« Very good sentences | Main | Zero-price Markets in everything: "Fake following" »
The Myth in Paperback
Just in time for the conventions you can now buy Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter in paperback. If McCain wins I predict Caplan will be in high demand as half the population dazedly asks what went wrong? If Obama wins the great and the good will sigh with relief and the Bush years will be written off as an aberration of democracy since righted.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on August 26, 2008 at 12:18 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
If McCain wins I predict Caplan will be in high demand as half the population dazedly asks what went wrong?
Even though they are arguably even more irrational than McCain's supporters.
It's municipal election day where I live. I'm doing the rational thing: not voting.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at Aug 26, 2008 12:47:07 PM
But of course Caplan would tell you that both McCain and Obama reflect all the harmful biases present in the electorate that _Myth_ so eloquently describes.
Posted by: Rob Adams at Aug 26, 2008 12:47:25 PM
Rational Voter => to made decission regardings track records of the candidate.
The problem the candidate that have no important track records, but have good images exposed, would be seen as if he/she free of the trouble of their predecessors and we could have hope as if the MEssiah is comming from the Sky.
exmpl. Jimmy Charter have no track record could do nothings on "The Hostage Crisis in Iran" 79-81.
Instant noodle Superstar have no experience on middle east crise, have said will brig the troops to Afghant or send them to pakistan.
All Bubble Will Soon Burst => lets the time showed it to us.
The Oil Bubble allready Burst.
Subprime Credit allready Burst.
So What Next.
Posted by: Mr.Beachbums at Aug 26, 2008 2:02:01 PM
Instant Noodle Superstar - All Bubble Will Soon Burst is my favorite psych rock album
Posted by: het at Aug 26, 2008 2:10:01 PM
Mr. Beachbums-
I loved your comment. I can't wait to hear Instant Noodle Superstar's acceptance speech.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Aug 26, 2008 2:28:37 PM
To go all political on you (or something), I think the great tragedy of the Bush years was the contempt the administration had for genuine democracy. This is of course centered on the war (Downing Street Memos being true all along), but went to strange background stories like the signing statements, litmus tests for Federal Prosecutors, and re-writing NASA reports.
I had been a lifelong conservative and Republican, but at the end of this, I find my self a centrist and de-facto independent.
I think McCain is a hero, and a honorable public servant, but he's gotta lose.
Anything else would reinforce those among my old party who think Rove/Cheney had the right path, and that conservatives would forgive them everything, if you named the same old hot buttons at the next election.
If gay marriage again trumps truth in a democracy at time of war, I'll gag.
Posted by: odograph at Aug 26, 2008 2:52:11 PM
"Caplan would tell you that both McCain and Obama reflect all the harmful biases"
Actually McCain is surprisingly free-trade. Or at least he was as a Senator...CATO (http://www.freetrade.org/congress) has Obama as:
Barrier Votes: 36% (4 votes out of 11 opposing trade barriers)
Subsidy Votes: 0% (0 votes out of 2 opposing trade subsidies)
"Interventionist"
McCain on the other hand:
Barrier Votes: 88% (35 votes out of 40 opposing trade barriers)
Subsidy Votes: 80% (8 votes out of 10 opposing trade subsidies)
"Free Trader"
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Aug 26, 2008 3:57:19 PM
Wow, I can't believe a libertarian is cheering on the prospect of single-party, leftist control of the Federal Government. :-(
Posted by: Matthew C. at Aug 26, 2008 4:15:06 PM
You may not believe him Matthew, but from the wsj econ blog:
Daniel McFadden won the Nobel memorial economics prize in 2000 for research focused on modeling individuals’ decision-making process. At a conference for Nobel Laureates in Lindau, Germany, the WSJ’s Joellen Perry spoke with Mr. McFadden about perceptions that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would pursue a more active government were he to win the presidential election.
Specifically:
McFadden: “I’m an Obama supporter, because I view him as a centrist,” in line with former president Bill Clinton. “Despite his personal failings, Clinton ran a pretty good government and a policy of fiscal restraint.”
He sez either Obama or McCain would be an improvement ... an unfortunately common sentiment.
Posted by: odograph at Aug 26, 2008 4:37:34 PM
Well, Mr. Odo, your argument from authority isn't very impressive. A democrat supports Obama. There's another dog bites man story to throw on the pile.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Aug 26, 2008 4:49:50 PM
Odograph,
I think you've found Occam's razor on this one. They are pushing hard on the McSame line and will it stick?
