I Might Have Added That They Also are Cowards

What Brooks doesn't realize, is that the politicians' "private" virtue is just as much a charade as their public cowardice. The difference is the charade is targeted at the journalists who work close to them.

How does Mr Brooks what politicians are really like in true privacy, that of family and close friends?

What is very interesting to me is how much more outspoken some (not all) politicians in other countries are. The Czech presidents, Vaclav Havel and now Vaclav Klaus, are two who come to mind.

Perhaps American style democracy lends itself to less "courageous" and "principled" leadership than the more common parliamentary systems? (I don't think this applies to the Czech presidents, however, who I believe are elected through a popular vote, although the Czech government is parliamentary in structure.) Or perhaps there is something intrinsically cowardly and/or mealy-mouthed about the American character circa 2007? Some of the things that Reagan said in his public addresses as recently as the 1980s seem inconceivable today.

Chris,

f there were wise and all-knowing people that could simultaneously know and understand the wants and needs of every member or our society, we would all love to put them in charge. Most of us recognize, however, that even the most well intention and knowledgeable person ever to live is not possibly capable of effectively controlling the lives of 300MM people. The "philosopher king" does not exist.

Instead of looking for a better way to elect leaders, we should look for better ways to limit the amount of damage they can do

Amazingly, Ron Paul (R-Texas) seems to be re-elected pretty often. I guess he's the exception that proves the rule.

Golddog -

CEOs aren't "elected" under the auspice of "representation." They're not fraudulently thrust upon parties with conflicting interests under the illusion that they can somehow and equally represent each opposing viewpoint, and act in their respective best interests. The policies of CEOs are not built upon a foundation of force and violence.

Are the politicians "rational" economic actors - of course they are. The problem that Dr. Boudreaux has, is that, for lack of a better term, the incentive system of politics is totally wack. It is a system that encourages corruption, rewards deficiency and waste, and thwarts all attempts at reasonable, proper reform.

Business, on the other hand, is pretty much the antithesis of that.

"I think we do understand the effects of incentives."

Perhaps you do, but I am at a loss as to why Professor Boudreaux expresses outrage -- calling politicians "neither decent nor leaders" and "poseurs and rogues." It reminds me of labor activists who are outraged when C.E.O.'s respond to incentives and lay off workers to cut costs. In both cases, rational actors are responding to incentives. Why the moral judgment in one instance, and not the other, when both groups, politicians and C.E.O.'s, are acting rationally?

I think we do understand the effects of incentives. That is also why politics will always suck.

Reminded of something MLK said:

“Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ But, conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”

Voters demand the logically impossible (high benefits, low taxes) and are economically naive. Given that, how are politicians supposed to behave?

A politician who "told it straight" would soon be replaced by someone who was either willing to feign belief in policies he may privately disdain, or was himself too stupid and ignorant to recognize the irrationality of his policies.

Until you can figure out a better way to select our leaders--one that rewards knowledge, rationality, and honesty--expecting anything other than lies and ignorance from politicians is like expecting wine from a cow's udder.

You know for people who are supposed to understand the effects of incentives, you sure are bad at understanding why politicians act the way they act.

It says a lot about Brooks that he needs this explained. That is, that he still considers such people as leaders in some sense of the definition.

As long as the survival instinct rules us, we are but intelligent animals.

Principles?

My definition of populist principles includes:

1) get nominated, and


2) get elected.

Once elected, these principles morph to:

3) get re-elected.