The Shotgun Blog
« Would you like some poison with that stimulus? Preston Manning gets it wrong along with the other well-meaning statists | Main | National Post opposes deficit spending »
Monday, January 26, 2009
Thanks to President Obama, smart is the new fabulous -- and why that’s a bad thing in politics
Globe and Mail style columnist Karen von Hahn is celebrating the arrival of a new era of intelligence in politics ushered in by President Obama.
In “The brain reigns again,” von Hahn writes:
Okay, okay, the sky is falling. But to all those Chicken Littles afraid to celebrate Barack Obama's arrival in the White House, convinced that he has inherited way too many problems to be able to make a difference, may I suggest he already has. And not just because he was able to convince Americans that they have moved beyond race. Thanks to him and his brave band of arugula-eating, Harvard-educated policy wonks, stupidity is no longer in fashion. So much so that smart is the new fabulous.
Don't believe me? At this week's inaugural love fest, Hollywood's A-list, who in the past might have vogued for the paparazzi, were vying for face time with the brainiacs of the new administration. Geeks and eggheads from Michael Cera to Rainn Wilson to Steve Carell are the sexy new hunks. Davos is no longer just a ski destination for the chic set. And the fascinating new book you're reading is suddenly a hotter topic than the handbag you're carrying it in.
While I’m not convinced President Obama’s team is any smarter than the Bush team, I am, however, convinced that it doesn’t matter. Did Soviet central planning fail because the Politburo was staffed with idiots? Of course not. It failed because central planning and socialism doesn’t work due to what economist Ludwig von Mises called the economic calculation problem.
The economic calculation problem is a criticism of socialist economics, or more precisely economic planning. It was first proposed by Ludwig von Mises in 1920 and later expounded by Friedrich Hayek. The problem referred to is that of how to distribute resources rationally in an economy. The capitalist solution is the price mechanism; Mises and Hayek argued that this is the only possible solution, and without the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources. (Source: Wikipedia)
The danger of inviting the so-called best and brightest into politics is that they believe they can overcome this economic calculation problem. They think they can succeed in engineering a better world where others have failed – and by a better world they invariably mean a socialist one. They’ll work harder, do more research, bring in the best minds and commit themselves fully to the task. The results of these efforts, of course, are always disastrous, and often bloody. Communism, the most ambitious utopian scheme to date, cost almost 100 million innocent lives.
Obama isn’t a communist, but he is a socialist. (I don't understand why this is a controversial statement.) So how will the President and his team treat the American public? Von Hahn may have provided some insight:
But as President Obama sternly reminded us, quoting scripture in his inaugural speech, "the time has come to set aside childish things." The shift was palpable long before he sat down behind his desk in the Oval Office. David Plouffe, widely regarded as the mastermind behind Obama's victory, recently acknowledged as much. "From the start, we decided that we could change the electorate," said Plouffe when he spoke in Toronto at the invitation of the Economic Club of Canada. "We didn't have to accept the electorate as it is."
There’s a benign way to interpret the statement: "We didn't have to accept the electorate as it is." A complacent, cynical electorate can be energized by a charismatic leader with a message of hope and an ambitious plan for change. A less charitable interpretation is that this statement is indicative of a paternalistic desire to “nudge” people toward some idealized version of a good citizen. Someone who asks not what their country can do for them, but what they can do for their country. Someone ready to sacrifice and serve.
Van Hahn thinks this new appreciation for intellectual politicians will serve Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff well:
In Canada, meanwhile, it looks like Harvard darling and New York Times pundit Michael Ignatieff - previously judged as insufficiently average and overly intellectual - is an increasingly popular choice to become our next leader.
Again, I’m not convinced that Ignatieff could beat Harper in a spelling contest, but what does it matter?
What counts in politics is the wisdom to know that the best thing you can do for people is to leave them alone, and to trust them enough to govern their own affairs.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on January 26, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
How brainy is Ignatieff, realy? Well, here's what he says at p. 32 of "The Rights Revolution":
"...every right entails an obligation. My right to go about my business without being assaulted or abused goes with an equal obligation to avoid doing the same to others. The reciprocal character of rights is what makes them social. It is what makes it possible for rights to make a community."
So far, so good. The right not to be assaulted or abused is a negative right, and the reciprocity inherent in negative rights is what I call "the reciprocity of restraint." Ignatieff's argument works very well with negative rights, and indeed Robert Nozick famously called libertarianism a "framework for utopias" - a framework within which a diversity of communities may flourish.
