My Final EconLog Post – Econlib

I began my blogging career at TheMoneyIllusion in early 2009 and ended that blog last year.  In January 2014, I started blogging here at EconLog and have greatly enjoyed the opportunity.  This will be my final post.

I wish to thank everyone who works at EconLog, and I wish the best to all of my co-bloggers.  A very special thanks to EconLog editors Lauren Landsburg and Amy Willis, who helped me greatly during my 11 years blogging at EconLog.

In today’s post, I’ll provide a few parting thoughts on what I see as the greatest challenge facing America:

Almost everything is downstream of integrity

Most of us have our worldviews shaped by the era in which we came of age.  For me, it was the Watergate hearings of 1973–74.  I still recall the inspiring bipartisan investigation into that scandal.  Thoughtful and idealistic senators like Howard Baker (R-Tennessee) probed witnesses, asking questions like “What did the President know and when did he know it?”

Obviously, that America is long gone.  We now live in a highly polarized country, where even election results are contested.  Politicians are cheerleaders, not statesmen.  Economic statistics are discussed not in terms of their implication for the economy, but rather whether they have been altered to reflect a political agenda.  The media is highly polarized and “news” is often just propaganda.  People speak of “red states” and “blue states”, terms that were never used when I was young.

Instead of focusing on specific political issues, I’d like to take a broader view.  As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to view integrity as the sine qua non of effective public policy.  To see why integrity is important, consider the role played by America’s Constitution.  Most of us view the Constitution as a document that protects individual rights and limits the power of the various branches of government.  In fact, almost every constitutional provision could be easily evaded by a government that lacked integrity.  Laws mean almost nothing unless they are accompanied by informal norms of behavior.  Here are just a few of the many ways in which things might go wrong:

The independence of the Supreme Court might be eroded if the court were expanded in size and packed with lots of new judges loyal to the executive.
Congress’s power to declare war or impose tariffs could be evaded by an executive that declared a “national emergency”.
Term limits on the presidency could be evaded if a spouse or child of the executive were elected, and then effectively turned over power to the termed-out president. (Something similar used to happen with southern governors.)
Freedom of speech could be eroded if the government threatened regulatory action against companies or universities that displeased the executive.
Subsidies are negative taxes. The withdrawal of a government subsidy is equivalent to the imposition of a tax.  If subsidies are given out to favored industries, then governments can pressure individual firms to do their bidding.
The constitutional ban on export taxes could be eroded if the executive demanded that exporters “donate” money to the government in exchange for the privilege of exporting goods.
Voting districts might be “gerrymandered” to thwart the will of voters.
The “takings clause” in the Constitution might be subverted if courts started ruling that private condominium developments constituted a “public purpose”.
Selective prosecution could be used to go after one’s political opponents.
Bans on bribery can be easily evaded if people seeking political favors buy goods and services from businesses owned by politicians.

In most advanced countries, the government has accumulated a vast amount of fiscal and regulatory power.  It would be nice to assume that the Constitution can protect us from the abuse of that power, but unfortunately, there are too many ways around the restrictions (just as banks can find ways of evading regulations against excessive risk-taking.)

In my view, people focus far too much on individual issues and far too little on the essential role of integrity in the political process.  We should demand that politicians tell the truth.  We should demand that politicians refrain from corrupt practices.  We should demand that politicians adhere strictly to not just the letter of the law, but also its intent.  If we need to pay much higher salaries to attract the best people, then we should do so.  History has shown that a lack of integrity in the public realm leads to very bad outcomes in the long run.  In the end, integrity is the only way to prevent a country from becoming a failed state.

Some will argue that these views are unrealistic, that we cannot expect politicians to show any integrity.  I disagree.  While perfection is never possible in human affairs, it is obvious that some politicians have more integrity than others.  It’s also clear that some political systems have less corruption than others.  If you suggest that there is no possibility of electing at least somewhat idealistic people, then you are essentially saying that there is no way for America to avoid being a banana republic.  I’m not that pessimistic.

If you have enjoyed reading my posts, then please continue following my blogging over at Substack.