Skip to main content

Martin Gilens, over at the Boston Review, pens a thought-provoking, if timid, piece on income inequality and the health of our Democracy. In his brief response, noted blogger andhuman punching bag Matthew Yglesias writes: "I struggle to think of another essay that brings such excellent data and analytical power to bear on an issue while reaching such a fundamentally wrong-headed conclusion." The piece is standard Yglesian fare, which is to say technocratic and liberal, and I struggled to think of another essayist that brings this kind of breathless gadflying—like a college freshman who just read Freakonomics—to bear on an issue while reaching such a fundamentally wrong-headed conclusion.

(Join me on the flip side for more...)

For example: "Therefore if survey data illustrate that policy responsiveness to public opinion reached its apogee in 2001–2004 and was at a nadir in the mid-1960s, it must be telling us that policy responsiveness to public opinion is not particularly important." And, "The purpose of a political system is to resolve political questions in a satisfactory way. When you hire a plumber, you don’t want him to ask you how you think the plumbing should be fixed. You’ve hired him so that he can look at the situation and do what needs to be done. Your role as the customer is to try to find a plumber with a good reputation, to recommend him to others if he’s done a good job, and to fire him if he can’t make it work." My personal favorite, though, is this gem: "And, indeed, the idea that the point of democracy is to implement legislative outcomes that are supported by broad-based surveys seems almost like a straw man dreamed up by an eighteenth-century monarchist."

Contra Yglesias, governments aren't plumbers. And thank God they're not. Plumbers fix things, and that's great—everyone needs a good plumber—but plumbers are rarely asked to make moral decisions. Or, put another way, A government that does well is different than a government that does good, and given the choice—call me a hopeless romantic—I'd take a government that does good over a government that does well every day. That, after all, is the American project. The founding fathers didn't rebel because Great Britain wasn't doing well—it was the great empire of its day; they rebelled because Great Britain was unresponsive to the will of the governed. Indeed, the idea behind the Stamp and Tax acts wasn't particularly horrible governance—from a purely practical perspective: an empire isn't an empire if it can't make bank of its colonies. That selfsame idea, however, was a morally odious one.

The chasm between the morally bad and the practically bad stretches across the topography of our public policy debates. Is efficiency at any cost worth sacrificing worker's rights? Is stoping a ticking bomb worth waterboarding? Is potential safety worth rounding up Japanese-Americans? In a good many philosophies the answer is, do what's the best thing, not what's the right thing. The American answer, though, has always been, as in the words of Increase Mather during the Salem Witch Trial: "It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that one Innocent Person should be Condemned." If one buys the premise that America, despite her warts, despite her myriad misdeeds, is something good and worth preserving, then the first thing you're buying is the notion that good beats well.

Of course, Yglesias is an easy target, particularly after his noxious screed proclaiming that "Bangladesh may or may not need tougher workplace safety rules, but it’s entirely appropriate for Bangladesh to have different—and, indeed, lower—workplace safety standards than the United States." This is the kind of absurd conclusions we can expect technocrats to reach when they allow themselves to become untethered from moral considerations.

Crossposted at Ich Bin Ein Oberliner.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ridemybike, Simplify, DarkestHour

    "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa

    by Shef on Mon May 06, 2013 at 08:00:00 PM PDT

  •  matt yglesias? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    after his hideous post at slate...
    the mere mention of his name
    makes my stomach turn.

    every adult is responsible for every child

    by ridemybike on Mon May 06, 2013 at 08:07:33 PM PDT

  •  There Exist No Objective Reality, No Facts. (0+ / 0-)

    The temperature and acidity of the ocean are opinion, as is the wealth distribution of Americans and the issue of whether the universe is 14 billion or 6,000 years old.

    Democracy finds the consensus.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon May 06, 2013 at 08:35:57 PM PDT

  •  The problem with the people who have problems (0+ / 0-)

    with technocrats is that they so often simply accept the definition of 'technocrats' used by people who wish they were technocrats.

    Technocracy - theory or system of society according to which government is controlled by scientists, engineers, and other experts.
    As someone trained in the sciences, both pure and applied, I have spent a lot more time being educated on ethical behaviour than all of the anti-science 'non-plumbers' that currently inhabit Congress.

    Are scientists and engineers trained to solve problems?  Assuredly so.  But they also are bright enough to realize that when the preamble of the Constitution itself contains 'General Welfare' that the problems 'to be solved' are NOT the problems the current lot of buffoons want to solve, but the real problems that face real human beings.

    The non-technocrats have been obsessed on solving the problems of the 1%.  As a technocrat myself, I believe in focusing on the problems of the entire country, such as climate change caused by fossil fuel use, wealth inequality and living wages, and unemployment.

    There are very few elected officials in Congress who qualify as technocrats.  Very few scientists, no engineers that I know of, and few experts on the problems we're facing.  I might grant Elizabeth Warren technocrat status, and there are undoubtedly a few among the House, but we have not seen a government of or by technocrats to date, nor are we likely to for many decades to come.

    •  This is, I think (0+ / 0-)

      The fairest response I've heard to an argument that I've been making in many forms for a long time.

      I would point to the rise of thinkers like Ezra Klein and the veration of the wonk as an indication of the "technocratic" strain of thought's proliferation.

      But, as I said, a very fair response.

      "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa

      by Shef on Fri May 10, 2013 at 09:25:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The problem with technocrats (0+ / 0-)

    is that, government officials are, by and large, of average intelligence. If they were philosopher kings, technocracy would make sense. But, given human limitations, people specialize. Specialists outside their specialty are just laymen.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site