The Unwashed Masses

I found Bryan Caplan's essay worrying about voter ignorance a little bit puzzling. I agree with many of his analytical claims, but I can't be persuaded to share his worry that the ignorant masses are using democracy to implement poor policy against the wishes of wiser elites/experts. Strangely, he takes immigration as his main example. If I were trying to devise an example of a policy area in which an elite consensus had shown a consistent ability to override contrary sentiment, I would have picked, well, immigration where the public's consistent preference for dramatically more restrictionist policies have been consistently (and, in my view, rightly) frustrated.

Indeed, the striking thing about American democracy is how little impact public sentiment actually has on the course of things. The way democracy works, in essence, is that the voters get to choose between two teams of competing elites. Thus, public opinion serves as a tie-breaker on issues where the elite is seriously divided. Faced with an elite consensus, it becomes very hard to raise money, get favorable press coverage, hire talented staff, or do anything else. On some topics, the effect of this is (I think) beneficial, and on other topics it's rather pernicious. The curious question, in my mind, is how it is that exponents of elite consensus views manage to feel so embattled in a political arena that, looked at objectively, they completely dominate. Try suggesting that there's no single "right answer" to questions of monetary policy and that within a range of non-ruinous policies there's simply the competing interests of net creditors and net debtors and that recent Fed policy is unduly tilted in favor of the interests of net creditors and see how far you get with that.

UPDATE: Sorry, due to a typo that last sentence used to say "recent Fed policy is unduly tilted in favor of the interests of net debtors" when I meant to make the opposite charge as reflected in the current text.

11/6/06 4:52PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

I agree with you that elites ultimately call the shots (and a good thing too). But the elites that get to make policy are the ones who can get the ignorant masses to support them. That can be a problem when one group of elites (say neocons/neolibs) are able to present a more appealing narrative (kill foreigners! Go USA!) than a more sensible group of elites (ethical realists or whatever they're called these days).

Posted by: Pithlord on November 6, 2006 05:28 PM

Um? Don't you mean that Fed policy is tilted for net creditors? The Fed essentially raises interest rates at the slightest whiff of wage growth (though Bernanke seems not to be doing so).

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot on November 6, 2006 05:49 PM

What is a Libertarian if not a sociopath who thinks he's going to have a brilliant career?

Caplan doesn't want to share any of his good fortune with the lowly...Macacas.

Posted by: monkyboy on November 6, 2006 06:00 PM

Your take on the dynamic between public opinion and elite consensus is right on the mark. However, while elites as a whole do dominate our political discourse why should that preclude individual elites like Andrew Sullivan from feeling embattled?

Posted by: Ricky Barnhart on November 6, 2006 06:13 PM

I think we would pretty clearly be better off as a nation if our immigration policies reflected the popular rather than the elite consensus.

In general, I think that if the public was truly well educated as to what was at stake in various policy choices, they would make better choices than the elites. This is because the public has to experience the actual consequences of policy choices, while the elites can generally escape them.

Posted by: MQ on November 6, 2006 06:40 PM

You're right about the "competing teams of elites" statement. But when there's a groundswell of popular support for a policy position that neither team of elites have so far taken, one or both teams of elites usually jumps at the chance to claim the issue as their own in order to "beat" the other team.

Examples: Vietnam War, protectionism, civil rights

This is why I prefer a representative democracy to a parliamentary one; in our system, the elites seem to respond to the grassroots more quickly.

Posted by: Mr. Noah on November 6, 2006 06:44 PM

I find Caplan's assertion that economists believe in a "Myth of the Rational Voter" extremely odd. It seems like economists are always making fun of democracy and singing the praises of the market as a superior arena for decisions. Isn't that the whole idea of "public choice" theory?

The irony is that Caplan's argument is actually much weaker if he were to acknowledge that his point of view was actually common among economists. He has to claim that most economists are pro-democracy because an anti-democracy/anti-government preference would explain the discrepancies he notes. Someone who opposes government interference and believes in markets is likely to support open trade and open immigration because those move the government further away from autarky--in other words, they weaken public control of the economy and the nation. And that is precisely the view that someone who is attracted to the field of economics is likely to have: on average, an economists is more likely to be the sort of person who is thrilled by the beauty of markets and game theory than the lay person. And this says more about the kind of people economists are than it does about market decision making.

In other words, being an economist doesn't cause you to be a libertarian, but being a libertarian causes you to be an economist.

It should also be noted that even controlling for income, academic economists seem far less likely to have to deal with foreign and illegal immigrant competition than lay persons.

Posted by: Consumatopia on November 6, 2006 06:57 PM

recent Fed policy is unduly tilted in favor of the interests of net debtors

Given that net debtors are overwhelmingly those lower on the income distribution, I think -- I hope -- that you meant net creditors in that last sentence.

Posted by: lemuel pitkin on November 6, 2006 07:20 PM

"In other words, being an economist doesn't cause you to be a libertarian, but being a libertarian causes you to be an economist."

