Are Voters Irrational: An Interview With Economist Bryan Caplan

Promoted by John. Great Interview. Thank you!...a liberal interviewing a libertarian about a great book. Too bad it wasn't longer!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as The Peace Tree , the Independent Bloggers Alliance and Worldwide Sawdust .

People across the political spectrum routinely question the senses, intelligence and values of their fellow voters. A decade ago conservatives chafed, as President Bill Clinton remained popular in spite of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In recent years liberals like myself seethed while Republicans maintained one-party dominance in spite of their incompetence and criminal policies. They're also citizens who challenge the wisdom of any voter who supports the two-party duopoly.

Bryan Caplan , an economist at George Mason University and co-editor of EconLog challenges the rationality of voters with his book, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies (Princeton University Press ).

Caplan, a libertarian, contends that democracies fail because of voters themselves rather than favorite scapegoats such as special interests. He argues that voters are regulated by four irrational prejudices:

1.  Too little faith in the free market;

2.  A distrust of foreigners;

3.  Undervaluing the conservation of labor;

4.  Unjustified pessimism that the economy is going from bad to worse.

Referencing those four biases are a reoccurring theme of Caplan's book that skillfully mixes economics, political science, and psychology to analyze how voters think and the public policies that result from what they want. Overall his book is compelling and provocative. On July 30th, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times referred to Caplan's book as "the best political book this year."

I concur with Caplan that for too many voters ideology is analogous to religious faith and evidence doesn't penetrate their entrenched worldviews. However, as a liberal I disagree with Caplan's equating skepticism about the free market or free trade agreements with irrationality.

In my opinion the free market isn't appropriate for all sectors of the economy such as healthcare or education and free trade has too many imbalances that require attention. Furthermore, I believe too many conservative/libertarian economists ignore the hidden economy that isn't measured by the Gross Domestic Product or quarterly statements. Caplan of course disagrees and I suppose by his definition I'm one of those irrational voters.

Each of us can become imprisoned by our own belief systems and it's healthy to challenge our perspectives. Caplan graciously agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about his controversial book. Our conversation was approximately forty minutes. Please refer to the media player below. This interview can also be accessed via the Itunes store by searching for "Intrepid Liberal Journal."

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

excellent interview! thank you.

I'm happy that you were able to get time to interview Caplan from a liberal perspective. I thought Caplan was very excellent and very gracious. I hope you think better of us libertarians after your chat with Caplan.

having read the book myself and followed a few interviews of Caplan about all this, I must say that he is a bit tongue and cheek with some of his proposals for improving irrationality.

Obviously, improving economic education is quite serious. Other ideas are more thinking out load and being semi-serious at best.

Personally, I think there could be some amendment to add to the Bill of Rights to fend off bad ideas before they happen....basically a "Talk to the Hand" smack down that has protected many of our rights in the Bill of Rights from the coercion of the well-intended yet totally flawed ideas of others. Thank Goodness for the Bill of Rights. I shutter to think what harm democratic oppression would have done to those rights by now. I think people should really consider that perspective a little more often. So many rights that we take for granted would surly have been compromised or eradicated by now by the democratic process. I think some fleshing out of an economic freedom could fit in there to stop harmful policies and lobbying before they start.

…………

Thanks For the Frontpage ...

appreciate it. Although there is much with the book I disagree with I found it compelling and do like it when someone tries to shake things up. It's worth reading.

………… parent

No Problem, Intrepid L

I take a great interest in the book and naturally am very enthusiastic to expand on any attention given to it.

I there is something in Caplan's responses that you should pay extra attention to in the future. Often when you asked questions, I noticed that you were seeing a lot more in his biases than he did (or I do). As I listened to your questions at times, I was getting a bit overloaded at how disparate and loosely connected the ideas were that you were putting under the banner of one idea and one question. Caplan, being incredibly sharp, was able to assimilate all of it and separate all of it as he listened and then address each part on its own piece by piece. His would often say something like "well, there's several questions there" or something to the affect that you were asking questions in a much broader context than Caplan's point needed to be in. He then addressed the root question and showed how the extra stuff was not exactly touching on the major point and how they needed to viewed along side the root question. Very sharp.

The anti-market bias, for example, is just what he said:

a tendency to underestimate the benefits of the market mechanism (exactly from the book)

That bias is absolutely real and I feel Caplan's definition is expressed in a way that is without reproach when taken for what Caplan means and not some subtle variation.

As Caplan points out, values aside, even liberal economists appreciate this far more than the general public. He gives the example of using government based incentives to provoke market solutions in pollution control with a carbon tax or tradeable emissions as being far more effective than some clunky and expensive fix involving fuel standards...not to mention that may not may work well in practice since the proper market incentives are not being tapped. In this example, driving is made cheaper so people may just drive more. The idea is to make pollution more expensive and let the market react in a way that only markets can to take us to a better overall result.

………… parent

Fair Point ...

it wans't my best interview. Perhaps my questions reflected my own bias. Typically I try to pose devil's advovocate questions of any subject, left or right to facilitate more revealing answers.

………… parent

Nicely done, IL

good job interviewing Caplan (well, up until when you called him "Bryan Clark" at the end!  :-)  Enjoyed listening to it-- Caplan is a very bright and thoughtful individual and gives a good interview.

…………

Yeah ...

that was emarassing when I screwed up at the end. A dyslexic moment and thankfully he was a good sport about. I had recently interviewed Gregory Clark about his book A Farewell To Alms. Clark had Caplan had been debating on EconLog by coincidence so the name "Clark" was on the lobes of my brain.

………… parent

Of course voters are irrational

Smart politicians count on it.

It is the economy, stupid.

…………

I'd say that

the voters aren't necessarily irrational, although some of them are, but have been manipulated.

…………

How so?

………… parent