The thing of it is . . .

For a while now I’ve been thinking about what drives catastrophically bad policy in the U.S. I’ve wondered whether democracy recently “jumped the shark” or whether this bad policy is more of a feature than a bug.

One easy answer was the axiom that “hard cases make bad law”. For instance, some states legalized adultery under the name “heart-balm statute”, with the express intent of easing the suffering of the wronged spouse (though more likely done with an eye to easing the plight of the malefactor). “Heart-bomb statute” would have been a more apt name, given the consequences of this action.

Another example is new congress-critter Ed Perlmonster - er - Perlmutter, who ran on a Mengele platform - use those undesirables for medical experiments that will benefit the uebermenschen - though stated as merely being for medical research, while glibly letting slide the ghoulish source of the elixir. This cretin now represents the district where I work. (The execrable Diana DeGette represents the district where I live. At least the least-objectionable member of the House remains, despite the millions spent for the challenger.)

Of course bad precedents are used for bad ends – the Griswold v. Connecticut decision, while horrific enough in itself, has been used as justification for all manner of other mischief.

Another easy answer was that there are few barriers to entry to those who would use government for malign purposes and many barriers to entry for those who would use government for beneficent purposes. Moreover, the legislature’s combination of powers not to both draft laws and also to allocate the government’s expenditures and levy taxes invites corruption.

A bit more reflection convinced me that the ease with which laws are revised, whether by the electorate directly, the legislature, the executive or the courts, while useful in limited circumstances, can create disastrous consequences, particularly regarding foundational issues . For instance, even in the recent past no one would have thought to modify the definition of marriage, so that topic was left unaddressed until much too late in the game.

In earlier generations, the differences between competing factions weren’t always so severe, as there were shared core values. The advent of ubiquitous indifferentism and radical individualism, though, make it nearly impossible to find common ground on contentious issues.

This morning, though, it occurred to me that we’re getting so darn much bad policy because we have devised a system that creates more policy than any person can digest. Most bills are voted upon without anyone knowing precisely what’s in them, due to the large permanent staffs of the (generally) well-compensated legislators. No informed argument about the merits of a given policy is possible.

As a result, I can no longer honestly say that I believe democracy as we know it on a large scale is desirable even in theory.