ben & Jerry’s they appease their progressive peers by fulfilling the ideological obligation of fighting for social justice and racial equality. On the other hand, AFP gains social currency from promoting abolishing qualified immunity, through being consistent with their conservative/libertarian philosophy by justifying a constraint on state power. Outside of building credibility with their ideological peers, they also gain the respect of neutral parties who are currently dissatisfied with current policing practices. Fostering a positive public image can result in more business for Ben & Jerry’s and more donations and support for AFP.
These inferences regarding the potential benefits of supporting HB 4 derived from a priori reasoning are not irrefutable. However, they are probable incentives either group would possess for their public activism. Both B&J’s and AFP also provide some thought-provoking moral justifications for ending this legal privilege. It would be a fallacy to attempt to paraphrase either group’s moral arguments. Below are direct quotes from both organizations’ websites detailing the moral concerns around qualified immunity.
“….Since George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police officers in May, tens of millions of Americans have taken to the streets all across the country to protest police brutality, systemic racism, and white supremacy—and it’s having a huge impact. Statues of enslavers and racists have come down. Black Lives Matter murals have gone up. Calls for defunding the police have run out. And many people—from everyday Americans to activists, athletes, experts, and lawmakers—are demanding the end of qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity? Here’s the deal: Qualified immunity allows police officers, while in the line of duty, to do pretty much anything to anybody, without fear of punishment.
Anyone who’s seen the videos of police violence during these protests is probably thinking exactly what we’re thinking, so let’s all say it out loud: Qualified immunity has got to go.” (Per the
Ben & Jerry’s website.)
The moral argument for ending qualified immunity depicted on B&J’s website exemplifies the need for racial justice. Reasoning that due to institutional racism there is a dire need to nullify this legal privilege, due to the fact that it does a disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities. Providing a textbook example of social justice argument for abolishing QI. Nevertheless, a moral justification.
Americans for Prosperity Senior Policy Analyst Jordan Richardson had this to say:
“Qualified immunity may have originated as a doctrine to protect good police officers working in difficult conditions, but now, four decades later, it has morphed into a doctrine that regularly protects egregious violations of constitutional rights. By damaging the trust and confidence that communities have in law enforcement, qualified immunity is harming the very police officers it was designed to protect. We are proud to sign this brief in support of defending fundamental rights and in support of restoring healthy police-community relationships.” (Per the AFP Website).
The argument presented by AFP rests on the standard base constitutionality and state power. Both points have been constant fixtures of right-wing political discourse (at least prior to Trump), making these focal points congenial to a conservative justification for ending QI. All because AFP presents an argument from the standpoint of individual liberty and B&J’s from the perspective of racial justice does not undermine the morality of either paradigm. Morality is not relative, however, it can be pluralistic. A policy can be just or unjust for multiple reasons. Therefore, AFP and B&J’s are concurrently championing moral arguments. It wouldn’t be shrewd to assign dynamic roles to either party, either could be seen as the Bootlegger or Baptist depending upon one’s political proclivities. In doing so we run the risk of veering into the territory of playing the “Red Team- Blue Team” game.
Below are the first ten blog entries of the Bootleggers and Baptists series on the Inverted Logic Blog. Going forward collective volumes of the series will be published for every ten blog posts, composing a volume. These volumes include supplemental essays and addendums written within the timeframe of the corresponding blog posts.
Continuing in the spirit of my previous essay it’s fair to say that both ends of voter age distribution possess distorted incentives. Generally, due to being relatively insulated from the direct or immediate consequences of spendthrift policies. If the tendency of the elderly voting blocs and young voters is to skew towards fiscal profligacy, the question becomes what age group constitutes the ideal demographic for economically responsible voting behavior? I would contend the 35 to 65 age demographics would be the best answer. Why? By the age of 35, most people are being taxed, they own property, and have outgrown their phase quixotic idealism. Again, like anything else in this world, there are expectations. Homeownership is slightly down among Millennials when compared to previous generations (metric being homeownership by age 30). The ideal age ceiling for voting rights of approximately 65 is self-explanatory. Once a person starts receiving Social Security it only stands to pervert their policy preferences. However, if the age for Social Security eligibility were to be increased, I would say that the ideal maximum voter age would also increase. Within this age span, there is a thirty-year period where the average voter would have their incentives properly aligned. Versus being easily swindled by lofty promises of “free” services.
