ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
Bryan,
Perhaps you should distinguish between winning power and holding power. A politician can succeed in winning power by promising irrational policies (Obama is just the latest example). It is much harder to succeed in holding power by implementing irrational policies--you can do it as, for example, Mao did it in China (the only measure of success in holding power is to die of natural causes while still in power--if you have any doubts about this point, talk to Gordon).
To illustrate my point of how difficult is to hold power by implementing irrational policies, I suggest that you look at the experience of Argentina since Peron was first elected president (february 1946). There have been presidents that won the position just by default (they were "elected" or "appointed" because any of the strong man could not defeat the other strong men) and others that succeeded to win power promising irrational policies (Alfonsin, Menem, the Kirchners) but had a hard time holding power. Read this application of some of Mancur Olson's ideas to the current situation of Ms. Kirchner (published today in La Nacion)
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1157009&pid=6991666&toi=6261
If you want to understand Obama's political strategizing, you need to read Rules for Radicals.
I'd agree - with one change:
Successful politicians - totalitarian, authoritarian, or democratic - can be wrong about the effects of policies as long as they are right about how to win and hold power.
Stalin did the right thing to stay in power. It doesn't mean he was rational.
Fidel Castro held power for a long, long time. I think he should be at the top of the list for studying how to hold power.
Totalitarian Political Entrepreneurs (TPEs) belong to that class of men of whom Aristotle wrote:
"... are so godlike, so exceptional, that they naturally, by right of their extraordinary gifts, transcend all moral judgment or constitutional control. There is no law which embraces men of that caliber: they are themselves law."
Heroes (and villains) are constantly in demand. TPEs who win and hold power are those who remain skilled at supplying both.