Political incentives

A post on Econlib got me thinking about why it is that I don't think the idea of heavy government involvement: it's because by involving politicians, you 1) introduce a lot of perverse incentives and 2) assume that, even with the best intentions, a group of decision-makers can possibly consider and properly weight every alternative, foresee every potential problem, and effectively and efficiently adapt to changing circumstances. Governments through the years have shown time and time again that their incapable of doing this. The best example, of course, is Soviet Russia, but Cuba today isn't so bad either. This is the whole point of F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

Many believe the problem isn't bad government but bad people in government -- we're simple electing the wrong people. I can't remember where I read it right now (I think it was on The Library of Economics and Liberty, but I'll put up the link if I find it), but there's an idea that people always respond to incentives. No matter who it is that is elected, they will always respond to incentives. The framers knew this. That is why they established the many checks and balances among the three branches (among several other things, such as a bicameral legislature with different term lengths in each). Hopefully, the different incentives can play off one another in a way that produces an effective result. I'd say that for the most part it works, despite the clear examples of when it doesn't (earmarks, farm subsidies, campaign finance and lobbying problems, etc.).

I'd like to think that my candidate, Mitt Romney, who's gone anyway, wouldn't succumb to this. But, alas, he has and he will. He, like all pols, wants to get elected, so he designs his platform in a way that reflects his own views but also appeases to the most people, despite the intellectual honesty in doing so. An example. Do I believe that he actually changed his mind with respect to abortion? No, I don't. I believe he stated his position to help himself get elected. Effectively, he made a campaign promise and, as far as I can tell, was true to it. Does that make him dishonest? Weeeelllllllll, I don't know. As far as I can judge, for a conservative in, say, Massachusetts, to really have a chance to get elected and affect the government in any way, he or she would pretty much need to concede on a few issues. I think this is what he did. The result is that to a New Englander he is still very conservative, but more easily digestible; to a southerner, he's a wicked moderate/liberal. Therefore, in order to appease the southern conservatives, he needed to effectively rescind his campaign promise to Massachusetts and reissue another to the country, one that will find him more to the right of where he needed to be up north.

So, does that make him a "bad person"? Not necessarily; he's simply playing politics. But, it does show that he responded to incentives and fashioned his message to fit the audience.