Topic: General

Tories for Happiness

The politics of happiness research just got a bit more interesting. British Conservative leader David Cameron is now campaigning on a happiness platform. In a speech at a conference organized by Google in Hertfordshire, Cameron said,

It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money, and it’s time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB—General Well-Being.

This is interesting because up until now, the politics of “well-being” have been primarily a welfare-liberal or social democratic phenomenon. So why the happiness schtick for the Tories? Why now? The Financial Times editorial page says:

Mr Cameron’s call for the Tories to address GWB is not a coded cry for redistribution. After green issues and childcare it is another sensible step towards increasing the opposition party’s appeal by redefining popular values in modern Britain. From the Thatcher era onwards, the Conservatives have faced the charge of being cold and uncaring. Mr Cameron’s task is, in part, to persuade voters that the Tories are warm and cuddly.

Although there is much support in the happiness literature for proposals to allow individuals greater control over our lives, I worry that creating a climate hospitable to risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and greater personal control (and, necessarily, greater personal responsibility) may be perceived as bracing, but not so much as “warm and cuddly.” In his talk, Cameron dilated on the wonders of Howies, a “socially conscious” Welsh company in the mold of the US’s American Apparel, praising their lack of hierarchy and the flexibility in work arrangements.

Now, greater work flexibility is great, and that’s a big part of what it would mean policy-wise to enhance well-being by giving people more control over their lives. But what does Cameron have in mind? Is this anything more than emotionally appealing talk? If so, genuine work flexibility requires deregulating the labor market, allowing individuals to bargain terms of employment for themselves, rather than getting stuck with the terms their union (which workers in certain areas often have little choice but to join) negotiated, or with terms set by the government, independent of the desires of the parties to the agreement. A system in which a certain wage, a certain package of benefits, certain labor conditions, etc., are mandated by the government is a system in which it is harder for people to opt in and out of the labor market, or to negotiate flexible contracts that uniquely suit their individual and family needs. There is a lot to be said in favor of companies that create a hospitable, flexible climate for their employees. But as the FT editorialist points out:

Not every employer can introduce flexible work practices and not every job carries high satisfaction levels. To behave as though this were possible could invite cause for dissatisfaction.

If Cameron seeks to mandate Howie’s-like flexible work practices, rather than removing existing labor market interference from unions and government, he will end up reducing real flexibility for workers. Furthermore, as UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge points out, not every worker wants a non-hierarchical work environment. Not everyone likes being saddled with participation in management decisions in addition to their regular work. Companies should certainly be encouraged to create work environments that inspire loyalty and productivity from their workers—and good returns for their shareholders. And if you’re a consumer for whom the production process is part of what you’re buying, you should feel free to patronize businesses that reflect your values. But mandating flexibility, or a particular “work-life balance,” won’t deliver it. The heirs of Thatcher should know this, and it is sad if they think thay have to act like they don’t. We’ll see.

In defense of GDP, it is worth pointing out that focus on the size of the economy does not imply the state’s endorsement of a narrow-minded, acquisitive ethos. Wealth is not a morally questionable, or even a morally neutral, end. It is easy for people to imagine that the size of the economy grows magically, due to some incomprehensible ju ju down in the basement at Google Labs or something. But it’s not magic; it’s virtue. The economy grows primarily because innovations in knowledge enable us to produce more, and therefore to offer more, to others in cooperative exchange. GDP growth is the steady increase in the size of the surplus from human cooperation. Extended, peaceful, increasingly effective human cooperation is not an easy thing to sustain, and the institutions, and the habits of heart and mind, that do sustain it are moral triumphs. As Deidre McClosky draws out in the brand new Cato Policy Report :

“Modern economic growth,” as the economists boringly call the fact of real income per person growing at a “mere” 1.5 percent per year for 200 years, to achieve a rise in per capita income by a factor of 19 in the countries that most enthusiastically embraced capitalism, is certainly the largest change in the human condition since the ninth millennium BC. It ranks with the first domestications of plants and animals and the building of the first towns. Possibly, modern economic growth is as large and important an event in human history as the sudden perfection of language, in Africa around 80,000 to 50,000 BC. In a mere 200 years our bourgeois capitalism has domesticated the world and made it, from Chicago to Shanghai, into a single, throbbing city.

