Arnold Kling makes a point about the present composition of our policy making apparatus, i.e. Congress:
If you want policies to be implemented effectively, then policy needs to be made by people who understand something about implementation. Lawyers, economists, and policy wonks have no training or experience in managing large organizations. As a result, policies are enacted without any thought given to implementation issues.
which brought to mind this analysis from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #36:
We have seen that the result of the observations, to which the foregoing number has been principally devoted, is, that from the natural operation of the different interests and views of the various classes of the community, whether the representation of the people be more or less numerous, it will consist almost entirely of proprietors of land, of merchants, and of members of the learned professions, who will truly represent all those different interests and views. If it should be objected that we have seen other descriptions of men in the local legislatures, I answer that it is admitted there are exceptions to the rule, but not in sufficient number to influence the general complexion or character of the government. There are strong minds in every walk of life that will rise superior to the disadvantages of situation, and will command the tribute due to their merit, not only from the classes to which they particularly belong, but from the society in general. The door ought to be equally open to all; and I trust, for the credit of human nature, that we shall see examples of such vigorous plants flourishing in the soil of federal as well as of State legislation; but occasional instances of this sort will not render the reasoning founded upon the general course of things, less conclusive.
Note the order: 1) proprietors of land; 2) merchants; and 3) members of the learned professions. In the 18th century land was the foundation of most wealth with commerce coming in second and practicing a profession a distant third. Such a composition of the legislature is dramatically different from what we see now in which the greatest number of those in Congress are lawyers by training and government bureaucrats and political apparatchiks by experience.
The original envisioned composition would have two advantages. First, the policy makers would pay attention to costs since in practice they and others like them would do most of the paying. Second, these were people who had the greatest experience in actually accomplishing things (other than getting elected to office, of course).
I am sure you have seen those charts showing that most of Congress is wealthy. Since the wealthy in our country pay most of the taxes, forgive the tautology, shouldnt Congress pay attention to costs? (If landowners ran our government, I would predict the elimination of property taxes, not necessarily a concern with costs.)
Steve
Steve, there were other factors operative two hundred years ago that no longer are. For example, we did not have a fiat currency and federal revenues were severely constrained. That limited the ability of the federal government to borrow. That meant that spending wasn’t completely untethered from revenues as is the case now.
I presume that you’re aware that the federal government did not have the power to tax property. Only the states had that power.
Shut up Dave, you don’t know what you are talking about.
That is the answer that you should get from everybody on the right because that is the answer Drew gets every time he writes on here about his own experiences with the business owners he interacts with. And given that he interacts with a pretty decent number he just might have a point…but really he should shut up too.
Dave- I am not totally disagreeing with you. We have way too many lawyers in our legislatures. I just dont think landowners would be a real improvement. Perhaps we could make it more modern by stipulating more business people as an amalgamation of merchants and landowners. While I think that would be better than lawyers, it risks crony capitalism on a larger scale than we have now. You also need to decide what kind of business person you want. Hank Paulson? Donald Regan? I think that we would be better off with representation by people from many careers. In reality, it is going to be rich people for the most part.
“I presume that you’re aware that the federal government did not have the power to tax property.”
And, that property taxes are making up a smaller percentage of tax revenues, though at one time they did try to tax total wealth. Looks like the landowners are winning.
Query- Suppose you did have fiat money in the 1800s. What would you spend it on? Most of our budget goes to health care (medicine was quackery then for the most part), old people (not that many) and our large standing army (there was none then). Also, a lack of fiat money never stopped kings from borrowing. Wouldnt it just be better to link spending and revenue the way we mostly did up until about 1980?
Steve
That is, in fact, my view. The more interesting question is why are so many Congressmen lawyers? I think it’s because managers of large companies find it easier and cheaper to buy Congressmen than to be Congressmen or to hire lobbyists to influence policy rather than crafting it.
How would be possible to accomplish that?
I would state my view as a preference rather than a stipulation. I’m not sure how one would actually go about accomplishing it. IMO an organic solution is necessary.
Why be so indirect? Why not go the standardized test route? In order to qualify for national office you have to take an IQ test and a test of general knowledge.
