Ten political assumptions

A commenter on a previous post suggested I compile a list of "10 lazy assumptions that are part of the mainstream political consensus." Although the point of being an amateur blogger is that I don't have to do requests, it's a fair question. Here goes. (What follows is in part a summary of recent posts).

1. Managerialism. The dominant ideology in politics is that problems are soluable from the top-down, and the answer to organizational failure in the public services is better management. This overlooks the possibilities that: management competence is limited, in part because - as Hayek said - knowledge cannot be centralized; that hierarchy has a demotivating effect upon workers; and that faith in management is an ideological front for rent-seeking.   

2. Devaluing professional autonomy and ethics. The counterpart of the elevation of management is - in schools, universities and hospitals - a denigration of traditional professional standards and ethics. This denigration extends to politics. Politicians presume that they should be like businessmen, and ignore the possibility that - as Oakeshott said (pdf) - politics is itself a "specific and limited activity".

3. The myth of perfectibility. Politicians don't believe there is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Instead, their attitude to failure - be it riots, the murder of babies or cost over-runs in government IT projects - is that not that such things are inevitable in a fallen world, but that lessons must be learnt. (Of course, they never are.)

4. A faith in hydraulic policy. Politicians are selected for their belief that policy matters, and so exaggerate both the power of policy, and the differences between the main parties.

5. Ignorance of deadweight costs. Immigration controls, anti-drug laws and complicated welfare states all impose deadweight costs. Politicians underplay these. 

6. A belief in the virtue of "hard work." This ignores the fact that many virtuous activities are not paid employment, and that a desire for work is futile in an era of mass unemployment.

7. The fetish of public opinion. Politicians take voters' preferences for granted, and fail to see that they might be warped by cognitive biases or adaptation to injustice. As a result, some otherwise reasonable policies - open borders, basic income, worker control - are off the agenda.

8. A partial use of cognitive biases. Cameron's "nudge unit" tells us how politicians see cognitive biases - as a lever for improving the behaviour of others. What they don't see is that their own ideas, and those of voters, might also be disotrted by cognitive biases.

9. A consensus on the size of the state. The main parties agree that government should account for around two-fifths of the economy. The possibility of either greatly expanding the role of the state through public ownership or the role of markets through macro markets or demand-revealing referenda are alike excluded. When politicians talk of bringing markets into public services, it's usually a cloak for increasing the profits of client companies.

10. A belief in government as Santa. Politicians agree that their clients - married couples or the hard-working low-paid - deserve favours whilst others (scroungers) deserve punishment. The possibility that such distinctions are very narrow and costly to make is downplayed.

I don't say all this to mean these assumptions are necessarily wrong. I do so just to point out that politcal debate is much narrower than you might think. What's more, these assumptions are shared not just by politicians but by much of the media too.

Comments

[Phil]

9. is thought-provoking. The idea that "more markets!" might mean something other than "let's replace a state monopoly with a profiteering oligopoly" is genuinely novel to me, although now it's been pointed out I have to admit it as a possibility. In my defence, it so rarely does.

[pablopatito]

"lessons must be learnt. (Of course, they never are.)"

This is an exaggeration. Football grounds are now safer, work environments are safer and less sexist and racist, police are less corrupt and your children are less likely to be abused at school or church. Lessons have been learnt and legislation has improved society.

[Zorblog]

You might even say that those assumptions are dictated by the media.
Then, it is not clear whether what the media think is shaped by public opinion, or if it is the other way around.
But what's clear is that the media have a political responsibility, and they're not ready to admit it. It is a far bigger responsibility than politicians, because politicians merely think what the media say.

[hovis]

pablopatito I think you are mistaking a change as necessarily being because of legislation. Change does not always eual progress and the examples yougive can easily be be put down to social trends rather than any legislation.

[Chris]

"cost over-runs in government IT projects" - There are almost no major government IT projects. There are many business transformational projects that use a lot of IT. Branding such a project an IT project is the first mistake.

I find No.6 particularly interesting at present, as we can make everything we desire as a planet with less than 40 hours work per person. The immense emphasis on working long hours and working being a requirement for everyone is therefore guaranteeing high unemployment, high inflation and exhaustion.

[Phil Beesley]

11. The BBC is biased against "us", whoever we might be. Reality is that the BBC is a managerialist organisation, subject to pressure from managerialist politicians; and that perceived organisational bias has complex origins.

12a. The Guardian is a left wing rag. When The Guardian works, it is a paper of news written by contrary people who are prepared to upset those in power; a Private Eye journal with hard facts and lots of eyeballs.

