Have we—“we” meaning students of social science and those who value individual liberty—learned something from the current populist movements in the world, and especially that which we observe with our own eyes right here in America? I suggest that we have, or should have, learned some already obvious lessons.
From the point of view of individual liberty, populism is good if it means having the people’s individual preferences respected; it is bad if it means being ruled by the people’s collective preferences. This distinction between the two concepts of populism is crucial. Many libertarians (including your humble servant for a long time) thought that populism was ordained to the first goal, or or at least could be deflected in that direction; we now realize that its meaning or natural slope lead to the second.
Respecting individual preferences mean that ordinary people—those who are supposedly the beneficiaries of populism—can live their lives as they want to, given the equal liberty of everybody else to do the same. What this implies in social and political life is more complicated than it appears, but the principle and direction are pretty clear.
Populism conceived, on the contrary, as “the people” imposing its preferences on everybody is a dangerous illusion. The first reason is that “collective preferences” do not exist. They are, at best, those of the majority and, at worst, those of cyclical majorities or the special minority interests that dominate collective action. This conclusion flows from social choice theory (see Kenneth Arrow, Social Choice and Individual Values, 1951), public choice economics (see notably the writings of James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock), and the theory of collective action (see Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action, 1966).
A second reason, which partly follows from the first, is that populist leaders impose their own preferences or values (taking “values” as preferences regarding the state of the world). Conveniently for a populist leader, his values typically coincide with his own personal aggrandizement. Of course, he has to satisfy some of the individual preferences of the portion of the population whose support he needs, but this is easier than it appears.
No more than the general electorate does this faction knows about how to reconcile different individual preferences so as to promote peace and prosperity (which is a major topic in the fields of economics and politics). Its members are “rationally ignorant”: no individual member of the populist mob has any influence, so why would one spend resources to learn about the relevant subjects? Moreover, for whatever reason, some people are simply ignorant or dumb, that is, they face big cognitive limitations even when their personal interests are involved. The mob will often demand measures that will harm its own members; protectionism is a good example.
As a consequence, populist leaders can, at low political cost, invent facts, take pleasure in delusion, or lie. Appealing to nationalist emotions becomes a winning strategy. So is naming scapegoats.
Given all that, the workings of mob democracy or populism lead to bad consequences, as shown in Jason Brennan’s Against Democracy. To quote my review of this book in Regulation:
The consequence is that an ignorant electorate elects ignoramuses to coercively rule over us.
We are reminded that truth and the pursuit of truth have their importance.
What am I missing?
READER COMMENTS
Juan Manuel Pérez Porrúa Pérez
Jul 17 2018 at 11:57am
If some people are just “ignorant and dumb” and face “cognitive limitations even when their personal interests are involved”, why on earth would any sensible person grant them “equal liberty” to that of someone who is not ignorant and dumb? These people will make bad choices, which will require government action and will impose costs the rest of us.
Mark Z
Jul 18 2018 at 1:50am
Granting imbeciles the freedom to ruin their own lives is the price of keeping them from ruining yours and mine. And since ignorant people tend not to be aware of their own ignorance, they’re unlikely to hand over that freedom to an electorate that doesn’t include them.
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 18 2018 at 10:06pm
Mark: Your first sentence is a big part of the solution to the puzzle (if we exclude anarchy). I would add that we don’t know for sure who is dumb and who is not, so everybody should in a sense have his chance.
Jon Murphy
Jul 18 2018 at 8:47am
Why assume a government is no different that the body of people it rules?
Thomas Sewell
Jul 18 2018 at 7:32pm
At least when ruling themselves, someone who is ignorant is able to learn from the consequences of their individual choices because there is usually immediate feedback. When their preferences are filtered to a national scale, things are usually complicated and indirect enough they can ignore the consequences.
As Adam Smith once said, “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation.”
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 18 2018 at 10:09pm
Thomas: You’re right (as usual). Liberty motivates those who can to become less dumb. Political participation does not generally provide this incentive.
Thomas Sewell
Jul 19 2018 at 7:23pm
Pierre,
I appreciate your posts and your individual responses. Thanks!
