Responding to some of Conor’s remarks on the kinds of public choice problems facing the honest implementation of the progressive agenda, publius at Obsidian Wings writes (emphasis mine):

[Friedersdorf] could be right.  I hope he’s not, but it’s a powerful critique that progressives shouldn’t ignore. What’s promising, though, is that the ambition and content of the Democratic agenda gives some hope to the non-skeptics (for now, anyway).

Under the public choice perspective, none of the big-ticket Democratic items (e.g., health care, energy) should get enacted.  Or if they did get enacted, the prediction would be that the new laws would basically serve narrow interest groups. 

To which the proper response seems to me to be: Wait – you’re bringing up the push for cap and trade as an example of how the Democratic agenda HASN’T been taken over by corporate special interests?!

leave a comment