Over time, ideas can develop in unexpected ways. Consider the following public policy statement:
1. The Biden administration has tried to forgive many student loans for college education.
2. Several California cities have enacted rental laws.
3. Florida just got banned lab grown meat.
4. North Carolina is trying to do so prevent wearing a mask in the community.
Although the first two examples are often viewed as the rule of thumb and the other two are considered popular programs, they all share something in common. In each case, the law can be seen as a distortion of the former form of the idea in question.
Let’s start with progressivism. Initially, this idea was largely motivated by the flaws (real or imagined) in laissez-faire economics. Progressives are concerned that unfettered capitalism could lead to violent abuses and a vastly unequal distribution of income. This has led to policy initiatives such as utility rate controls and redistributive initiatives such as the earned income tax credit.
However, over time, progressivism became increasingly associated with said, not conclusions of law. Therefore to be progress that aims to allow “control” and “redistribution”, regardless of whether it has reached the initial goals of the movement.
Obviously, the case for rent control in markets with thousands of individual landlords is much weaker than the case for price control where there is only one supplier of water or electricity. And it is equally clear that the case for redistributing money from the average taxpayer to educated Americans is much weaker than the argument for redistributing money to low-wage workers. But the progressive movement is dominated by young Americans. This group is made up equally of recent college graduates who live in apartments in expensive coastal towns.
The latest wave of populism was at least partly fueled by anger at the idea that elites were forcing society to make undesirable changes in their lifestyles (like wearing masks during epidemics) and unpopular climate change initiatives (like discouraging meat consumption.) But over time, lifestyle issues gradually changed. the “liberal” aspect of populism. Opposition to mask approval has turned into simple opposition to masks. Anger that the aristocracy was trying to impose a certain way of life was replaced by efforts to suppress an unwanted way of life.
This is the natural evolution of populism. It starts as an attempt to liberate society from oppression, and ends up introducing another form of oppression once the populists gain power.
One could cite many more such examples. The college free speech movement of the 1960s initially focused on allowing students to express far-left political views. By the 2000s, the liberal side had been forgotten and college activists had begun to try authority that students express left-wing views.
Similarly, right-wing opposition to radicalism began as an effort to allow free speech on campus, but at least in some places has evolved into an effort to block certain left-wing views.
The civil rights movement began as a civil war without color. While the initial focus was on rejecting discrimination against minorities, over time the focus shifted to endorsing discrimination in favor of minorities. (Those “reverse discrimination” policies may have unintended side effects, such as making employers reluctant to hire workers they may not be able to fire in the future.)
Feminism began as an attempt to stop society from treating people differently because of their gender, but it has evolved into the idea that people should be treated differently because of their gender.
Why do ideas keep losing their perspective? I suspect that the problem reflects the fact that very few people are committed to broad principles like liberalism or maximizing consumption. Instead, they have “special interests”, and use these various ideas as an easy way to attack their opponents and achieve their real policy goals.
PS. Matt Yglesias has an excellent post discussing similar issues.
Source link