I have been arguing for a long time that far too much of our political discussions are emotionally based. Harold Laswell said “politics is about who gets what, when, how.” This was the standard definition of politics, which I learned forty five years ago as a Political Science major. This means politics is involved with every aspect of our everyday lives. We are far too quick to limit the meaning or understand the consequences of politics.
The United States has a Constitutionally limited federal government which results in a free market capitalist system of economics, however the limited nature of our federal government has been steadily eroded. This has been accomplished by both our legislators, who are unwilling to make the difficult budgetary decisions their offices demand of them and the Courts, who insist on legislating from the bench and increasing the scope and size of government in a vain attempt to avert every citizen’s problem.
What has the use of the emotional hook meant to the everyday life of the US citizen.? It has meant that decisions are more and more made at the whim of a group of elite politicians whipped into a frenzy by an over dramatized media. The ultimate result is that personal decisions concerning allocation of your income and resources have been removed from your control and are now less based on rational personal benefit and an individual’s return on investment and more based upon a legislator of judge’s feelings about an issue.
Federal legislators decide issues based upon a snapshot of public opinion. Federal Judges seem to believe they must act as super legislators and right all the wrongs of the country rather than apply existing law and so they create new law. What this means is there will continue to be more government involvement in your everyday life and ultimately this “feeling centered decision making” may lead to the end to even of the semblance of free speech.
Dissent will be drowned out by the din created in a 24 hour media cycle. Rational individuals may well be dissuaded from voicing their views because they fear immediate economic or reputational damage should they voice disagreement with the current emotionalism of the moment.
Proponents of feeling based decision making believe it will create a more nurturing democratic government and will lead to a more humane society. Democratic party politicians believe this nurturing view of government is popular among young unmarried bicoastal female voters, a group they consider to be in their tribe. I contend this type of decision making is bad for all voters and will result in misallocation of both human and financial capital and ultimately a lowered standard of living for all in this country and throughout the world as well as a society where individuals are afraid to express their opinions.
I have been reading a series of books about rational decision making. Most recently I have been reading the book, “Factfulness” by Hans Rosling . There is value in the authors data driven analysis and the rationale approach he uses to generate his world survey questions and answers. I worry that this author’s analysis is far too dependent on UN sources of data, because these data sources readily available and he states are the most comprehensive in scope. I do not share his confidence about how this data is collected and compiled. Finally, I find some of the author’s concerns to be as equally unsupported by causal data as he claims many current popular public opinions to be,eg. ( views on global warming and universal healthcare) (He readily admits that weather is subject to a great may variables and can’t be forecasted accurately, yet is ever so concerned about climate change.)I find many of his concerns to be personally intrusive,repugnant and left leaning.
The fact that I favor a more free and individually driven , yet rational allocation of economic resources doesn’t however mean I am a heartless and I am certainly not a populist. I am a Constitutionalist. Constitutionalist are frequently accused of lacking compassion for the downtrodden in our society or being bigoted because we don’t favor big government welfare programs and unlimited immigration. I favor, as does our federal constitution a system, where individuals make their own decisions and believe that there are certain God given rights that belong solely to them. The federal government should interfere in its citizens lives only in very limited and strictly defined areas enumerated by the Constitution. Other areas are reserved to the citizens until more authority is granted by the super majority required to adopt a constitutional amendment and even that authority should be restricted. Some rights really are truly inalienable and non delegatable.
Factual information must be available to the public in order to allow each individual and organization to make rational personal economic and value choices. I agree that decisions must be fact based, but values must also be incorporated into any decision making process. This is the province of the individual. It is the small decisions made by the many in their individual daily interests, that should shape our public policy. Our Constitution allows for a limited federal government and leaves most authority with the States. This allows for a variety of best practices and failures without universal consequences.
What seems like economic chaos or the lack of a comprehensive economic or governmental plan is actually a constantly adjusting web of individual decision making. This guarantees maximum benefit and freedom for all citizens. It is truly economic organization from what seems like unplanned chaos. Unfettered emotionalism can cause rash decisions to be made by elitist representatives based upon the latest media whipped over dramatization. The decisions feel good at the time, but lack checks and balances provided by the free market. This type of decision making leads to unintended consequences, which could be avoided by utilizing a more limited and best practices and evaluation model.
Share this:
