« Complexity theory in economics | Main | Free banking in Second Life »
Department of No Clue
Christopher Hayes writing in The Nation.
The vast majority of interest groups in Washington, from the Sierra Club to the AFL-CIO to Planned Parenthood, are pursuing what Edsall calls "substantive reform"--attempting to push legislation and enact policies that will provide public goods, protect citizens from harm and redistribute benefits, rights and privileges away from the powerful and toward middle-class citizens and disenfranchised minorities.
And if you believe that, might I mention that if you act quickly I have some land in Florida just ripe for development.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on May 30, 2008 at 07:14 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Well, of course you'd sneer. You're a public choicer at GMU.
If you regard humans as nothing more than self-interested utility maximizers, then such claims about the motives and intentions of the Sierra Club are silly.
But we have other social identities besides being consumers. We're also citizens, family members and members of organized religions. These roles/identities can influence our motives and goals.
I think in 50 years we will look back on public choice theory and wonder how so many smart people could have so stupid. The equivalent of vulgar Marxism.
Posted by: Auto at May 30, 2008 7:48:39 AM
If you believe in substantive reform, please, go work in one of these interest groups in DC. I did, in a similar environmental group but not the Sierra Club. You'll learn very quickly that the do-gooders of the world are vastly outnumbered and outdollared by lobbying groups that are either openly corporate, thinly veiled corporate fronts, or pure astroturf. And what was even more disturbing to me was that the do-gooders were 99% devoted to fund-raising, fund-raising, fund-raising, with no science or logic allowed to get in the way of a good fund-raising story. Around the office, they even welcomed the election of Republican candidates, because it always fueled good fund raising drives.
Posted by: DK at May 30, 2008 8:05:54 AM
"substantive reform"——attempting to push legislation and enact policies that will provide private goods, inflict harm on citizens and redistribute benefits, rights and privileges away from the masses and towards enfranchised elites.
The trick in Washington is to declare something public and good, even if only you and your friends care about it.
Posted by: 8 at May 30, 2008 9:52:46 AM
Aren't you unfairly quoting out of context here? Even just the sentence immediately preceding the quote makes it clear that the author is referring only to a certain type of interest group, and only for a very specific purpose (in order to draw a distinction with what Lessig is interested in, i.e. "procedural reform"). The article most definitely does not claim that all interest groups in Washington work to provide public goods etc. (to the contrary).
Posted by: Jeroen at May 30, 2008 9:58:09 AM
So who are you saying is without a clue - Hayes, Edsall, or the organizations mentioned? Or perhaps all of them. Whichever way, it's not a very useful post on your part. Let's file it under "Department of Pointless Snark".
Posted by: tgb1000 at May 30, 2008 10:28:31 AM
I'm wondering how Alex would categorize his unpaid work on this blog. My best attempt to date.
"attempting to push an agenda that will protect citizens from government harm and enable marets to redistribute rights and privileges away from the powerful."
Is this accurate? And if so is Alex clueless?
Posted by: tom s. at May 30, 2008 10:36:20 AM
The problem I can see, is that many rich and powerful people consider themselves to be "middle-class". DINKs and those dual-income suburban families in $300,000+ three bedroom houses, are they middle class when they fall into the top quintile of family earnings? They like to think that they are...
Posted by: Xmas at May 30, 2008 10:42:12 AM
Markets not marets of course. Although maybe some of those marets would do OK too.
Posted by: tom s. at May 30, 2008 10:44:03 AM
Why is it that Lessig thinks political sausage making is a new feature of the landscape? Is the author misrepresenting Lessig here?
Posted by: JasonL at May 30, 2008 11:27:10 AM
I see some criticism here but you are attacking a staw man if you think I believe that *all* action is narrowly self-interested. Instead do try to defend the idea that the "vast majority of interest groups in Washington...attempt to enact policies that will provide public goods" and benefit disenfranchised majorites.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at May 30, 2008 11:32:15 AM
Jeroen is right. The quoted sentence is obviously not literally true, but in context it's completely obvious that Hayes isn't claiming that most interest groups in Washington pursue the kind of progressive policies he describes. Rather, he's saying that within the world of progressive interest groups, the vast majority pursue substantive reforms rather than procedural.