That must be convenient whenever there's a broad economic consensus that runs contrary to your preferred policy positions. I hear conservatives have discovered a precisely parallel convenient fact about the field of sociology.

Posted by: Julian Sanchez on November 6, 2006 07:30 PM

But the elites that get to make policy are the ones who can get the ignorant masses to support them. That can be a problem when one group of elites (say neocons/neolibs) are able to present a more appealing narrative (kill foreigners! Go USA!) than a more sensible group of elites (ethical realists or whatever they're called these days). -- Pithlord

How many elites were against the Iraq war before it started? A handful at best. The leadership of both parties jumped into this wholeheartedly, and even today many leading Dems tell us that Bush screwed up their beautiful idea.

The fact that the ethical realists still have trouble gaining a seat at the table proves that the elites weren't forced into this by the pitchfork wielding masses, screaming for the blood of foreigners.

Posted by: Carl on November 6, 2006 07:32 PM

Julian, even though I would tend to side with the sociologists, the conservatives have a point. The argument that economists have a preference for free trade is no more convincing than pointing out that theologians have a belief in God. I believe Terry Eagleton made precisely that argument against Richard Dawkins.

Posted by: Consumatopia on November 6, 2006 07:47 PM

"recent Fed policy is unduly tilted in favor of the interests of net debtors"

There is a case to be made here, tho I don't know if MY just slipped. We are still financing the war/deficit/tax cuts on the basis of a housing bubble and low real rates. A lot of economists like Volcker expected a recession and dollar devaluation last year.

Actually for us class-war paranoid Fed-watchers, the housing bubble is as much a part of the Republican redistribution scheme as the tax cuts. Greenspan was the debbil.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on November 6, 2006 07:56 PM

Carl asks how many elites were against the Iraq war at the outset. I suppose it depends a lot on what you mean by elites. If you mean academics in the IR or Middle East fields, then the elites -- including conservatives -- were overwhelmingly against it. If you include the permanent people in the US military, State Department and CIA, they were at minimum skeptical.

The pols all thought that it would be highly dangerous to oppose the war. But that's just following where they thought the masses would be. A politician needs to have a healthy respect for the power of jingoism. Democrats in safe seats tended to oppose the war.

Posted by: Pithlord on November 6, 2006 08:09 PM

On the merits, you could arguye that Fed policy is either too loose or too restrictive. but the whole point of MY's post is that tehse questions are not just about the merits, they're about conflicting interests.

And since net debtors are predominatly the working and middle class, and net creditors are the wealthy, if MY thinks fiscal policy is overly responsive to the interests of the former, it makes his whole post very confusing.

Posted by: lemuel pitkin on November 6, 2006 08:15 PM

The "net debtor" vs. "net creditor" stuff has recently been sort of confusing, because the Fed has not had to choose between low inflation and low interest rates. It has been able to have its cake and eat it too. Presumably if it had to make such a choice it would choose for "net creditors" and keep the inflation rate low, but it has not. Also, by keeping interest rates low it has been able to pump the economy and asset markets. This helps corporate profits and those who are asset owners.

Posted by: MQ on November 6, 2006 08:56 PM

MQ,

You could certainly make a strong argument that price inflation (as opposed to asset inflation) is not a real constraint on interest rates right now. The constraints preventing lower rates are (1) the need to deflate the housing bubble and (2) to maintain the inflow of foreign capital to finance our current account deficit. On the other hand are the desires to deflate the bubble gradually rather than through a crash, and to avoid a deep recession.

Under such circumstances, there might well be one optimal interest rate from the point of view of many constituencies, and finding it would be a technical question. That's the way monetary policy is almost always discussed.

But that's all beside the point of this post. What Matt is suggesting, correctly IMO, is that it is often the case that there is a wide range of monetary stances compatible with similar growth rates and financial stability, but that differentially benefit creditors and debtors. And he says, again I think correctly, that this aspect of monetary policy is virtaully never discussed, because there's an elite consensus on it. So it's excluded from the demcoratic process -- quite deliberately, e.g. by the structure of the Fed, and the bipartisan nature of appointments to it. (Careter appointed Volcker, Reagan reappointed him; Reagan appointed Greenspan, Clinton reappointed him.)

The problem is, he then suggests that the elite consensus is in favor of debtors. This makes no sense, because the elite is composed overwhelmingly of creditors. The issue here isn't what you or I think monetary policy is or should be, it's the coherence of MY's argument.

Posted by: lemuel pitkin on November 6, 2006 09:42 PM

"Indeed, the striking thing about American democracy is how little impact public sentiment actually has on the course of things."