Creating a firm age requirement does have quite a few flaws. It does not account for individuals differences. For example, a 23-year old business/homeowner has more of a stake in matters of taxation than the 32-year old who lives in his mother’s basement. Age restrictions obtusely apply a blanket rule that is insensitive to circumstantial differences. Being somewhat sympathetic to the concept of Rothbardian homesteading, it’s hard to perceive a chronological age as being the main qualifying factor for voter competency. There certainly is a correlation between the two. In an attempt to acknowledge differences in individuals’ capacity for sound voting behavior it would be reasonable to provide procedures for opt-in and opt-out exceptions to the 35-65 age range.
Voter opt-in Requirements Under the age of 35
- Must not have been claimed as a dependent by parent/guardian on the previous year’s income taxes.
- Qualified Voters under the age of 35 years of age must meet the following criterion
- Own a house, condominium, Townhouse, or plot of land exceeding $25,000.00 in value.
- If qualifying under the property ownership contingency tax documentation is required.
- If a prospective voter, does not own property but is a proprietor of a business or owns 25 % or more shares in a company they can qualify to vote.
- Owning $50,000 or more in assets including but not limited to Precious metals (gold, silver), valuable jewels (diamonds, rubies, etc.), stock shares, government bonds, or equivalent amount in an IRA, 401k account, or other variety of privately funded retirement savings plan.
- Must have not received any benefits from any public assistance programs (WICC, Snap, section 8 housing, etc.) within the past 2 consecutive years. This does not include the collection of unemployment benefits.
- Those who have declared bankruptcy within the past five years are ineligible to vote if under the age of 35 years of age.
- Voting rights are extended to those who are married or in a common-law marriage (under state law) if their spouse qualifies under the above criteria. Providing a prenuptial agreement was not signed before marriage.
Retaining Voting Rights If over 65.
- A senior citizen can retain their status as an eligible voter if they decline to collect Social Security benefits. This opt-out decision will be penalty-free. However, if a senior citizen over the age of 65 wishes to collect Social Security benefits, they effectively relinquish their legal right to vote.
Author’s Note: Please note that the above is not a formal or serious policy proposal. Rather a theoretical exercise in what such a proposal would look like and be designed to curtail the incentive problems faced by younger and older voters. I realize there the above-detailed contingencies are vague, riddled with loopholes, and are shallow in scope. Not to mention inherently discriminatory and to some extend illiberal (in the classical sense of the phrase). Not to mention most likely illegal. Please interpret this blog entry as an intellectual exercise.
The 2020 Election season will be historically noteworthy for several reasons. One characteristic that cannot be underscored is the aggressive voting campaigns. Celebrities have been demanding we all vote. Internet advertisements have been hounding us to vote. Campaigns at the state and national level have been emphasizing the accommodations made to enable near-effortless voting. Which is perceived as being particularly important with the looming specter of COVID-19 threatening to reduce voter turnout. Historically, voting rights and “get out and vote” initiatives have been the enterprise of left-wing political interests. Not that conservatives are inherently anti-voting, but due to the fact, right-wing populism is a new phenomenon.
Voter empowerment has always been a thinly-veiled attempt to pander to the average constituent. The aptitude of an individual vote holds little sway over the actual outcome of elections. Making the overall influence of a solitary vote is near-zero (P.603). The advocates urging the every-day citizen to vote side-step this issue through embellishing upon the impact of a single vote. One vote will not sway the overall aggregate electoral vote. That one vote is numerically inconsequential. Even on the microscopic scale of a small village of two-hundred residents, a single vote only 0.5 percent of the vote. Exemplifying the fact that the ruling power of voting comes from the aggregate voting power of various political coalitions. The collective-decision making power of organized political interest proves to be more effective than a single disorganized voter (p.54-56). The attempts to summon all eligible voters to do so serves as circuitous means of forming a like-minded voting bloc. The paradox being those who have an invested interest in promoting the institution of nominally democratic elections need to prey upon the illusion of every voting carrying weight in the polls.