Did you read the whole article? It's hard to see how you could have misunderstood Hayes' meaning this badly if you did.
Posted by: Christopher M at May 30, 2008 11:34:00 AM
The real cluelessness is believing that anything done by unions and environmentalists helps poor people.
Posted by: Sean at May 30, 2008 11:51:41 AM
And if you believe that, might I mention that if you act quickly I have some land in Florida just ripe for development.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at May 30, 2008 12:03:15 PM
Oh, silly me it's just the vast-majority of the center-left groups that are pursuing the public interest.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at May 30, 2008 12:12:22 PM
The context of the quote is not important because, as has been pointed out, that sentence is not particularly relevant to the rest of the article. Nevertheless it is striking that the author believes this and moreso that he threw it in there as if it would not be controversial.
Posted by: Cliff at May 30, 2008 12:20:20 PM
There's nothing wrong with special interest groups advocating their interests. Using government's coercive power to attack opposing interests though, well there is something wrong with that (and yet another proof for Godwin's Law).
Posted by: caveat bettor at May 30, 2008 12:22:03 PM
No, "silly you" because the point of Hayes' claim clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of what fraction of interest groups (center-left, progressive, or otherwise) actually do everything they can to enact progressive policies and what fraction fail to do so for public-choice reasons. Rather, his point (and this is really very clear in the article) is that the mission of most progressive interest groups is defined in substantive terms rather than procedural. "Protecting the environment" or "reducing inequality" or whatever, rather than "improving the political process."
You're mocking the sentence for being wrong, but the supposed wrongness is just orthogonal to any claim Hayes was actually making.
Posted by: Christopher M at May 30, 2008 1:16:28 PM
Cliff has it exactly correct:
"The context of the quote is not important because, as has been pointed out, that sentence is not particularly relevant to the rest of the article. Nevertheless it is striking that the author believes this and moreso that he threw it in there as if it would not be controversial."
The fact that the sentence was orthogonal to Hayes' larger point is fine by me - obviously, I wasn't critquing the larger point or I would have said so.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at May 30, 2008 1:26:26 PM
One of the reasons I read economics blogs instead of politics ones is that supposedly there is a bit more of a basis for rational discussion. This sort of "neener-neener" name calling is, on the other hand, neither reasoned nor interesting, and doesn't add much to the discussion, and it's something you guys don't have a comparative advantage at: anyone can get involved in political blah blah, but I (and I presume others) read what you have to say due to your knowledge of economics.
Posted by: David N. Welton at May 30, 2008 1:38:06 PM
I was about to post something similar. This discussion has a particularly unseemly feel to it and doesn't really befit the blog. I'm disappointed to see the somewhat smug and condescending tone taken here -- especially by Alex.
Posted by: Trey at May 30, 2008 1:43:29 PM
Reading it again, it's not entirely clear if Hayes is quoting Edsall or not.
It still doesn't change the fact that whoever said it is completely deluding themselves.
Posted by: 8 at May 30, 2008 4:31:55 PM
Christopher M.: does it matter what their goal is, if they are unlikely to be successful at achieving it through the nature of government action and the lobbying that tries to influence it? Why not struggle for world peace instead of these silly meaningless goals like unionism or the environment, or fewer unwanted births?
Posted by: Russell Nelson at May 31, 2008 2:35:29 AM
Auto (first comment): wow, before you criticize public choice, you should put some effort into understanding it.
Posted by: Russell Nelson at May 31, 2008 2:37:11 AM
He forgot to mention that every child will have a pony.
Posted by: SheetWise at May 31, 2008 2:39:12 PM
Against Public Choice cynicism.
Posted by: TGGP at May 31, 2008 9:05:34 PM