If you judged The Guardian based on comment pieces from Polly and Seamus, you would determine that it is lefty nonsense. Had you based your appraisal of leftiness on the newspaper's record of news reporting (eg Operation Ore), you might think differently.

12b. The Telegraph is a right wing rag. Etcetera.

[FromArseToElbow]

Zorblog raise an interesting point. I don't agree that these assumptions are simply "dictated" by the media, but there is clearly an institutional bias that reinforces some of them (the lauding of public opinion is obviously self-interested). Perhaps as the media evolve these assumptions will too.

Their fundamental belief is that shouting can effect real change, which is a species of perfectibility. This also influences their support for managerialism - e.g. their promotion of heroic business leaders, which reaches parody by the back pages; their faith in hydraulic policy (Steve Bell's Dacre Downfall skit was both funny and true); and ignorance of deadweight costs (a fear of complexity and thus the absence of easy answers). But they would exhibit these characteristics even if they were editorially leftwing.

Where the media are more ideologically determined (i.e. advancing the agenda of the powerful rather than themselves) is in the dissing of the state and public sector professionals. I know a few journalists and they are acutely conflicted by this, given their own experiences of creeping deprofessionalisation (some just want to take other professionals down with them).

There has been a clear change in tenor over the last 50 years, from representing the common man against thoughtless power (a church broad enough to encompass GK Chesterton and Paul Foot), to a psychotic antipathy towards the state and pro-social organisation, which is hardly compensated for by a festishisation of the monarchy and armed forces. They are a morbid symptom.

[FromArseToElbow]

@Phil Beesley, if you think Polly Toynbee is a "lefty", then I'm afraid their cunning plan has worked.

The Guardian's commitment to "balance" means that for every Toynbee or Seamus Milne article, you get a piece from a romantic Tory like Simon Jenkins or a free market ideologue like Melissa Kite. A quantitative assessment would place the paper on the centre-right. They only look "progressive" because the middle of the media spectrum is way to the right of the population at large.

By the way, there is no dispute over the BBC's bias among those who actually study the subject (as opposed to politicians). It is biased towards the establishment, which means slightly right of centre, hence it often finds common cause with the Guardian.

[Phil Beesley]

@Another Chris: "There are almost no major government IT projects. There are many business transformational projects that use a lot of IT. Branding such a project an IT project is the first mistake."

I dunno whether I contradict you by saying that IT is at the heart of service provision. IT is like the water supply or electricity. A service fails without vital inputs.

If a "business transformational project" can efficiently be conducted via pen on paper, it might be done. IT is a recording and communication tool; it is not the only one.

But @Another Chris propounds that "many business transformational projects" "use a lot of IT".

Good IT ideas do not require much IT. The concept is called efficiency.

However we are talking about "business transformation". It's about changing an existing operational model.

So I am being convinced by @Another Chris? Naaa. I do not trust anyone's revolution.

[Phil Beesley]

@FromArseToElbow: I tried to define The Guardian outside its comments columns. As a teenager, I read the broadsheets (I'd like to know what the unpublished London Times might have reported).

As a news paper, The Guardian delivers news.

[Denis Drew]

I have been reading Richard Reeves President Kennedy this week. JFK had not much faith in the progress of the civil rights movement because he was afraid opposition attitudes were too deep and too long ingrained.

He did not seem to grasp that things never would change if somebody did not finally dig in hard and fight. I've read elsewhere that he said supporting civil rights would gain him 5% and lose him 10% of the vote. To his credit he voiced willingness to take on civil rights after his reelection.

In comparison to Kennedy's dog pile of disincentives to take on civil rights, what in the world is holding back Obama on the $15 an hour minimum wage (and re-unionizing America -- legally mandated, sector wide labor agreements the only way to go as far as I can see)?

The great majority of the public supports a raise in the minimum wage – even if the question is not presented to them in terms $15 an hour. Even if he could not sell $15 an hour (having said that, the arguments on the simple logical and eighth grade math level seem quite compelling), he would not burn up any political capital trying.

Some of the minority who pose minimum wage increases could actually be swung over to a lesser increase – no votes lost there. A minority of the great majority who might not want to go all the way to $15 would not by any stretch of the imagination become disenchanted Obama voters and switch to the Republicans.

All noble (desperate!) cause and all political plums; whoever peoples the planet that Obama is living on?

[Guano]

Thanks for responding to my suggestion. I wish I had time to respond!