The top 10% would be disqualified on the grounds that government would be a waste of their talents — and on the grounds that they’d be sure to have dangerously radical notions.
The bottom 70% would likewise be disqualified on the grounds that it’s really hard to score that badly on a standardized test so they must be actively avoiding service.
That would leave the sweet spot, the 20% who were smart enough to pass, but not sart enough to deliberately throw the test or to generate independent ideas.
@steve
The problem with requiring government to actually borrow is that from an historical standpoint it doesn’t impose discipline or result in stability, even though on the surface one would think it should. We ran deficits throughout most of the 19th century, and each time the government changed its policies to balance its budgets the result was a depression. Six, in fact.
Michael,
How will you keep political influence out of this “testing” process? Giving someone or some organization the power to eliminate candidates is dangerous for democracy IMO.
Andy,
Clearly if you exhibit any signs that the market actually often does more good than harm you are automatically in the bottom 10%.
HTH.
Perhaps if admission to Congress was limitted to those that scored in the top 10% of their LSATs we might feel happier about our Congressmen.
Why be so indirect? Why not go the standardized test route? In order to qualify for national office you have to take an IQ test and a test of general knowledge.
The top 10% would be disqualified on the grounds that government would be a waste of their talents — and on the grounds that they’d be sure to have dangerously radical notions.
The bottom 70% would likewise be disqualified on the grounds that it’s really hard to score that badly on a standardized test so they must be actively avoiding service.
Who is this racist who is masquerading as Micheal Reynolds? What have you done with the real Micheal Reynolds who would never have suggested such a racist proposal?
@Steve Verdon
I think it entirely reasonable to assume Keynes’ opinion: capitalism is the only system capable of generating prosperity, but the system is inherently unstable.
Is there really anything controversial about that statement?
Ben,
I think any system is going to be unstable and I do have issues with granting ever increasing power to a few people to deal with that instability given the poor track record people with power have.
Is there anything controversial about that statement?
The bottom 70% would likewise be disqualified on the grounds that it’s really hard to score that badly on a standardized test so they must be actively avoiding service.
Well, Michael would clearely fail if he thinks that 100% of the population must score in the top 30% on a standardized test. Clearly that 154 he reports is his verbal score.
@Steve Verdon
In answer to your question, no. Allow government to acquire unchecked power and it will use that power against its own citizens. Allow actors in the private sector to acquire unchecked power and they will use it against everyone but themselves. I at times wonder whether the only effective option at that point is to blow it all up and start from scratch.
@Dave- I have wondered about why so many lawyers, so I asked around a bit. When a lawyer from one of our local firms runs for office, they hold his position open for him. If one runs and does not get elected, there is not a huge loss. For many other professions, this is not true. (I dont know if this is true in other parts of the country.) Local firms seem to view this as an investment and assume they will get a good return from one of their partners getting into office. Also, lawyers seem to network and get around more than most other professions. Finally, I think it has just become the norm. People who are interested in going into office go into law.
Steve
@Ben- I think timing matters a lot plus, IIRC, we are talking about much smaller deficits.
Steve
@steve, I’m skeptical that there are many lawyers in Congress that emerged from a traditional private law practice, I’d guess at least a majority rose up through the prosecutor’s office.
BTW/ Lincoln’s first law partner, who encouraged him to become a lawyer, became a U.S. Congressman; his second law partner was a state legislator, and his third partner was the mayor. And as steve suggests, I think part of the reason to be in a partnership is to cover for each other, and when one of them left for Washington, their spot was waiting for them (but I don’t believe they were getting any compensation though)
I rather think the question is why so few non-lawyers. As I’ve mentioned before, all of the doctors in Congress appear very odd to me; many businessmen that run for office appear to lack the ability to ask for a vote; and the farmers (if they are the landowners) are not interested in Washington except for three things: subsidies, crop insurance and estate taxes.
The private sector has remarkably little power except in situations where you can usually trace what price setting power those firms do have back to…government.
I know it is a regular refrain amongst those on the Left, but the private sector has rarely if ever had a legal monopoly for using violence against citizens. However, all governments on the other hand do have that power (I would even argue that is what defines a government–i.e. give that power to a private firm and it becomes a government, not a firm/business).
