Why scandals abound in the welfare state
There is always much talk about government corruption. Scandals abound and usually involve special benefits obtained by organizations from local, state or federal governments. Government officials are accused of playing favorites as they carry out their duties. They are charged with accepting gifts or campaign contributions in return for giving supporters special treatment.
But there is reason to believe that the more obvious improprieties are merely routine behavior carried out somewhat ineptly. In other words, it is very doubtful that politics in our society involves anything more noble than playing favorites, serving special interests — and neglecting what could be reasonably construed as the true public interest.
Although the distinction between the public and the private interest is quite meaningful, the democratic welfare state totally obscures it. Such a system favors majority role regarding any concern that some member of the public might have (if it can be brought to public attention). It treats everyone’s project as a candidate for public support. And, of course, most every person or group has different objectives. Thus, so long as these objectives can be advanced by political means, they can gain the honorific status of “the public interest.”
It is noteworthy that this may be the result of what professor Benjamin Barber of Rutgers University once called a strong democracy — a political system that subjects all issues of public concern to a referendum. This approximation of strong democracy — where, for example, just wanting to add a porch to one’s home must be cleared with the representatives of the electorate — has produced our enormous “welfare” state. Yet it was just this prospect that the framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid. That in part accounted for their insistence on a Bill of Rights, namely on denying to government-democratic, monarchical or whatever — the kind of powers that strong democracy entails.
To see how confusing things have become in this kind of strong democracy/welfare state, consider a few topics of “public concern.” Take, for example, wilderness preservation, an issue that appeals to many and cannot be considered a bad example — environmentalists who favor interventionist policies certainly believe that government preservation of wilderness areas is in the public interest.
Yet it is not unreasonable to suppose that many people do not have the wilderness as their top priority. Sure, they might like and even benefit from some of it. But in the main, they might prefer having at least part of the wilderness given up in favor of, say, housing development which might better suit their needs.
The point is that when government does so much — on behalf of virtually anyone who can gain political power or savvy — it is difficult to tell when it is serving the true public interest. Everyone is pushing an agenda on the government in support of this or that special interest group.
There is under such a system hardly any bona fide public service at all. In this case, laws often serve a private or special purpose — e.g., smoking bans in restaurants, prohibition of gambling, mandatory school attendance, business regulations that serve the goals of some but not of others. Such a bloated conception of the “public” realm even undermines the integrity of our judicial system. Courts adjudicating infractions of such special interest laws become arms of a private crusade, not servants of the public.
One consequence of this is that confidence in the integrity of government officials at every level, even those engaged in the essential functions of government, is becoming seriously eroded. The police, defense and judicial functions all are suffering because government has become overextended.
Were government doing something more nearly within its range of expertise — protecting individual rights from domestic and foreign threats — some measure of ethical behavior could be expected from it. But when, despite all the failures and mismanagement of government, people continue to go to it to ask for bailouts, why be surprised when some do it more directly, without finesse? And why wonder at their claim, when caught seeking favors openly and blatantly, that they are innocent?
In light of this, an adage gains renewed support: the majority of people get just the kind of government they deserve. It is they who clamor for state favors by dishonestly calling their objectives the “public” interest. Notice how many look to political candidates for future favors, how many support this or that politician because they expect something in return once the political office has been gained. Unfortunately, many of us who choose not to play the political game have the results imposed on us in the form of higher taxes and more burdensome regulations.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Tibor Machan holds the R.C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at Chapman University and is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford). Most recently, he is author of “The Promise of Liberty.” E-mail him at TMachan@gmail.com