There has been no force in history that has done more to promote “general well-being” than economic growth. There is no force that will do more good in the foreseeable future. I hope that Cameron takes note that in cross-national econometric studies the only variable that correlates with reported well-being more strongly than GDP per capita is a society’s degree of economic freedom.

There is a politics of limited government and personal repsonsibility lurking in the happiness data. If Cameron is going to run on happiness, let’s hope he is able to find it, and allay Frank Furedi’s worries, and mine, about an illiberal, infantalizing therapeutic state.

Libertarians and Liberals

Last week I looked at a Pew Research Center analysis of libertarians and other ideological groups in the United States. Using the Pew results, let’s compare libertarians to liberals as way of speculating about the upcoming election. 

The two groups have a lot in common demographically. Both libertarians and liberals are more likely than other groups to be found in the highest income groups and to have a college education (though liberals are by far the most educated group). Strikingly, both groups are the least likely among the Pew respondents to be supported by African-Americans.

Libertarians and liberals are the least religiously observant among the Pew groups. Both are much more likely than others to say they are “secular” and to state that they “seldom or never” attend church. This secular tendency showed up when Pew looked at responses by groups to some questions about issues. Libertarians and liberals were about as likely to believe homosexuality should be accepted, to favor stem cell research, and to oppose more restrictions on abortion. (Liberals more so on each issue). In each case, the two groups oppose positions endorsed by Roman Catholicism or evangelical Protestant groups. Judged only by these issues, libertarians and liberals should be quite similar politically. 

But they are not, and you can guess why. The two differ over the scope of government power over economic life. The Pew data defines liberals in part by their faith that government regulation is needed to protect the public interest. Liberals also oppose tax cuts much more than any other group and to think businesses make too much profit. Liberals are about as likely as any American to believe free trade is good for the nation, their only significant departure from what you might expect on the economic front.

This difference on economic policies translates into partisan differences. Exactly half of libertarians in the Pew survey identified themselves as Republicans or leaning that way. 57 percent voted for President Bush in 2004. When forced to choose, these voters seem to assign more weight to the economic aspects of liberty than the social side.

On the other hand, 41 percent of the Pew libertarians identify with, or lean toward, the Democratic party. Could that number rise?

Here’s one guess, popular with libertarians angry with the GOP. Libertarians are close to liberals demographically and on social issues, and liberals are overwhelmingly Democratic. If Republicans support economic policies similar to liberal positions, libertarians have little reason to vote Republican. The only difference between the parties would concern social questions, and on those issues, the Democrats are more often if not always more libertarian than Republicans.

Here’s the problem with this guess about the future. Libertarians have to consider what Republicans and Democrats will do in the future, and rationally, they need not simply extrapolate from the recent past to do that.

It is true that Republicans have expanded government rapidly to maintain control of Congress (among other reasons). But that does not mean Democrats in power would not expand government even more rapidly for reasons of ideology and interest. Democrats complained that the Medicare prescription drug benefit was not generous enough, not that it expanded government too much. More generally, the American National Election Survey found in 2004 that two-thirds of self-identified liberals and 56 percent of Democrats believed “it is important for the government to provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending.”  This support for expanding government, by the way, is the highest ever reported for both liberals and Democrats. It is almost 40 percent higher for liberals and 47 percent more for Democrats than it was in 1996 when Bill Clinton declared the end of big government. If Democrats in power listen to their base in 2007 (or 2009 with the presidency in hand), they will not be responding to the moderates at the Democratic Leadership Council. 

Given all that, I don’t think many libertarians who have been voting Republican are likely to start voting Democratic. As bad as the Republicans have been on limiting government, libertarians primarily concerned with economic liberty have reason to think the Democrats would be worse. So they will continue doing what they have been doing unless the Democrats start looking better or the Republicans become even worse.

News from A Region of Hot Spots

My Azeri friends have brought to my attention two interesting news items from Azerbaijan and the large Azeri community in northern Iran. First is that the editor of a leading opposition paper, Bizim Yol (“Our Path”) (and formerly deputy editor of Azadlig [“Freedom”], which ran a story on my visit to Baku earlier this year), was savagely beaten on May 18 and that opposition leaders (such as Ali Kerimli), have pointed the finger at the authorities. (This is not the first time that journalists from the opposition side have been attacked.)

One email from an Azeri news group described the attack thus:

Bahaddin Haziyev, one of the best Azerbaijani journalists and one of the brillian minds of our country, was kidnapped, taken to Masazir lake, severely beaten and left to die almost to death last night by some people. He was deputy editor of Azadlig newspaper and since recently became a editor in chief of Bizim Yol newspaper. His newspaper an himself are very critical of Aliyev’s regime, the most recent series dedicated to caviar/fish mafia of Azerbaijan, portraying that Aliyev senior sacrificed lifes for monopoly in this sector.

Haziyev is in Intensive Therapy in the Emergency hospital. Doctor said that it is miracle that he survived. His leg is broken in five places, he has trauma of head, ribs are broken.

That is what happens to journalists in this country.

It takes real bravery to continue to speak up for freedom when under threat of such violence.

The other is a news story that was reported in the Washington Post about protests against Persian chauvinism among the very large Azeri minority in Iran. Photos are available here (on an Azeri nationalist website).

The cartoon that has caused the furor was published in Iran’s official newspaper (not, as in the Danish cartoons, in a private paper in a country with a free press):

The cartoon, which appeared in Friday’s edition of the official Iran newspaper, showed a boy repeating the Persian word for cockroach in different ways, while a cockroach in front of the boy asked “What?” in Azeri.

The Iranian mullahs may be creating difficult conditions for themselves by alienating, not only many young people (who yearn for what the Eastern Europeans used to call “a normal country”), but major ethnic minorities, as well.

Topics:

Scapegoating Milberg Weiss

Saul Levmore is asking the right questions about the Milberg Weiss prosecution here.  “Milberg, who?,” you ask. 

(Warning:  boring lawyer-talk follows.) 

Milberg is the titanic plaintiffs class action firm that was just indicted for paying professional plaintiffs to serve as figureheads for the firm’s class action suits.  Those who love to hate class actions tend to love this prosecution.  But as Levmore asks, what, exactly, is so bad about lawyers paying professional plaintiffs to act as figureheads, anyway?

Hundreds of lawyers hate the firm and they are quick to say that plaintiffs are paid to lie, to agree to settlements that are not in the interest of other class members, to lie about having been consulted about conflict of interest questions, and so forth.  Some of these possibilities seem implausible, or at least somewhat puzzling, in a world in which named plaintiffs are rarely consulted at all, and in which judges must approve settlements (for better or worse) but are hardly accused of paying too much attention to the wishes of the named, nominal plaintiffs. 

Let’s not kid ourselves: class actions are bounty-hunting enforcement actions designed to deter wrongdoing, rather than compensate victims.  Named plaintiffs play a negligible role in these lawsuits, because the suits aren’t brought for their parochial benefit.  The suits are brought to punish the target, not to remedy individual injuries.  The “named plaintiff” is a virtual legal fiction–a stubby appendage of an older system of corrective justice and individual rights which our legal system has, for all intents and purposes, thrown over the side.

Now, I happen to like that old, lost, fundamentally liberal view of the law, in which state coercion is limited to aiding individuals, rather than promoting collective (i.e. state) interests.  But the incentive system set up under our current class action system simply isn’t designed to promote attention to individual remedial interests.  And prosecuting Milberg Weiss for paying kickbacks to figurehead plaintiffs isn’t going to change that fact.  

Radical, systemic solutions are necessary. One is to force lawyers to recruit not just named plaintiffs, but class members, by requiring absent class members to affirmatively “opt in” to the class litigation–thereby forcing lawyers to sell their representation to entire class.  By making class actions fully contractual, lawyers may act less as self-interested regulatory bounty-hunters and more like the advocates-for-hire of old.  See this piece for further discussion. 