Of course, that may be biased by the fact that we usually agree. 🙂
Warren Platts
Jul 17 2018 at 1:01pm
That the government has been captured by an oligarchy of the rich who get their advice from an incestuous technocratic elite. Together, they sold the working class of this country down the river. The people finally figured out the country was being run by a club they were not members of; they merely took their country back. So choose your poison: rule by the mob, or rule by the oligarchs….
Hazel Meade
Jul 17 2018 at 1:16pm
If I have to choose between rule by a mob that is going to tell me what I can buy and sell, while simultaneously inflicting terrible injustices upon “undocumented” immigrants, and rule by a technocratic oligarchy with a light touch and a liberal social policy, I think I will choose the latter. This isn’t much different than the Cold War choice of a benevolent dictatorship or a Marxist hell-hole. Your “Working class” might as well be the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 17 2018 at 4:44pm
Interesting point, Hazel. Would this be another lesson of populism–that we cannot avoid oligarchy (even in nearly pure democracy), but that it must be limited?
Hazel Meade
Jul 18 2018 at 10:42am
I don’t the choice is really between oligarchy and mob rule.
My point is that if his allies are going to present the choice as such a dilemma, a lot of people might be inclined to choose oligarchy, given the really hideous behavior that this mob is putting on display for everyone.
rick
Jul 17 2018 at 9:26pm
The “Oligarchy” that blew up the economy in 2008 was a light touch?
Hazel Meade
Jul 18 2018 at 10:47am
At least that’s the narrative, right? Deregulation caused the crisis, supposedly. but I presume the oligarchy Warren is referring to is the other oligarchy that likes financial regulation, which came to power in 2008. Or maybe it’s all supposed to be one big oligarchy, still a relatively neoliberal one compared to the policies that the mob seems interested in imposing. At this point, I would happy to have the oligarchy we had in 1996.
shecky
Jul 18 2018 at 12:17am
I presume you refer to the US. Not only have “the people” not taken their country back, they never had the country to begin with. “Government [that] has been captured by an oligarchy of the rich who get their advice from an incestuous technocratic elite” probably describes the current political climate more accurately than ever in recent history. The difference is that the executive has no qualms in appealing openly to a large segment of the population that proudly subscribes to, and is motivated by, tribalism. Largely ethnic tribalism. What “the people” get back isn’t the country, it’s cultural dominance, and the self identity that goes along with it. They’ll support anybody who will promise that dominance, regardless how corrupt. They don’t care if the rich are getting richer, as long as the outsiders aren’t doing better than they are. The only question is how far is this segment of the population will be willing to go in order to feel like their relevance is back to where they think it should be.
Chris
Jul 17 2018 at 1:03pm
Isn’t populism just stirring up popular sentiment that “we” should no longer let “them” take advantage of us? Where the ‘take advantage of’ is infinitely malleable?
I’ve long thought that a libertarian-ish type of politician could be incredible effective if those libertarian-ish ideals could be wrapped in populist rhetoric.
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 17 2018 at 4:41pm
One would think so, assuming a large number of people want liberty.
Hazel Meade
Jul 18 2018 at 11:04am
I think if people could get past their tribal identities most would agree that they want liberty. But their identification with political tribes gets in the way so they tend to affiliate with whatever they think their tribe believes, and what they think their tribe thinks can be manipulated by intellectual elites. That’s what populism is. The commenter ‘shecky’ above is correct in that the “mob” didn’t take their country back at all – they’re just being manipulated by a different set of elites. All that populist rhetoric is just a way of duping the ignorant into voting for things they wouldn’t support if they weren’t being whipped into a state of rage over whose tribal identity group (ethnic or political) was on top.
EB
Jul 17 2018 at 4:18pm
We are missing a definition of populism but there is no need to waste time trying to do it.
The relevant issue is that in all democracies, too many politicians are what you call “populist leaders”: they want to impose their personal preferences or values that coincide with their own personal aggrandizement. We should not be surprised because the prize of being elected to a high position is big: despite the many legal controls on their legitimate power of coercion, they know they can abuse it without consequences.
