The author and I have such complete and utterly different worldviews, I’m not really sure how to begin to respond. It’s like we speak the same language, but all of the words have different definitions. She characterizes my providing actual data, with historical context for comparison, as “emotional thinking,” then says we should stop interfering, and just trust that the president, who was elected because he’s “articulate,” and the good members of Congress (me: who were elected because they rigged the game) to plan our health care system, financial system, and broader economy. This, apparently, is the opposite of thinking emotionally. None of us is smart enough to understand complex economic concepts, she says, so we should put our faith in Barack Obama, I guess because getting elected president magically infuses you with the wisdom to run the economy, or at least the smarts to pick the all-knowing advisers who can. Finally, we should stop “micromanaging” our politicians, so we don’t disturb them as they go about their business of micromanaging the private sector.
So where to begin? I guess we could start with the assumption that politicians always, or even mostly, act in the interest of the public, instead of the interests of politicians. They don’t. There’s the assumption that the skills and talents it takes to get elected are the same skills and talents one needs to govern effectively. They aren’t. There’s the assumption that any one person or even any group of people has even a fraction of the collected wisdom distributed over the course of billions of voluntary exchanges that make up an $11 trillion economy. They don’t. There’s the assumption that even if such a freakishly smart person existed, that person would also possess the political skills necessary to rise to become powerful enough to actually impart his wisdom to the people who can turn it into policy. And then there’s the assumption that even if said freakishly smart person could rise to have the president’s ear, that his advice would be heeded by Congress, and not corrupted, diluted, or merely subverted by special interests and the whims, turf wars, and power plays of politicians in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
I could go on.
I’d encourage you to read the post, though. It’s kinda’ fascinating.