TW: The Economist is not fond of populism. I agree...strongly. One of the brilliant aspects of American democracy is the set of firebreaks to filter pure populist sentiment from overwhelming our actual governance.
From the Economist:
"...It is politicians' use of populism that is often dismissive, condescending and derogatory. As an example, take Sarah Palin's mythology that simplicity and virtue are the undeniable products of rural living and wage work. I have done plenty of both and consider the allegation of simplicity slanderous. The assumption of virtue is, frankly, too tempting.
...populism calls for the government to intermediate in favour of one class at the expense of another...Nowadays, populism generally involves protecting the income of certain producers from the free choices of their neighbours. It is axiomatic among economists that the collective costs to the neighbours from protectionist laws are unacceptably large compared to the benefits enjoyed by the protected.
On the campaign trail, populist rhetoric serves as a distraction. Consider Barack Obama's ads alleging that John McCain supports moving American jobs overseas, or John McCain's recent certainty that predatory lenders as opposed to optimistic (or fraudulent) borrowers are responsible for the failure of so many mortgages. The truth is that whoever is president, American workers are likely to lose (via trade or bankruptcy) any and all jobs that can be more productively done elsewhere. Likewise, American homeowners will lose any homes they can't pay for. Populist rhetoric merely enables while pretending to empower.
Government at its best can create the conditions for general prosperity. Populism argues that government should instead interrupt those conditions to award prosperity specifically and temporarily. Hence, my use of the term "rot"."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/whats_the_matter_with_populism.cfm
No comments:
Post a Comment