We can regret how ignorant others are but don’t forget how easy is to manipulate us. We want to trust politicians whose mendacity and hypocrisy are obvious. We want to believe that somehow we will be able to contain their dark side. And again and again, we see “libertarian” economists searching for solutions to be implemented by politicians that can easily abuse power. Look at the Fed. There is no need for a Fed, much less for one with the power to manipulate markets (even worse, just like Don Vito in his small world, the Fed can manipulate markets by talking about what they could do if they wanted).
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 17 2018 at 4:37pm
Your last sentence is true and, I think, reveals the cause of the problem. The state must be tightly controlled so that there are things it cannot do and everybody (with open eyes) sees it.
Alan Goldhammer
Jul 17 2018 at 4:30pm
One of the great populist speeches in American history was the ‘Cross of Gold’ speech at the 1896 Democratic convention. It sealed the candidacy of William Jennings Bryan. Thanks to the history department at George Mason you can read it here. There is also an audio file of Bryan reading the speech some 20 years later. Interesting how his speech stacks up with those of our current ‘populist’ president.
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 17 2018 at 5:07pm
Interesting speech, thanks! Populism has been a major feature of the US banking system.
Jerry Brown
Jul 17 2018 at 10:22pm
What you might be missing is that democracy is the worst way to run a government. Except for all the other ways.
Mark Z
Jul 18 2018 at 2:04am
The problem with that observation is that democracy isn’t a binary variable. If we pretend for a moment it is easily quantifiable, where governments range from 0% to 100% democratic, it probably wouldn’t be controversial to assert that the optimal amount of democracy is less than 100%. Term limits, unelected judiciaries, legislative measures requiring more than a simple majority, independent bureaucracies, complicated, arduous impeachment processes, and of course, constitutional restrictions that are almost impossible to overturn all serve to make a government less democratic, but some (perhaps all) nonetheless likely make government better.
Jon Murphy
Jul 18 2018 at 8:49am
Is it, though? I would think it’s the power of government, not the form of government itself, that matters.
Is a tyrannical democracy (that is, a democracy where the government is unlimited and everything subject to the whim of some voting group, no exceptions) to be preferred to a limited monarchy or imperium?
Jerry Brown
Jul 18 2018 at 9:39pm
Tyler Cowen calls this “one of the best short essays you will read this year”. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/07/christopher-balding-leaving-china.html
Whether that is true or not, I read it as a support of democracy over authoritarianism, benevolent or otherwise. Maybe it can be dismissed as anecdotal but it is also quite an interesting read. I will stay with my belief that a democracy is better than the alternatives. If you want people to respect the law you allow them a voice in some way in creating those laws. If sometimes that turns out not the way you personally would prefer, well it is probably still better than being skewered on a pitchfork.
http://www.baldingsworld.com/2018/07/17/balding-out/ brings you to the essay.
Jon Murphy
Jul 19 2018 at 9:43am
I understand your point, but let me clarify mine:
I say it is not the difference between benevolent or otherwise government, but rather between liberal and illiberal.
Is it truly better to liver under an illiberal democracy than a liberal monarchy?
Jerry Brown
Jul 19 2018 at 2:44pm
Is it better to make your own decisions or is it better to have someone else make them? If you make a lot of bad decisions, or are five years old, maybe it is better to let someone else make them. Especially if they are benevolent and wise and care about you. Sure a wise, benevolent monarch might come along once in a while, and that might be good for a time. But what guarantees that the next one will be benevolent or wise? Accident of birth? And a “liberal monarchy”- isn’t that almost self- contradictory?
In the US, complaints about ‘populism’ at this time seem to mostly involve the election of Donald Trump. Who happened to become the President even though more people voted for his opponent. Because of structural limitations to the democratic process in the US. That it was the limitations to democracy that caused the outcome seems to get forgotten when people complain about populism. A bit ironic isn’t it?
Pierre does not say it but seems to argue somewhat towards restricting the right to vote based on some intelligence or educational standard. At least that is my interpretation of it, and I could very well be wrong. Usually, it seems to me that those arguing for that kind of restriction are pretty confident they personally will ‘make the cut’ and get to participate. Would that change if the bar were set just a little higher than their own qualifications? I’m not a genius nor do I have a PhD but does that mean my understanding of what is right or wrong is less worthy than Pierre’s? That question is what my argument boils down to and is why I think a democracy is better.
