Public elections are often referred to by the abbreviation “politics without romance.” An entry in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics summarizes this romance to be overcome:
Wishful thinking… Participants in the political arena want to promote the common good. In the traditional view of “public interest,” public servants have been portrayed as benevolent “public servants” who faithfully carry out “the will of the people.” Voters, politicians, and policy makers are supposed to somehow rise above their own parochial concerns when dealing with the people’s business.
Public elections help explain why we see issues such as log rolling, rent-seeking, and concentration of power, as opposed to disinterested high-ranking public officials pursuing only the public good.
But there is also another kind of romantic politics. That’s something public choice fans are much more susceptible to. It’s the romantic idea that in response to the problems with politics revealed by public elections, we can abolish politics altogether.
The theory is that if we can set up institutions and incentives, we can take the reins of politics off these areas of life. There are two problems with this theory. First, we can start with the world we are in, rather than starting from scratch. In other words, the process of bringing about such change is a matter of public choice. The second, related one, ignores the fact that people do things through politics for a reason in the first place.
We are stuck with each other.
Adam Smith understood this. One of his most famous phrases is about “system people.” The system man seems to imagine that he can arrange the various members of the great society as easily as a hand can arrange the various pieces on a chessboard. I do not believe that the pieces have any principle other than the movement that the hand gives them.” (TMS VI.ii.2.17)
Market liberals often use this quote to explain the flawed thinking at the heart of comprehensive economic planning. But that’s not what Smith meant. Smith was talking about political change.
For example, Smith did not believe that complete free trade was politically possible. It can only be brought about by a system person. [1] Only those in the establishment can wipe out political interests and organizations that stand in the way of free trade. Only the people of the system will try to dictate what remains to sustain that change.
Instead, Smith acknowledges the importance of existing political structures, interests, and groups. Those whose “public spirit is inspired by humanity and charity” must be politically committed and act. “He will adapt public arrangements as far as possible to the entrenched habits and prejudices of the people; and he will as far as possible ameliorate the inconveniences arising from the want of regulations to which the people are unwilling to submit. He will establish what is right. When he cannot, he does not disdain to remedy his mistakes; but like Solon, when he cannot establish the best system of law, he will try to establish the best system that the people can endure.” (TMS VI) .ii.2.16)
Like it or not, some movement principles are political.
exchange and change
James Buchanan, who coined the term “politics without romance,” believed that it was “not enough” to model politicians and bureaucrats as economic actors. If you start thinking about politics that way, you have a very empty type of theory…and you have to add to that that at some ultimate level people are motivated by mutual benefit. It has to be a concept that a political deal has to be concluded. ” (Buchanan Intellectual Portraits Series, 8:50)
The implicit expectation of limits on politics to solve political problems is that small government policies, once frustrated by democratic politics, can be imposed in other ways. Then things will run automatically. New rules become the background conditions for ordering society.
An overemphasis on emerging institutions may contribute to the temptation to treat institutions as background conditions that can be taken for granted. In reality, systems and rules also exist in the political realm. Systems that can be improved do not automatically fade into the background. You can also reverse the current state or make it worse.
Those who want to depoliticize society want permanent limits on government action. There are two ways to limit actions. The first is to prohibit politics from erupting again. To this end, it is necessary to concentrate the power to set limits on politics in some institutions that are not subject to democratic pressure. The libertarian warning that we shouldn’t create powers that we don’t hand over to our political opponents comes to mind.
The second route to lasting change is through democratic politics, doing the persuasive work of bringing them about, or the best approximation that people can tolerate. This method does not save anyone from the political problems that public elections usefully identify. However, unlike solutions that prevent political outbreaks, democratic persuasion maintains the decentralization of power and treats people equally with their own movement principles.
Not so neat. Not so romantic. But it’s democratic. It’s liberal. That’s enough.
[1] Thanks to Jacob T. Levy for this opinion.
[2] Thanks to Mike Munger for bringing this quote to my attention.
[3] In an interview, Buchanan rejected the idea that any single theory explains politics, even in public elections.