Generally, the promotion of participation in the “democratic” process is purported to be for the “common good”. A profoundly ambiguous statement that could be applied in a litany of various subjective interpretations. What is advantageous for one person may be detrimental to another. Making claims of initiatives being in the name of the common good board-line spurious. There is something of a gulf between the best interest of the individual versus that of society (p.284). Without a clear and concise criterion of what constitutes public interest, political pressure groups are enabled to take the reins and divert the cause for their purposes (p.283). The utilization of powerful imagery helps the invested interests mold public perception like clay. Conjuring apocalyptic images of a world with health care, social security, and other entitlements brought forth by a tyrannical despot. Allusions to tyranny captive the imagination of the American voter quite vividly due to the context of the nascent years leading to the Revolutionary War. Most of these claims are hyperbolic and are intended to urge the viewer to vote. The foreboding catastrophe resulting from not casting your one measly vote may result in the demise of the republic. Such tactics are nothing more than providing misinformation that is tantamount to psychological manipulation.
Aside from this exaggerated claim being cartoonish, they do not consider informal checks on power. By virtue of the median voter theorem, a true contender in a political race would not dare commit the cardinal sin of outright eliminating such programs. Some may discredit this argument as our current president is somewhat unorthodox. Even if the pressure of government agencies or constituencies does not hold, the pressure of lobbying groups will. For example, the hyperbolic bombastic rhetoric of the Republican party overturns social security is laughable. Equal to political suicide. Seniors organizations such as AARP weld a significant amount of lobbying power. Could effortlessly embark upon a rapturous counter-campaign against the GOP. Potentially leading to a drastic drop in the senior vote, arguable one of the most active voter demographics in the country. The dystopian tone of these advertisements reflects a sensationalized depiction of political reality. A fabricated reality was political pressure groups have surrendered all of their political purchasing power to the voter. Which is a highly unlikely scenario. Especially when confronted with the fact that there is a plethora of perks and money to be made by lobbying. Only serving to solidify the fact that the myth of “every vote counts” is a pure illusion.
If the consequences of not voting are not as desirable as perpetuated by the media and the voter has next to no control over the result, what is the point in trying to mobilize voters? Stressing the moral imperative of arriving at the polls over hell or high water? The observant reader probably notes how it was previously mentioned that voter empowerment was an enterprise of the left. Coupled with the storied history of left-wing media bias, the motives of the “get out and vote” campaigns become much more salient (p.49). There is a tightly woven network of celebrities, musicians, actors, and media personnel who operate as the mouthpiece for the moral imperative of voting. These de facto “Baptists” help paint the grisly picture of an America where the interests of the common person have not been represented. Doing all of the heavy lifting for the true beneficiaries. Those who stand to benefit politically from such initiatives. Democratic politicians, trade associations, administrators for entitlement programs, the community organizers who host and plan voting drives, and so on. Most of these interested parties stand to benefit through career advancement, increased job security, increases in social clout, etc. All of these concentrated benefits were acquired without productively contributing to society. Textbook definition of rent-seeking. The morally suspect part of these unearned benefits is that isn’t obvious that these self-interested individuals truly haven’t contributed to society. Due to the virtuous choir of the media mouthpieces creating the smoke-screen for the beneficiaries to hide behind, we are deceived into the belief they are working for our benefit.
It can be surmised that the reason for the upsurge in a panic regarding this election is based on the motive to oust Donald Trump out of office. I disagree with his politics. After all, I am a steadfast and unwavering free trader. The magnitude of moral indignation facing the president is unjustifiable. To genuinely believe that Joe Biden is the white knight who is going to save the United States from uncertain cataclysm, is comical. Neither man ideologically represents the correct direction for this country. Then again, that may precisely be the reason both are the premier candidates for the job. Lobbyists and bureaucrats need elected officials they can bend for their purposes. Needless to say, the droves and networks of various spokespeople urging us to vote are not truly working in our interest. Despite whatever flimsy claims they make. Voting does have a valuable quality as a form of self-express, but that is about it. The odds of your vote deciding the next election is nothing more than pure fantasy.