Jon Murphy
Jul 19 2018 at 3:11pm
@Jerry Brown-
Don’t confuse benevolence with liberalism. Two separate things. Keep them separate. I am not discussing a benevolent vs unbenevolent government. I am discussing a liberal vs illiberal one.
We can discuss how likely it is for a monarchy to remain liberal vs a democracy, but that is a different topic.
Let me ask the question again: all else held equal, is it better to live under a liberal monarchy or an illiberal democracy?
Jerry Brown
Jul 19 2018 at 6:03pm
Jon, I do not know the answer to your question but I imagine it depends on just who you are in either case- like Mel Brooks realized- “it’s good to be the King”. And on the overall wealth of the country. There aren’t all that many monarchies around anymore that I can think of- I wouldn’t prefer to live in Saudi Arabia I don’t think. But there are enough semi-dictatorships that I surely would rather not live in given a choice. I would prefer South Korea to North Korea. Canada to Cuba, Maybe Venezuela to Cuba, that’s probably the closest to your scenario I can think of. Do you have a real world example of this liberal monarchy in mind? Or the illiberal democracy? There is always a hope you can reform a democracy without killing people…
Jon Murphy
Jul 19 2018 at 6:47pm
@Jerry Brown-
The real world here is irrelevant. It’s a hypothetical question:
Would you rather live in a liberal monarchy (that is, one where personal rights are respected and enforced, government is small and limited, taxes are low, and freedom reigns) or in an illiberal democracy (property rights are not enforced but subject to the whims of voters, government is unlimited and subject to the whims of voters, etc etc)?
The point of the question is to consider whether it is the form of government that matters or its liberality.
EB
Jul 19 2018 at 10:11am
Jerry Brown, it’s a terrible essay about China because none can write about China by referring to his personal experience in Shenzen, even if he spent so many years there. I lived four years in Beijing and HK in positions where I had to deal regularly with high-level bureaucrats (I understand that was not Balding’s experience), but I have refrained myself to claim that I understand China (and I bet you that my training and experience in economics, law, and politics are much stronger that Balding’s –actually, I think he has been wrong on many posts about the Chinese economy).
Jerry Brown
Jul 19 2018 at 3:05pm
Well he apparently can write about his experience of China :). I’ve never been there and only can go on what I have read about it. Thank you for sharing your experience, I am happy not everyone finds the place to be as Balding’s essay.
Thomas Knapp
Jul 18 2018 at 9:25am
Populism as such consists of dividing people into two classes — the “righteous masses” on one hand, the “power elite” who rule them on the other — and claiming to represent the former versus the latter.
Libertarian class theory as propounded by Comte and Dunoyer is certainly populist in character. Its “righteous masses” are the “productive class” and its “power elite” are the “political class.”
Marx cribbed from Comte/Dunoyer. He replaced “productive class” and “political class” with “labor” and “capital,” moving the bourgeoisie across the dividing line and into the “power elite” category with disastrous results.
Right-wing authoritarian populism likewise moves the dividing line to put oppressed minorities (immigrants, ethnic groups, etc.) on the power elite side as either part of, or pawns of, that power elite. The point being to divide the righteous masses against themselves so that they can be more easily ruled.
But, as with Earth and the turtles, politics is populism all the way down.
V L Elliott
Jul 18 2018 at 11:04am
The discussion seems to assume that people remain in the system and that neither out-migration nor violence are not selected as a means of opposition to whatever form/method of government is in place. Putting out migration aside here, shadow economies exist (see the work of Friedrich Schneider, et al for example), even without the choice of violent opposition, and are evidence of some part of the general population opting out to some degree, possibly entirely.
I will argue here the existence of shadow economies is based on the individual’s benefit/cost calculus turning against continued membership – whether full or partial — in the system. Mancur Olson’s work (The Logic of Collective Action and The Rise and Decline of Nations) is important in this line of reasoning.
I note that there is some minimum number of individuals required for a viable shadow economy and I assume for the purposes of this discussion that the minimum at least has been met. Using the terminology of James Buchanan and Roger Faith, enough individuals have exercised “the option of internal exit” or individual secession (“Secession and the Limits of Taxation.” 1987). How a government and a shadow economy relate has potentially serious implications for overall stability of system and order. Corruption is one common way they relate (e.g., Marcouiller and Young, “The Black Hole of Graft: The Predatory State and the Informal Economy.” 1995) and can contribute to the deterioration of order.
