Here’s a letter that I sent two days ago to CNN.com:
8 October 2008
Editor, CNN.com
Dear Editor:
According to a
recent poll, "55 percent of registered voters questioned say that Obama
‘cares more about people like you’ than Sen. John McCain" ("Poll: Obama
seen as more compassionate than McCain," October 7).
What do
such alleged ‘cares’ signify? To win votes, politicians feign a
god-like capacity to "feel your pain" and to be deeply concerned about
persons they’ve never met. Mature people, of course, don’t take such
poses seriously.
At the very least, voters should heed Charles
Dickens’s warning, issued in A Tale of Two Cities, against persons who deal in "second-hand cares" -
that is, persons who are "principally occupied with the cares of other
people." This great novelist observed that "second-hand cares, like
second-hand clothes, come easily off and on.”*
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 23 comments }
An excellent point, Diogenes.
Since CNN polltakers must ask questions, perhaps you can offer them some alternatives:
Well said Dr. B. On grounds would politicians or pollsters have me believe that a person whom I have never met, and has no incentive to "do" anything for me, has my "best interests at heart"?
Their question was perfectly irrelevent.
Damn, that's twice today. Should be "On what grounds…"
Growing up in poverty I learned early to run from those who said they only want to help.
It is the rare person that wants to face the world completely on their own. For many of the same reasons that people turn to gods and religions, voters turn to the candidate that they think shows concern for their welfare. The world is a big, fearsome place. Real or imagined, it is comforting to believe there is a god or a state that will watch over them. Most people will give up many freedoms to god and/or state to achieve their desired level of security. Libertarians have a real problem accepting this facet of human nature.
Re: Plac Ebo.
One of the reasons I love reading blogs like this is that I find people that believe the complete opposite about a particular topic from myself. In particular, I couldn't disagree more with Plac Ebo's comment. I consider myself quite religious and also somewhat libertarian and I don't feel like the two are mutually exclusive as you seem to assert. In fact, I think they are mutually beneficial.
PlacEbo – it's true most people want to be taken care of by the government. We don't have that "Frontier spirit" or "Rugged individualism" that permeated America 100 years ago.
As for the original post, I couldn't agree more. It is so mind-numbing to listen to politicians talk about how much they care and how much they understand me and my situation. Why do so many people seem to eat that stuff up?
Chris – blame Clinton with his "I feel your pain" in 1992. He started up all this nonsense. I don't remember Carter/Reagan/Mondale ever talking like this.
Plac Ebo,
There can be no collective responsibility where there is no acceptance of individual responsibility.
Randy, not all of my synapses are firing tonight. What is the relevance of your post?
Plac Ebo,
A bit of a tangent perhaps. I was responding to your statement that, "Real or imagined, it is comforting to believe there is a god or a state that will watch over them…. Most people will give up many freedoms to god and/or state to achieve their desired level of security." True enough, but promoting a belief in the imaginary is only a way to control people. Society is ultimately dependant on those who accept individual responsibility.
Plac Ebo says:
"Real or imagined, it is comforting to believe there is a god or a state that will watch over them. Most people will give up many freedoms to god and/or state to achieve their desired level of security."
In free societies religious freedom is an individuals right. These rights are practiced at the individual level.
The 'State' acting as God, is coercive by nature. The 'Nanny Society' is the antithesis of a free society.
The 'State' legislates your actions and behaviors. The State takes from the individual for the greater good of the citizenry.
The 'State' is better equipt to make decisions for the individual and their loved ones.
Plac Ebo
"Most people will give up many freedoms to god and/or state to achieve their desired level of security. Libertarians have a real problem accepting this facet of human nature.
Posted by: Plac Ebo | Oct 10, 2008 4:46:55 PM"
The whole point of your little SLFF observation and as usual just awash in your sumg distortion of reality.
My observation of the libertarians on this Cafe in particular and libertarians in general is that they understand better than most that there are twits like you, nunya, and muirduck that will give up liberty to gain security, and they certainly understand the reasons that you will do so. Those reasons being above all else fear of self sufficiency and fear of accepting moral responsibility. Socialist writings and speaking reeks of that constant fear.
And, Libertarians understand that in general the answer to teaching you to overcome your fears and set them aside is to educate you. However, Libertarians in general also are naive in that they actually think that that will happen, and it never will because of your concrete mind(s), all mixed up and permanantly set.
Have SLFF weekend.
Hey vidyohs, you're back, you adorable, cranky old curmudgeon. Last I heard you had dropped out of society to move to a deserted island and live out your dreams. I'm sure I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm glad you're back. It was dull without your keen insights and acerbic wit.
No no cute SLFF, you are mistaken.
I had an acerbicectomy very early in my life. Now when I run into cute SLFFs I contract that out.
Pure genius. Vidyohs, you are this generation's Mark Twain.
Most people will give up many freedoms to god and/or state to achieve their desired level of security.
But what if they learn that the opposite is the case? When you sacrifice freedom you also lose security.
Sam Grove, if it's so, then convince the people. You haven't done a very good job so far. I want to hear you explain to parents that having national health care that covers their children is going to lessen their security. I want to hear you explain to seniors how they will be more secure if government didn't provide social security. I want to hear you explain to miners that they'll be safer if we eliminate regulations. I'm not saying that your arguments have zero merit. I'm saying that the level of freedom and security that libertarians want is not the same as the majority of the population.
Sam Grove, if it's so, then convince the people.
Not so easy against the propaganda machine.
I want to hear you explain to parents that having national health care that covers their children is going to lessen their security. etc.
Do they feel secure now?
When the credit/money the FED is pouring into the economy turns into ever greater inflation, will they feel more secure then?
When SS comes crashing into demographic reality, we'll see how secure seniors feel then.
I don't have to explain to seniors they'll have to do without their social security, they can keep it for what it's worth, but young people should be able to opt out as they are already aware that it will provide them with very little for the what they have to put in.
Miners…insurance and liability can handle that quite well.
If all the resources the government is now wasting were left in the civil sector, there would be many more employment opportunities, including self employment, and you don't have to work in the mine unless they pay very well and make them safe.
Of course, there are many who believe in astrology and there is little that can persuade them otherwise.
They will soon be confronting reality, we'll see how they feel then.
Sam, you are not the first to say that the end is near. I've heard it many times by people no less wise than yourself. For example, for forty years I've been told that the Scandinavian countries will come crashing down. Yet somehow they weather each economic storm and resume their prosperity.
What must be disheartening to libertarians is that when economies go bad the people turn to the state to fix things. The events that you are counting on to bring on less government do just the opposite.
Plac Ebo,
That's not always true. When socialist economic policies cause high unemployment, long waiting lists for health care and a generally low standard of living in Europe, the Europeans began to move away from those policies. Slowly.
When socialism didn't work in Eastern European countries and Russia, the collapse ushered in an era of free-market capitalism (except in Russia, where Soviet economics was replaced with a kleptocracy).
When socialist policies led to stagflation in the U.S., deregulation and liberalization of markets was the response.
I don't disagree that sharp crisis can sometimes result in a call for more government intervention, especially by old people who don't care who pays for it or young people too young to remember the last interventionist cycle, but I don't think that's always the case.