I've never gotten the feeling that the moderate voter considers McCain to be Bush III. This also hurts McCain with the base. However, all that gang of 10 or whatever it was stuff is distant memory. So, will he win back the base and take the middle, or lose one or both? We shall see.
The leftists decided that Bush is so bad that they could go with a "historic" candidate. So, I agree with Alex, they very well might lose and they will be completely dumbfounded.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 26, 2008 5:08:51 PM
It meshed with my experience, Rich. We have a way-liberal radio station out here in SoCal, KPFK. So liberal that I remember when it ran weekly shows like "Socialist Perspectives" and "Inside the Soviet Union." Those were fun, to warm my blood, and to boggle my mind.
The thing is, during that Clinton era, when conservatives were going nuts about liberals, KPFK was going nuts too. Commentator after commentator was hopping mad that Clinton had abandoned the left, and become a conservative.
So I'm not sure your "argument from nowhere" is convincing. It's been my experience that a centrist WILL be called a leftist by the right, and a rightest by the left.
... and of course from my measured (web political compass tests) centrist position, Obama seems fairly so.
Posted by: odograph at Aug 26, 2008 5:11:06 PM
Andrew, I think primaries might favor the "historic" more than the final election.
Posted by: odograph at Aug 26, 2008 5:13:09 PM
Wow, I came out more libertarian than I used to ... must be you guys:
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Posted by: odograph at Aug 26, 2008 5:29:55 PM
The thing about Democrats is that they take this government stuff seriously. It's kind of like questioning their kid sister's reputation. So, when the government is under threat, they will hop to. If saving the gov't calls for fiscal responsibility, this pragmatism may be mistaken for moderateness or even conservatism. And the fact that other people may call them one or the other depending on their orientation to them doesn't change the stripes on the tiger.
There were a lot of people who felt like you last time (and the time before). They were sure Bush could not get re-elected. They were wrong.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 26, 2008 5:32:59 PM
I don't think I ever predicted a sure thing, in any election. I didn't care much in Bush/Gore. Maybe there's a lesson there. I bought Bushes (and Gores) "moderate" story. In Bush/Kerry, I wanted it to be about truth in a democracy even then ... but it was obvious that it wasn't going to be.
On "government" I think there is a fair argument that conservatives should have protected what worked, rather than back a crazed refactoring of the Republic. If you think "crazed" is too strong, think about the calls to completely privatize social security, and where that would have left us after two deregulated bubbles.
Moderation in all things.
Posted by: odograph at Aug 26, 2008 5:45:24 PM
What do you all think about this?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/obamanomics.html
I prefer an empiricist over a "liberal" or a "libertarian", so Obama sounds pretty good to me at least in this description.
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous at Aug 26, 2008 5:59:00 PM
I didn't mean to say you predicted it, just that I knew people (non-neocons) who wanted it so badly that they convinced themselves it had to happen. They miscalculated. And, the Democrats miscalculated with Kerry. And now, they may just not have had any better choice. It's amazing, really.
I'd be cool with de-socializing security. I'd do it yesterday. But, I'd be cool with just letting people opt out a small but growing percentage over years. But that's just me.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 26, 2008 6:02:28 PM
I want to see a battle of the bands featuring Instant Noodle Superstar and Crazed Refactoring.
Posted by: y81 at Aug 26, 2008 6:07:53 PM
My problem with de-socializing security is that I don't think it would be for real. I mean, free markets in banking turned out not to be real, right?
What we'd have would be a bunch of people investing badly, or not saving enough, and then requiring re-socialized security to keep them from dying in the streets.
Here's a depressing statistic. In a recent Harris survey, 3,866 Americans were asked which things were "extremely important to achieving financial security in your retirement". 39% said that "investing wisely" was extremely important, while just 34% said that saving money during one's working years was.
(In other news, Fat Knowledge points to a funny.)
Posted by: odograph at Aug 26, 2008 6:25:13 PM
Compass: I took the quiz again and landed almost on top of Milton Friedman.
Yahbut, buying T bills for the lock box isn't for real either. And besides, how did we get here? That's why I grudgingly accept that we need an agonizingly slow weening off process. But, you are right, I don't trust the current crowd to do the right thing.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 26, 2008 7:38:24 PM