The letter has been e-mailed to economist Dr. Bruce Yandle. If I hear back I will make sure to post an update.
Dear Dr. Yandle,
Throughout the pandemic, I have been reading more journal articles on Public Choice Theory. I would have to say that now I am a convert. Previously being a layperson who was fond of the Austrian School. While there are many captivating concepts expressed in the Public Choice literature, the concept of Bootleggers and Baptists has so far been my favorite. In my opinion, the depth of your observations in this conceptualization extends beyond oddball coalitions and the transactional aspects of regulation. The Bootlegger and Baptists dynamic provides us with candid commentary on the nature of regulation. Raising the important question of who stands to benefit from this law passing? Making the moral considerations for advocacy of specific law questionable. Does the benefit secured by implementing more safety regulations outweigh the decrease in market competition? As you have mentioned in previous interviews and podcasts, many of these costly measures end up acting as means for established producers to gain greater market share while circumventing anti-trust laws. The smaller businesses simply cannot afford to comply with the new and onerous requirements.
The insights into the self-serving quiddity of regulation aside, conceptually the Bootleggers and Baptists dynamic has been proven to be very versatile. It can be applied to just about any policy position and is applicable even outside the realm of political decision-making. I have seen countless examples of unlikely bedfellows teaming for a shared objective at work. The possibilities for application are seemingly endless and can even be applied to traditionally apolitical institutions.
It is the very versatility of the Bootleggers and Baptists concept that entices me to come up with novel applications of the theory. Leading me to the question why cannot the Bootlegger and Baptist be the same individual or group? An actor can possess multiple motives for the same action, the same could be true for advocacy of various regulations. An individual actor or a group of actors could have a sincere moral concern but also simultaneously stand to gain from the regulation. This is not to say that the ratio of moral concern and self-interest is equal. For the individual actor or group self-interest or moral concern may take primacy over the other set of incentives and motives. If the individual or group provides a moral argument and is concurrently a silent beneficiary, they are both a Bootlegger and a Baptist. Regardless of the degree to which they qualify for either category.
I adorn this potentially novel observation with the title of a “Dual-Role Actor Dynamic”. Whether we examine the advocacy of a single economic agent or the collective action of a group there is the potential of Dual-Role dynamic. Even getting as granular as the level of an individual actor there is the potential for alignment of incentives and motives. In a sense, the individual is combining their self-interest and moral concerns into one action. Expressing an internal agreement between their moral convictions and self-interest. The best analogy that can be made is if the psychoanalytical stratifications of consciousness, the ID and Superego, wherein complete unison. The proverbial devil and angel on our shoulders decided to shake hands signifying a truce. All because our selfish and moral motives are in agreement. In a group setting, the collective action is merely an aggregate of each group member’s own moralistic and selfish inclinations.
Recently, I believe to have found a real-life example of a “Dual-Role Actor Dynamic” in the domain of ballot access laws. After reviewing a few legal papers detailing the issue, I began to realize many of the moral arguments for stringent requirements also were silent beneficiaries. In theory, moral arguments such as shielding voters from frivolous candidacies, confusion, and political instability may be sincere. However, they are being made almost entirely by legislators, bureaucrats, and public officials affiliated with one of the major parties in the United States. Their moral concerns may be merely a thinly veiled-cloak to obscure blatant self-interest. Due to my inability to test the veracity of the sincerity of the invested interests advocating for stricter laws, I will have to take their claims at face value. While these invested interests purportedly feel a duty to protect the voter and maintain the integrity of democracy they still stand to gain. By imposing heavier burdens upon third-party candidates it redirects votes that would go to minor party candidates towards the two major parties. Effectively leaving the political duopoly in the United States intact. Making these advocates potentially Dual-Role Actors.
Dr. Yandle, I am aware you are very busy and most likely have a lot of other projects in the works. That being said, I appreciate you taking the time to read my letter. I understand that I am a far cry from a professional economist, however, any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated. Even if my expansion of the Bootleggers and Baptists dynamic is conceptually flawed it was still an engaging intellectual exercise to grapple with this idea conceptually.
Thank you again, professor, for your innovative contribution to political economy,
Peter C. Clark.
