An interesting political phenomenon – Econlib

We are observing a strange phenomenon that is not only affecting America, but seems particularly virulent in this country at the moment. (Before the fall of the Soviet empire, this was more noticeable in Europe.) When elections are approaching, each of the two main competing parties shouts that if the other 50% (plus 1% or whatever) wins, there catastrophes will happen. The phenomenon has gradually increased. Each of the two parties appears to be right: the government has become so powerful that it can seriously harm the interests and lifestyles of members of both parties. No one seems safe in their freedom and safety.

It is not that the politicians on one side promise to do nothing (slogan: “We let you pursue your peaceful activities and happiness”), while those on the other side plan to actively harm the opposite 50% ( If that were the case, we would understand that the party being actively harmed and discriminated against would have good reason to cry; and we might realize that there is a moral and economic difference between not doing something to help someone and actively harming them. But this is not what is happening. Each side plans to actively harm half the population by limiting what they want to do.

The claim that the new president will be the president of everyone (of all Syldavians) is a sham. He or she cannot be everyone’s president by siding with one half against the other half. “What can I do for you? What can I forbid or make mandatory that would please you?”

The losing side of the election, whichever 50% it is, feels threatened and angry. And here’s what’s most surprising: the losers don’t conclude that the government shouldn’t have the power to harm them (whether they make up 49% of the population or whatever); no, they conclude that their candidates must win next time to exact revenge and make good their claims against the other tribe. From one election to another, from one changing of the guard to another, the power of the government continues to grow and the population becomes more dissatisfied. Admittedly, a third of eligible citizens do not vote, which does not prevent their freedom from being reduced alternately by one third and then by the other third.

The strange phenomenon is actually explainable, especially after the advances in public choice analysis over the past seventy years. Once the political authorities have acquired enough power to significantly harm the losing party’s freedoms and opportunities, once the domain of collective choice has sufficiently invaded the domain of individual choice, politics becomes the only game in town.

For a few centuries, classical liberals and libertarians, whose insights are currently ignored, have argued against this absurd and dangerous race for power, like two evil would-be queens rushing to seize the throne. This system promotes politicization, conflict and injustice, and represents an increasing threat to prosperity and freedom. Although liberals and libertarians continue to debate the exact limits of political power, their goal can be summed up in the motto live and let live. This is very different from competitive authoritarianism, whether democratic or not.

It’s worth thinking about Anthony of JasayIt is radical and reasonable at the same time definition of (classical) liberalism as “a broad assumption for deciding individually on every issue whose structure lends itself, with approximately comparable ease, to both individual and collective choice.” Since the 18th century, economic analysis has shown how individual choices with the right institutional background generate a free and self-regulated society.

******************************