Bootleggers & Baptists: How Economic Forces and Moral Persuasion Interact to Shape Regulatory Politics by Adam Smith Page A
Authors: Adam Smith
Ads: Link
here. Indeed, the Bootlegger/Baptist theory is far deeper than most realize. It is not only about pork and politics but also about what ultimately binds us together as a society—and accordingly, about how politicians must appeal to that underlying fabric.
Morality, Trust, and Swapping Favors
All special interest groups are mutual admiration societies. They are formed by self-selection. Those who join agree with the group’s purpose, and members tend to like each other. More to the point, special interest groups believe so strongly in their cause that they find it odd that further justification may be needed for the political support they seek. Downtown merchants associations see themselves as forming the economic backbone of downtown, something every citizen should welcome. Isn’t that enough to justify a tax break when big-box retailers threaten? Engineering societies believe their members are making the world a safer and more humane place. Petroleum trade associations express deep belief in the broader purpose they serve: providing safe, low-cost energy to light the nation’s homes and power the factories. Labor unions see themselves as serving the interests of hard-working people who may not always get a fair deal from their employers. The difficulty comes in getting the outside world, the political world, to agree that these justifications are sufficient grounds to deliver pork. To get their way in the political arena, the Bootleggers must move beyond claims that their group is especially deserving and make an appeal to commonly held norms of what is right.
Organization leaders can’t simply walk into a senator’s office, unarmed with broad public interest justification for their particular pursuit, and expect a positive response. Bootleggers must appeal to a common value to which the public will respond. Put another way, the Bootleggers have to help the politician prepare a good explanation for assisting them. When pursuing ethanol subsidies, for instance, the Bootlegger corn producers made an environmental appeal. When opposing free-trade agreements that would allow more low-cost Asian goods to enter U.S. commerce, U.S. producers and labor unions may invoke the immoral foreign use of child labor.
As the philosopher David Hume (2000, 266) said most famously in his magnum opus, A Treatise of Human Nature , “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Translated into our narrative (and southern vernacular), he might well have said, “Any Bootlegger worth his salt better make a Baptist appeal if he hopes to bring home the bacon.” We all fancy ourselves sterling examples of reason and common sense. Yet more is going on in our heads than what our conscious minds report. Lurking behind the rational mind is an unconscious mind laden with emotional beliefs that shape our actions. If Bootlegger organizations want to win the day on Capitol Hill, they must send the appropriate signals to the treacherous domain of the passions.
All this may sound a bit deep and curious, but if we stay with it, we face another question: How exactly do special interest groups know what passions to appeal to? Why not patriotism? Buy American? Why not saving downtown from price-cutting big-box stores? What about keeping the wheels of American industry turning? After all, lots of gods, idols, and demigods might do the job. The answer to these questions is important in guiding our narrative of what constitutes the winning Bootlegger/Baptist coalition. We ask the reader to indulge us as we digress into an exploration of several areas of the academic literature, starting with a look at Adam Smith and experimental economics. When we reach the destination, the patient reader will understand why we took the trip.
Adam Smith and the “Impartial Spectator”
The great Scottish philosopher Adam Smith ([1759] 1982) offered in his “other” great book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, a compelling thought experiment to
Morality, Trust, and Swapping Favors
All special interest groups are mutual admiration societies. They are formed by self-selection. Those who join agree with the group’s purpose, and members tend to like each other. More to the point, special interest groups believe so strongly in their cause that they find it odd that further justification may be needed for the political support they seek. Downtown merchants associations see themselves as forming the economic backbone of downtown, something every citizen should welcome. Isn’t that enough to justify a tax break when big-box retailers threaten? Engineering societies believe their members are making the world a safer and more humane place. Petroleum trade associations express deep belief in the broader purpose they serve: providing safe, low-cost energy to light the nation’s homes and power the factories. Labor unions see themselves as serving the interests of hard-working people who may not always get a fair deal from their employers. The difficulty comes in getting the outside world, the political world, to agree that these justifications are sufficient grounds to deliver pork. To get their way in the political arena, the Bootleggers must move beyond claims that their group is especially deserving and make an appeal to commonly held norms of what is right.
Organization leaders can’t simply walk into a senator’s office, unarmed with broad public interest justification for their particular pursuit, and expect a positive response. Bootleggers must appeal to a common value to which the public will respond. Put another way, the Bootleggers have to help the politician prepare a good explanation for assisting them. When pursuing ethanol subsidies, for instance, the Bootlegger corn producers made an environmental appeal. When opposing free-trade agreements that would allow more low-cost Asian goods to enter U.S. commerce, U.S. producers and labor unions may invoke the immoral foreign use of child labor.
As the philosopher David Hume (2000, 266) said most famously in his magnum opus, A Treatise of Human Nature , “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Translated into our narrative (and southern vernacular), he might well have said, “Any Bootlegger worth his salt better make a Baptist appeal if he hopes to bring home the bacon.” We all fancy ourselves sterling examples of reason and common sense. Yet more is going on in our heads than what our conscious minds report. Lurking behind the rational mind is an unconscious mind laden with emotional beliefs that shape our actions. If Bootlegger organizations want to win the day on Capitol Hill, they must send the appropriate signals to the treacherous domain of the passions.
All this may sound a bit deep and curious, but if we stay with it, we face another question: How exactly do special interest groups know what passions to appeal to? Why not patriotism? Buy American? Why not saving downtown from price-cutting big-box stores? What about keeping the wheels of American industry turning? After all, lots of gods, idols, and demigods might do the job. The answer to these questions is important in guiding our narrative of what constitutes the winning Bootlegger/Baptist coalition. We ask the reader to indulge us as we digress into an exploration of several areas of the academic literature, starting with a look at Adam Smith and experimental economics. When we reach the destination, the patient reader will understand why we took the trip.
Adam Smith and the “Impartial Spectator”
The great Scottish philosopher Adam Smith ([1759] 1982) offered in his “other” great book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, a compelling thought experiment to
Similar Books