Corruption and other factors – not all of which are necessarily economic or financial — can exceed limits that are tolerable to the individuals in or who otherwise relate to the shadow economy. When this happens the benefit/cost calculus of the individual sometimes reaches a point where violent action becomes acceptable. That does not necessarily mean that sustained violence occurs; there is usually an organization in place with a message and means of mobilizing, organizing, training, leading, deploying and supporting the individual “seceders” before that happens. See the work of Theda Skocpol and that of Jack Goldstone on the process of societal breakdown leading to revolutions. In economics, Thomas Ireland (“Rationale for Revolt”) and Gordon Tullock (The Social Dilemma: The Economics of War and Peace. And “The Paradox of Revolution”) led the way in this area followed by Todd Sandler (terrorism), Jack Hirshleifer (see in particular his “Theorizing about Conflict” in Hartley and Sandler’s Handbook of Defense Economics v 1), Herschel Grossman (insurrection) and Wayne Brough and myself (insurgency) and Paul Collier et al (civil war).
Elections can offset the incentives to secede and opt for violence to some degree. For this post though, I assume that whatever electoral competition there may be is insufficient to eliminate the incentives.
My point is that for the discussion to cover the major options available to individuals, secession, shadow economies and organized, sustained collective violence should be recognized at least as limits. While the subject has not been covered as much in recent years as it was from the late 1990s through about 2010, its relevance has not diminished and, at least from a policy standpoint, may have grown.
R Richard Schweitzer
Jul 19 2018 at 12:13am
The terms Populism and Populist have now qualified as entries in the Humpty Dumpty Dictionary suggested by Lewis Carroll. Their uses are found conflated with Popular ( a measured sentiment of sufficient commonality).
What does that have to do with: What is being missed?
Answer: quite a broad range of comparative thought.
Beginning with the “concepts:”
To the right side of the same webpage as this article is a link to the Inaugural Address of Pedro Schwartz to the Mount Pelerin Society, last September. Read it, in juxtaposition to the above “concepts,” and observe that dissatisfactions and discontents, and the foci on their perceived sources (not preferences and the modes of their expressions) are missing from the considerations here.
Thus, also missing here will be consideration of the sufficient commonalities (in the populi) of the perceived sources of sufficiently broad discontents, such as the “Establishments” (oligarchies), the ways in which they have been formed, the sources and interests that are seen as forming them; to the extent that hostilities of the “public” bring about their fall – in societies were the two modes of power dispersal are over ranges of the populace (Democracy) and over “bureaucrats” (Administration).
Consideration of how that dispersed power is aggregated, by democratic or administrative processes, for sufficiently desired wants and needs is accordingly missing.
But, it is a big subject and will involve us in considering Robert Michels’ scholarship on the inevitability of oligarchies forming in whatever organization replaces a previous system. The concentrations now, in the “West” appear to be on gelding the heretofore dominant sources of the oligarchies (and in some cases of administrators) regardless (complete disregard?) of interim adverse or unknown effects.
“There may, and likely will, be other devils, but these are the devils we know and will be rid of”
nobody.really
Jul 24 2018 at 12:14pm
“‘Here is someone who speaks English rather more clearly and euphoniously than I — it must be a vile, upstate, lah di dah affectation. Here’s a fellow who says he doesn’t like hot dogs — thinks himself too good for them no doubt…. If they were the right sort of chaps they’d be like me. They’ve no business to be different. It’s undemocratic.’
* * *
Under the influence of this incantation [“undemocratic”] those who are in any or every way inferior can labour more wholeheartedly and successfully than ever to pull down everyone else to their own level…. Under the same influence, those who come, or could come, nearer to a full humanity, actually draw back from it for fear of being UNDEMOCRATIC…. To accept [their unique gifts] might make them Different, might offend against the Way of Life, take them out of Togetherness, impair their Integration with the Group. They might (horror of horrors!) become individuals.”
Screwtape, Screwtape Proposes a Toast, by C.S. Lewis (1959).
Comments are closed.