We are talking orders of magnitude in difference here. If you can’t agree to that, then there is no more point in discussion…we are just too far apart.
steve, as i recall, you help coach a speech/debate team? how many of them are going on to college in some sort of pre-law direction? I think that’s one part of the answer, to run for public office requires some desire and capacity to engage in public speaking.
As I understand, most British politicians are products of public schools where public speaking is part of the general curiculuum; and as impressive as Tony Blair sounds to an American ear, its not as impressive over there.
I think your other point is good, but I would broaden it, what are the jobs/backgrounds that permit the disconnect that serving in Congress entails?
@ Steve Verdon
In every failed state, EVERY failed state, “private” actors become violent criminals effectively enslaving the populace. This is fact, and failure to recognize it is why I simply cannot make common cause with right libertarians: their refusal to recognize that power will always be abused, no matter who has it.
I know it is a regular refrain amongst those on the Left, but the private sector has rarely if ever had a legal monopoly for using violence against citizens.
Check out various strike busting activities in the past. The railroads as they drove west had lots of power.
The private sector has remarkably little power except in situations where you can usually trace what price setting power those firms do have back to…government.
One of the reasons private enterprise doesn’t have much power is because government limits it severely these days. Remember company towns? Or United Fruit? Organized crime, which is just another type of private enterprise?
As I recall I was in the 80-something percentile on the math SAT — and that having bailed out after 10th grade. But I’d point to that as evidence that you can’t trust standardized tests.
Ben, you beat me to my next set of examples. Good show!
…
One thing we have a lot of now that I don’t believe we had much of 200 or so years ago is people who want to do nothing but be elected officials from the time they leave the crib. People like Chuck Shumer and Marco Rubio have been nothing but government workers/elected officials since they left college. (There seem to be a lot of such people around these days, and it is remarkable how rich they get doing government work.) Such people just gravitate towards law (as someone above mentions) and that seems natural enough.
We’d do better to decide as a people to not elect anyone to office until they had spent a good chunk of their adult lives NOT working in government or politics.
@PD- A good quarter of them say they are interested in law at some point during their time on the team. Once they get their SATs, a lot of them change. We have tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to get more of the geeks involved since public speaking is a good career ability.
As to your other points, I agree that the docs in Congress seem odd. I would think that those in consulting jobs or those in sales could leave and come back w/o as much disruption. The contacts would likely help in a return to business. Same for academics. I have a hard time seeing it work for most small business people. If you leave your hardware store to serve in Congress, who runs it while you are gone?
Steve
But I’d point to that as evidence that you can’t trust standardized tests.
Missing the point. A decent standardized test will provide a spread of scores. You can’t have 100% of the people in the top 30% unless everyone has the same score, in which case it isn’t a well designed test.
“I know it is a regular refrain amongst those on the Left, but the private sector has rarely if ever had a legal monopoly for using violence against citizens.”
Let me second Ice. About once a week I drive past the place where they hanged the reputed Molly Maguires. Look up Franklin Gowen. But beyond actual violence, when an Enron, LTCM, or a bunch of investment bankers ruin pensions or economies, is that not worthy of attention? Look back at the 1800s when we had small government. They did the same thing back then, but w/o safety nets people really did starve to death. Read up on the lives of workers during the Long Depression.
Steve
The whole government is good vs government is bad left/right debate doesn’t make much sense to me. To me government is like fire – it’s good when it keeps you warm at night and cooks your food and it’s terrible when it burns your house and family down. In short, it’s good or bad dependent on context. The same with government.
Ben,
In the absence of government, who defines what is a criminal act and what is not? In the absence of government, there is no criminality until people self-organize into political communities with the power to enforce their value system. What you call “private” violent criminal actors are actually nascent political communities vying for power. Yes, this process is almost always violent. People are like that. When a government collapses, how else is a new one going to form except from “private” actors?
@Andy
I take it you reject the idea of natural rights. In any event your comment reinforces my point: in the absence of a state, non-state actors will use force to establish one without the consent of the people having guns pointed at their heads. There is no argument to be made that this makes the use of power by private actors superior to that exercised by governments.
Ben,
No, I don’t reject the idea of natural rights, but I recognize the history and practicalities of how governments actually come into being.