But bear in mind that most of the rest of Ignatieff's book is an apologia for usual panoply of left-liberal positive and collective rights. And it simply isn't true that positive rights involve any reciprocity at all. Positive rights entail that some members of society provide to others what they lack. That is the very opposite of reciprocity. It is the basis for a victimology and special-pleading that corrupts community.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-01-26 1:35:37 AM
I really don't get her ramblings.
The Messiah is Harvard educated? So what??? Bush is a graduate of Harvard.
Or is Karen von Hahn really saying only socialist/liberal BS artists are welcome?
BTW, Iggy is a good man but now tainted with liberal politics.
Posted by: Shawn | 2009-01-26 2:40:37 AM
It's quite likely that any member of the Bush administration is smarter than this 'journalist'.
Smart, dumb - these are all things conjured up by the media, created out of thin air, they don't actually mean anything. Like the scribble of this 'journalist'. Pathetic.
Posted by: Philanthropist | 2009-01-26 6:03:38 AM
Anyone who thinks that the solution to public policy problems is to recruit more Ivy-League types should read up on Robert MacNamara. The man's "systems analysis" approach crippled the war effort in Vietnam, dismantled the old and reputable Springfield Armory, saddled American troops with a poodle shooter, and left America's reputation in tatters, as well as a deep scar on the American psyche that did not fully heal until a generation later in the sands of Kuwait.
As for Ignatieff, he hasn't actually done anything yet, so anyone who says he would be a better leader than Harper is talking out of his ass, because he has nothing to compare. For all we know Ignatieff's another Dion, just with better English.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-26 7:32:43 AM
Suggested reading:
Chapter 10 of F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", entitled, "Why the Worst Get to the Top".
Abridged version of the chapter here - http://jim.com/hayek.htm
Posted by: IMM | 2009-01-26 9:41:37 AM
I sometimes wonder if we are better off with do nothing, incompetent leaders. The more telented they are, the more they seem to do. And that is a usually a bad thing for freedom.
Posted by: TM | 2009-01-26 11:36:09 AM
Talent is not the same as vision, TM. Talent can always be hired. Vision is much rarer. Unfortunately, it's precisely the attribute most required in a statesman.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-26 12:00:14 PM
The attribute most required to be a "statesman" is to get more people to check your name than the names on the ballot. That is their one and only qualification, by definition.
Posted by: IMM | 2009-01-26 2:35:29 PM
Shane, true. However, I meant both. The more talent and vision, the greater the chance they will do something. The more of nothing they do the better. I would prefer anyone as PM if he did nothing, compared to the much that Harper has been doing lately.
Posted by: TM | 2009-01-26 3:00:27 PM
A leader who does nothing is not a leader, TM. But let me see if I can discover something here: Is it being led you object to, or being led badly?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-26 3:40:28 PM
IMM, you conflate "statesman" with "politician." There were statesmen long before there were elections, some quite good ones too.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-26 3:41:16 PM
Shane, I agree that a leader who does nothing is not a leader. I don't want my political masters to do much of anything except reduce their ranks and reduce taxes.
Everything a governmemnt does, requires them to take some right, or forcibly take more money. Except in the rare cases where they grant more freedoms (which they shouldn't have the power to grant in the first place), or reduce taxes.
If I agree that governemnts are necessary, then I would say that the smallest possible government would be acceptable. I would also then say they should do as little as possible. So most of the time they would do nothing. Their leadership qualities would be required to make sure they stayed little and did little.
Posted by: TM | 2009-01-26 4:41:38 PM
Remember The Simpsons episode where the local MENSA chapter collectively took over running the town?
Posted by: Anonymous | 2009-01-26 7:14:40 PM
Shane the leader who convinces the electorate that doing nothing is the best alternative in a particular scenario is doing something and is definitly displaying leadership qualities. Falling into the fascist trap of "having" to appear to be doing something no matter the consequences is not an example of good leadership. I agree with a previous writer that a failure to hold power might be the best thing for the Conservatives. In the meantime a push by Libertarians to infiltrate and guide the party might be a good thing.
Posted by: DML | 2009-01-27 12:36:42 AM
DML, I agree that there are few things less productive than doing something for the sake of doing something, even if the doing produces nothing. That's not fascism, however; that's merely impotence.
Moreover, you speak of the leader "convincing the electorate." In a libertarian/democratic model, isn't it the electorate who convinces the leader? You've got the tail wagging the dog.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-27 6:25:44 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.