« His fault | Main | Bhagwati on Trade» Don Boudreaux
November 10, 2007
Remove the Stench
Don Boudreaux
Senator Charles Schumer broke ranks with his fellow Democrats and voted to confirm Judge Michael Mukasey as U.S. Attorney General. In doing so, Sen. Schumer remarked that, as Attorney General, "Judge Mukasey would do much to remove the stench of politics from the Justice Department." Similarly, Sen. Schumer lamented in a New York Times op-ed -- an op-ed in which the Senator explained his reasons for supporting Mr. Mukasey -- that at the DoJ "politics has been allowed to infect decision-making."
I'm pretty sure that Mr. Mukasey will not de-politicize the Justice Department. I do not criticize Mr. Mukasey; rather, I point out the obvious: the Justice Department, being part of a political branch of government, is inherently political. Trying to remove politics from the U.S. Department of Justice would be like trying to remove the bottom ten floors from the Empire State Building: it cannot practically be done. And even if done in theory, such a change would alter fundamentally the thing itself -- and such a fundamental change will not be tolerated.
More interesting to me is the implication of Sen. Schumer's smack-on correct admission that politics stink -- that politics is an infection (and, presumably, one that is dangerous). Given the Senator's clear-eyed understanding of the nature of politics, why does he not go further and call for removing the stench of politics from all of Americans' lives? Why not get government out of the business of restricting trade - of interfering in labor-market contracts - of subsidizing farmers and exporters and small businesses - of determining and enforcing educational 'standards' - of regulating the size of our toilet tanks - of [fill in the blank]?
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e54f7f6fbf8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Remove the Stench:
Comments
I don't want to remove politics from government agencies, I just want the majority of those agencies and politicians to be local and not national/international. The massive growth of taxation-funded national government has fed the expansion of centralized, non-elected bureaucracy in DC, Quebec, Brussels, etc.
"Removing politics from ---- department" means what exactly? Lower the noise inside the organization generated by political maneuvering? Eliminating the placement and promotion in the department by political criteria? My fear is that in order to "clear up politicization" the first instinct would be to create a new 'Department of Political Cleanliness.'
Posted by: The other Eric | Nov 10, 2007 3:41:54 PM
Department of Political Cleanliness? Hmm, interesting. We should add it to our list.
Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Nov 10, 2007 4:23:45 PM
" Why not get government out of the business of restricting trade - of interfering in labor-market contracts - of subsidizing farmers and exporters and small businesses...."
Because the people in those industries in general like politics. They are getting very rich from their relations with politicians. Until you get publicly funded elections, outlaw lobbyist, seriously enforce infractions on politicians for conflict of interest and "open up the government" making almost every political meeting and document open to the public we will never get the stink out of politics.
That's my solution and I hear libertarians repeating over and over to get the government "under control" but never are they able to offer a suggestion on how that is to happen.
Also, most Americans want clean government but most don't want the deregulated markets you favor. So again how do you get to you desired end? Seems a Quixotic endeavor for the libertarian with no solution except an end to democratic rule.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 10, 2007 4:31:30 PM
There are plenty of suggestions that classical liberals offer -- cut spending (reduce the list from the link above), legislate (and only when needed) at the lowest level of government possible, and minimize the ability of the majority to take the liberties of evryone.
There's plenty we suggest but you are just too pigheaded to realize that they are suggestions. Or, you're just goading us into replying to you after you've convienently forgotten that these are rehashed discussions that you have ducked out of or have previously lost.
Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Nov 10, 2007 5:01:55 PM
even negative attention is attention.
Posted by: shawn | Nov 10, 2007 5:16:58 PM
Quote of the day. ;-)
"Trying to remove politics from the U.S. Department of Justice would be like trying to remove the bottom ten floors from the Empire State Building: it cannot practically be done."
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl | Nov 10, 2007 6:38:28 PM
Can we maybe ignore muirgeo's inanity Just Once?
Posted by: Russ Nelson | Nov 11, 2007 1:30:11 AM
:P
Posted by: Gil | Nov 11, 2007 6:20:27 AM
Russ you can ignore me but the fact is I have far more Americans on my side then you do on yours. Very few Americans think a libertarian economy or society will work....actually they've seen it's failings these last 25 post Reagan years.....they ain't happy. I'm no radical....the people running the Republican party are indeed very radical.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 11, 2007 10:04:10 AM
This should be easy. All that is needed are politicians that are wise and who care more for the general good than their own personal benefit, or at least equate the two. And of course we also need wise and educated voters to elect the wise and selfless politicians. And, oh yes, we would need a large pool of wise and competent individuals for the wise politicians to appoint to bureaucratic posts.
I think that would be a sufficient pre-condition to bring about the sort of freedom, prosperity and human happiness that we all want.
So what are we waiting for?
Posted by: Flash Gordon | Nov 11, 2007 10:08:28 AM
Muirego, the problem with the socialist paradise you desire is that it would be what it has always been everywhere it has been in place, namely rule by a criminal gang.
It's odd that you think the past 25 years have been a failure, given the economic growth that has taken place in that time period.
Posted by: Flash Gordon | Nov 11, 2007 10:16:27 AM
Muirgeo:
...equally odd that you would equate what currently exists ("these last 25 post reagan years") with a "libertarian economy or society". I assume you must know the difference.
Posted by: shawn | Nov 11, 2007 3:54:47 PM
Professor Boudreaux suggests getting government out of law enforcement, claiming that law enforcement is inherently political.
There is no rule of law, only rule of party.
Posted by: T L Holaday | Nov 11, 2007 7:43:43 PM
Professor Boudreaux suggests getting government out of law enforcement, claiming that law enforcement is inherently political.
I am pretty sure that if he wanted and if you were willing to give him some time (as long as you could focus), Don Boudreaux could probably make a strong case for an alternative to our current judiciary.
But to state that Don "suggests getting government out of law enforcement..." is an entire misread of his post. In fact, Don writes the following:
Trying to remove politics from the U.S. Department of Justice would be like trying to remove the bottom ten floors from the Empire State Building: it cannot practically be done. And even if done in theory, such a change would alter fundamentally the thing itself -- and such a fundamental change will not be tolerated.
Go back and check that out and see if you come to the same conclusion!
Posted by: lowcountryjoe | Nov 11, 2007 9:33:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