Clearly a 700 mile fence along a 2100 mile border is not overly likely to halt the flow of illegal immigration (as well as dope) into the country. A major recession in coming years (which can't perhaps be ruled out entirely) may be more likely to reduce illegal immigration. My belief is that all this huff and puff over illegal immigration will lead to a much more orderly and regulated system of mass immigration from the south (which is good in certain ways and bad in other ways; anyone with insufficient appreciation of the loveliness of open borders and the southwest frontier should read Cormac McCarthy's border trilogy) and help to enshrine a bilingual, mulitcultural capital of an emerging global civilization.

Posted by: Linus on November 6, 2006 10:02 PM

As I live and breathe I hate Nietzche but his master morality explains a hell of a lot.

Good is whatever keeps me strong bad is whatever doesn't. The elites see any questioning of their policy as a threat by the unwashed masses and thus it is by its very nature, morally wrong to them, end of story.

Posted by: MNPundit on November 6, 2006 10:04 PM

"The problem is, he then suggests that the elite consensus is in favor of debtors. This makes no sense, because the elite is composed overwhelmingly of creditors."

Ok, you want crazy? The elite consensus is to create generations of debt peons while grabbing developed real estate at bargain basement prices. And always, the Joe Kleins and Juan Williams and who knows how many Democrats in Congress think that somehow entitlements have to be devastated. The elite are simply not going to be paying back the SS Trust Fund with taxes on their incomes.

Impossible to default on the Trust Fund? Just watch. The upper-middle class facing backbreaking mortgages will get reasonable.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on November 6, 2006 10:45 PM

doh!

What is this "argue about the obvious" thingie all of a sudden? Blog impaired neurons or something?

Dig out those old civics or U.S. constitutional convention coloring books. What you are arguing, I'm sure it's all in there.

And Pithlord: the word you appear to be dancing around is "demagogue."

Posted by: artappraiser on November 7, 2006 03:48 AM

The pols all thought that it would be highly dangerous to oppose the war. But that's just following where they thought the masses would be. A politician needs to have a healthy respect for the power of jingoism. Democrats in safe seats tended to oppose the war.

This doesn't explain the pro-war media, nor the well funded pro war think tanks (where the war was planned for a decade), nor even the current position of many politicians -- now that the majority of people have turned against the occupation.

The war was sold to the masses like soap, and it is still being sold to them by the same media organizations that signed on to the war 3 years ago. How do you explain the fact that the Washington Post recently hired a Bush speechwriter who was involved in the White House Iraq Group (i.e. Gerson)? I doubt its readers are clamoring for more pro-war voices like Krauthammer.

Posted by: Carl on November 7, 2006 06:09 AM

If you think elites should call the shots, you hate democracy and you have no place in our party. Go play with the Repubicans. They want elite rule by the wealthy, so that's where you belong. Stop perverting our party with your disgusting, racist, classist views. If you think elite rule is a good thing, you're probably one of the "elites". You also have to think that perpetual tax cuts, perpetual war, and perpetual wage stagnation are good things. Because even if you don't "believe" in those things, you believe in an ideology that promotes those things. So in all likelihood, you only pretend to believe in progressive values when what you really believe is your rule over other people because you are somehow special.

In my view, we should have killed the people who thought that a long time ago. They have always been the enemies of progress and of freedom. You should not be suffered, you should be dealt with.

Posted by: soullite on November 7, 2006 07:17 AM

If you think elites should call the shots, you hate democracy and you have no place in our party.

I don't think that at all, I'm trying to describe how the system works. To some extent it's inevitable that elites will call the shots (after all, shot-calling power is what makes the elite so elite) and in some respects the elite consensus is superior to the popular will, but on the whole this is a bad phenomenon.

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias on November 7, 2006 07:51 AM

"shot-calling power"

And there's money, mustn't forget money. No self-respecting elite ever does.

Case in point: gun control. Popular will goes one way, the elite consensus the other. I am suggesting the disconnect has more to do with money than anything else. It is not difficult to connect the dots.

Posted by: rickhavoc on November 7, 2006 09:41 AM

Re: The upper-middle class facing backbreaking mortgages will get reasonable.

The upper middle class, in fact even the upper class save maybe the final top 1%, also have elderly parenst whom they do not want (and quite likely cannot afford) to support, in part because of those mortgages. So no, you will not find any major support for dumping Social Security even in the upper quintile of the inciome distribution, since for all asve the very uppermost people that translates into sharply higher expenses (far higher than any potentially higher taxes) to care for elderly relatives and also opens up the possibility of a destitute old age for all save the most financially gifted.
Moreover an actual default on the bonds in the SS trust fund would have a ruinous effect on government finances and would certainly be oppposed by both foreign and domestic creditors whose own treasury securities would be downgraded to junk as a result.

Posted by: Jonf on November 7, 2006 01:32 PM

Have you not been following agricultural policy?

Elites only win where the public doesn't care intensely (which is admittedly a fairly significant realm).

Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2006 05:28 PM

I thought the new voting machines were supposed to act as a corrective to voter irrationality and error.

Posted by: Jon Swift on November 8, 2006 02:13 PM

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Posted by: youtube on November 16, 2007 02:13 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar