Politicians' biases

All professions - yes, even economists - tend to have a biased perspective on the world; the French call this deformation professionnelle. Reading Theresa May's proposals to combat Muslim "radicalization" reminded me that politicians are prone to such biases too.

I say this because they are selected to have certain dispositions. It costs time and money to enter politics, and success does not necessarily go to the most meritorious. This means that politicians, even more than others, will tend to be over-optimistic. Also, you tend to enter politics if you think policy can make a difference. This tends (there are exceptions) to select against those with an Oakeshottian conservative disposition, who believe that bounded rationality plus the innate imperfections of human nature mean that some social evils cannot be eradicated.

There's a third selection effect. Politicians are selected for their emphasis upon rhetoric and persuasion. Many would-be pols were active in the Oxford Union. But if you emphasize some things, you naturally de-emphasize others. And one of these other things might be the dull grunt work of day-to-day policy implementation; the soaring rhetoric of Winston Churchill excites more admiration among politicians than the quiet administrative ability of Stafford Cripps or Norman Fowler.

This is where Ms May comes in. These raise some obvious questions: do we really want to keep potential terrorists in the UK where they can cause trouble here rather than let them kill themselves in Syria? If the security services devote resources to people plotting terrorism overseas mightn't they be distracted from those plotting terrorism here? Might a clampdown on "radicalism" reinforce some Muslims' perceptions that the west is at war with Islam and so encourage some hotheads into terrorism? Wouldn't such actions suggest to some that the "western value" of free speech is mere hypocrisy, thus further antagonizing some Muslims? (Nelson Jones has likened May's proposals to the Six Acts).

Now, like pretty much everyone else who bloviates upon these issues, I don't know how strong these objections are. But I do know that revenge effects are common in the social sciences. And I fear that politicians might be underweighting them because of their deformation professionnelle.

I stress that I'm not making a partisan point here. One thing for which this goverment deserves more credit than it gets is a lack of the legislative hyper-activism of the New Labour years. And Npower's claim that it hasn't cut gas prices for fear of a price freeze under a Labour government is - if true - an example of how Labour has under-estimated the power of revenge effects.

However, it's not just politicians who should be blamed here. So too should be voters (and the media). The tendency to regard politics in the spirit of partisans cheering for one side or another distracts us from some fundamental questions, such as: what can politicions actually achieve?

Comments

[Phil]

It's a good point. I have sometimes wondered why politicians pay so little attention to how the world looks to somebody who's disempowered, suffering multiple rejections, expects nothing better in future and is generally thoroughly pissed off. Perhaps it's just because neither they nor any of their friends have never been that person, and they can't imagine it. (Decline of the trade union route into Labour politics is relevant here.)

[Whyvert]

I don't like politicians' activist do-somethingism either.

But, if you want an Oakeshottian state, then you need an Oakeshottian population: one that has high average cognitive ability, high social cohesion and trust, long time horizons (low discount rate). UK immigration policy has not boosted these qualities, to say the least.

[Diversity is strength!]

"Might a clampdown on "radicalism" reinforce some Muslims' perceptions that the west is at war with Islam and so encourage some hotheads into terrorism?"

The West is not at war with Islam, in fact quite the opposite: the West bends over backwards to appease and accommodate Islam at a heavy cost to our social fabric, even if its adherents don't seem to appreciate it. Islam however is at war with the West.

Of course the majority of British Muslims are law-abiding citizens, but they don't seem particularly motivated to condems the actions of the fanatics. I must've blinked and missed all those anti-extremism protests and condemnations. Silence and inaction is tacit support.

Anyway, what should we do then? Just ignore the fanatics and let them run riot in case we piss them off even more? Nobody with a functioning brain could countenance such a suggestion.

[Bob]

Right-on Establishment types will achieve nothing unless they face up to the reality that you cannot reason with an extremist. Favours, money, deals, diplomacy, pleading, hand-wringing - all a waste of time.

When a dog gets rabies you don't ask it politely to stop attacking people. Neither do you reward it with treats, or spare its feelings by pretending it doesn't have rabies.

It might also be an idea to stop leaving the front door wide open.

;)

[Keith]

"And Npower's claim that it hasn't cut gas prices for fear of a price freeze under a Labour government is - if true - an example of how Labour has under-estimated the power of revenge effects."

I would attach no value to the views of that incompetent firm, that cannot run its own computers and bill correctly.

As for The Home Secretary, you cannot stop people believing in any ideas by decree. opinion is free and it is unconstitutional to try and regulate opinion.

It is better to avoid trying to pick sides in a proxy war in the middle east between shia and sunni powers. If we could avoid importing oil from the GCC states we could also avoid financing their foreign policy. We could halt arms sales to the GCC now as well. British jihardis are a side show compared to the geopolitics of the area. Picking one set of reactionaries over another is a waste of time. It is time to abandon that game.

[rogerh]

What can they actually achieve? Looking at their deeds rather than their words leads me to think 'very little', just a shuffling back and forth with little or no progress. Rhetoric seems a very poor tool for analysis and using evidence and data seems anathema to the green benches. Talk is cheap, effective implementation is hard work for which you get little thanks - a poor career choice in this setup.

But why so ineffective? I suppose money is short and party politics has reduced to a mutual backscratching exercise. In a corporate context there would be a 'restructuring' at all levels of management, what we get is talk and minor distractions held up as existential threats. Plenty of Woo and not much do.

[Igor Belanov]

So this 'Islam' that is at war with the West. Where are its headquarters, and who are its representatives?

It seems to be rather obviously that the 'Islam' organisation that some people think exists,is focusing rather more on internal disagreements than attacking 'the West'.

[Igor Belanov]

"Of course the majority of British Muslims are law-abiding citizens, but they don't seem particularly motivated to condems the actions of the fanatics. I must've blinked and missed all those anti-extremism protests and condemnations. Silence and inaction is tacit support."

Like me, Jimmy Saville was a resident of Leeds. I don't feel obliged to publicly apologise for him or condemn his actions. I suspect the majority of Britain's Muslims feel the same about ISIS.

[Bob]

@Igor

Its representatives are those who commit atrocities in the name of Islam. Why is the "moderate" Islam genuine, but the fanatical one isn't? It was real enough for James Foley and Drummer Lee Rigby. Who's to say what the "real" Islam is? A judge? The Muslim next door? A fanatic? An imam? A Hindu, a Christian, a Zoroastrian? The very fact we can sit around and discuss this is because we're in a secular Western society and not a primitive Islamic one.

"Like me, Jimmy Saville was a resident of Leeds. I don't feel obliged to publicly apologise for him or condemn his actions. I suspect the majority of Britain's Muslims feel the same about ISIS."

You and Jimmy Savile are not members of a widely disliked if not hated belief-system that is the source of much tension in these isles. If Savile's actions brought disgrace on you by proxy then you might think otherwise.

If the reputation of Islam is being so besmirched by the lunatics (and thus increasing tensions and making the moderates lives much harder) why not defend it from them? Why not shout from the rooftops NOT IN MY NAME! Islam usually has such very sensitive feelings...

[Igor Belanov]

The 'will you condemn-athon' is so out of fashion these days Bob, though maybe not on the far-right.

http://decentpedia.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/will-you-condemn-thon.html

[Igor Belanov]

Oh, and I think "members of a widely disliked if not hated belief-system that is the source of much tension in these isles" was the giveaway.

[Bob]

Criticising Islam makes me a member of the far-right? Erm.... no.

And I notice you haven't addressed my points.

[Igor Belanov]

What points? I criticised the fact that you expect all Muslims to apologise and/or condemn the actions of a tiny minority of extremists. One of the reasons they don't do this is that most of them don't identify with that brand of Islam and don't see why others should lump them together.
Islam is a religion, not an ideology, a political party, a movement or a culture. It has numerous currents and doctrines, and translates into political and practical life in different ways. Would you have expected Ian Paisley to apologise for the Brighton bombing because the Unionists and Nationalists were both Christian?

[Bob]

@Igor

I do expect all moderate Muslims to stand up and condemn the deranged extremists, yes. It is precisely because most of them do not identify with the lunatics that they should come out and condemn it. I don't know why you would have a problem with that - as I have previously stated, silence and inaction is tacit support. Why allow themselves be tarred with the same brush?

You say that "Islam is a religion, not an ideology, a political party, a movement or a culture." Well no, worldwide, Islam is all of those things. There is little distinction between those categories in the Muslim world.

"Would you have expected Ian Paisley to apologise for the Brighton bombing because the Unionists and Nationalists were both Christian?"

Christianity's lunacies are (largely) in the past compared to Islam's. They don't go around beheading and flying planes into buildings at least. If Christianity were a minority religion here, that, like Islam, had been unable to peacefully co-exist with any other culture, society or religion throughout the entirety of recorded history, then yes I would, because refusing to do so calls your loyalty into question, rightly or wrongly. Make it clear the nutters don't stand for you. Muslims sure don't do themselves any favours! It's almost as if they like playing the victim!

[gastro george]

"... Islam ... been unable to peacefully co-exist with any other culture, society or religion throughout the entirety of recorded history"

Please, please read some history.