Matthew Miller’s The 2% Solution is filled with interesting and novel insights on the inadequacies of the political process. Miller a self-proclaimed radical centrist provides a rallying cry for all political pragmatists. Get over the drama/ trappings of political theater and get the bargaining table. Yes, there will be trade-offs, but at the end of the day, the results will be worth the compromise. At least in theory. Miller’s objectives are certainly laudable. However, clearly in the nearly 20-years since the book’s publication, few have taken his advice seriously. Miller certainly does not lack creditable credentials, after all, he was a senior advisor in the Clinton White house.
Miller does touch upon the root of the problem in the American phenomenon of ineffectual government. He cites the typical observations of the government’s ineptitude, invested interests, partisanship, etc. He does address one point that is often underscored by proponents of limited government. Typically were are so enamored with the inefficiencies and corruption in politics we forget about other factors that make government fail. How often are politicians avoiding making effective decisions due to not wanting to alienate their “base”? They are beholden to the voters to retain their position as an elected official. Frequently like to create the illusion of meaningful action (p.3).
Miller expounds upon how conservatives are generally between a rock and a hard place when it comes to social issues. Generally, Republicans are expected to give lip service to fiscal conservationism and small government. This cultivates a dilemma. The representative may personally favor some social safety nets, but will their core voters agree? The situation becomes more sticky when you take into account the attitudes of Swing voters. The proverbial Independent voter. As Miller quotes the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan
” … Showing enough leg to convince the Independents we would like to attract that they are not neanderthals ..” (Miller, 2003, P. 28)
This juggling act is more about image management than producing good policy. However, this behavior is rational given the incentives of an elected official. Re-election! These balancing acts are more about voter appeasement than about doing what makes sense economically or socially. In my opinion, make the crusades embarked upon by many self-righteous politicians outright spurious. It is impossible to differentiate if they are passionate about the issue or the more so their re-election campaign.
Let me pick on a politician that demonstrates these principles,… Rand Paul. He’s a relatively unique Republican from an ideological standpoint. He has “Libertarian” tendencies. Similar to Senator Mike Lee of Utah. In terms of his re-election efforts, we can transpose Independent voters with Libertarian voters. Senator Paul will attempt to balance his campaign platform in a manner that will please mainstream Republicans but will also entice Libertarians to vote for him. While his target demographics may vary slightly from the majority of Republicans it is a similar concept. Attempting to strike the golden-mean, an image that is favorable in the eyes of Republican and Libertarian voters. This means making compromises on policy and diluting his ideological to pander to the other side.
Senator Paul also suffers from what I like to refer to as Soapbox syndrome. This is were a politician or activist who takes a stand on a minor issue or one that is convenient for them to be an advocate for. It is a blatant form of ideological rent-seeking. Instead of gain monetarily they gain more social creditably in the political sphere. James M. Buchanan was joking when he referred to politics as a form exchange. “Interpersonal trading to capture mutual benefits” (P.594). Taking on a policy issue as crusade you are giving X to obtain Y. Y comes in the form of votes or creditably in certain political circles. Colloquially we refer to it has having cachet or currency. For example, presently the issue of policing reform has a lot of currency. This credibility transfers to anyone willing to take the position that is most congenial to the voters.
Bless his heart, goes on these short-lived crusades that make him appear to be a different type of politician. Remember back when he was fixated on term limits? I haven’t heard him gripe about term limits in awhile. Then again amid all the upheaval spawned from COVID-19 he probably has bigger fish to fry. It’s convenient in the here and now to give lips service to term limits, however, the odds of such a policy coming into being are scant. Senator Paul knows this. There are far bigger issues than term limits. While implementing this policy may do some good in eliminating some of the invested interests. Not allowing senators to form longstanding relationships with lobbyists. It is easier to go off on a rant on the senator floor about term limits than to take the unions and lobbyists head-on. If he was truly committed to this issue why not impose your term limit. I am not suggesting he immediately resign. Say, ” After 15 years in the senator I am retiring. I will be full-time with my practice .” He would avoid looking like a hypocrite and it would be a graceful way to end your stint in the senate. He would be setting a good example, even if no one else wants to follow suit.