But this is a solution that our political system can’t stomach.  And so we’re left, instead, with the Milberg prosecution:  a symbolic, ineffectual fit of pique.

The Greatest Deliberative Body?

Columnist Robyn Blumner has nice things to say about our new study, Power Surge, and she takes Congress to task for doing nothing: 

The Republican leadership in Congress is standing by while its house is being pillaged. The power to write federal laws is Congress’ alone. The president’s duty, as expressly stated in the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the laws he signs, not to add asterisks on parts he intends to ignore.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert are joining in their own emasculation when they utter not a peep during this bloodless coup. I don’t know why Republicans have a reputation for strength. When blindly supporting a president from your own party takes precedence over guarding Congress’ historic role, “Republican leadership” becomes an oxymoron.

It is not just liberals who have recognized the danger. I challenge anyone to read an important new report by the libertarian Cato Institute (www.cato.org) and not be chilled. “Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush” is an unblinking 28-page analysis of our slow devolution into autocracy. Its message can be summed up with this quote: “Under (the president’s) sweeping theory of executive power, the liberty of every American rests on nothing more than the grace of the White House.”

A meek and pliant Congress is allowing this new paradigm to take root.

One can almost hear Speaker Hastert trying to defend himself: ”Look, I said something about executive branch overreaching just this morning.  Ya know, I’ve signed off on some extraordinary police powers over the years, but there’s gotta be a limit to those powers.  The Constitution is clear: The right of members of Congress to be secure in their offices and homes shall not be violated!”

Requiem for 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions

Chief Justice Roberts gave an address at Georgetown in which he lauds the virtues of deciding cases, where possible, narrowly and unanimously:

 ”If it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case,” Roberts said. “Division should not be artificially suppressed, but the rule of law benefits from a broader agreement. The broader the agreement among the justices, the more likely it is a decision on the narrowest possible grounds.”

Its not clear that Roberts’ prediction (that consensus on the Court yields clarity, precision, and narrowness) is right.  Consensus-building in Congress, another multi-member voting body, is purchased at the price of legal fuzziness.  The more amorphous and open-ended the statute–the more the statute defers tough questions–the more members of Congress agree to add their names to it. 

While consensus building on the Supreme Court is a simpler prospect, there’s no reason to think the same basic dynamic won’t apply here too:  Supreme Court justices will purchase broad agreement at the price of clarity, harming the rule of law. 

Indeed, as I discuss at the end of this online debate, this may be the lesson of one of Roberts’ earliest opinions (in Rumsfeld v. FAIR).  There, the Court was asked to decide whether Congress violated law schools’ free speech rights by threatening to withdraw federal funding unless the schools sponsored JAG recruiters on campus.  The Court unanimously rejected the law schools’ First Amendment claims.  But in the course of doing so, it reached a question it didn’t have to reach:  the scope of deference owed to Congress when it regulates “military affairs.”  Worse, the Court’s cursory discussion of military affairs deference is exceedingly unclear and could be read to mean that judicial enforcement of the Bill of Rights is at a vanishingly low ebb when Congress raises and supports armies.  

As even the National Review admits, this aside is troubling and deserves clarification.  But it may also be a by-product of Roberts’ drive for consensus:  Some justices may have joined the Court’s ruling on the First Amendment only if there was some hedge that allowed them to distinguish the First Amendment ruling in a later, different case.  Adding in a bit about military deference may have been the hedge that brought those justices on board, allowing them to rule differently in a case that didn’t involve national security.  But other justices may have been wary about the scope of deference in this area.  Therefore it was necessary to discuss military deference in a vague way in order to belay these fears.  The result:  an opinion that inadvertently muddies the scope of civil liberties in the shadow of military-related legislation, inviting envelope pushing by Congress and the President.

The lesson:  Sometimes being narrow requires hedging.  And sometimes consensus requires wishy-washiness.  Hedging and wishy-washiness in turn make the law less clear.  That may give government officials more discretion to boss us around, while leaving the rest of us in the dark about the scope of our rights.