Tag Archives: political economists

Restoring Our Right to Govern

Posted on by
Reply

PART TWO

Dangerous political propaganda, aimed at destroying our governing structure, is subverting the consent of the People — our right to govern. This destructive marketing of political thought is based on a twisted interpretation of Public Choice Theory (PCT).

In PART ONE I asked, did “they” use our individual choices to manipulate our political decisions? You know they did, and do, and will continue to do so until we recognize and resist their manipulative tactics. (Read & review PART ONE, if you have not already.)

What Is Happening?

Once a Convention of States convenes, “representatives” set the rules. They decide what changes will be made. Source: Business Insider JUST 15 states to go!!!!

We all are playing a role in demolishing our republican structure of governing. But that means, if we can see our role, we can resist being part of the destruction. We can overcome what looks to be the imminent ruin of our republic. It requires enough people willing to take some simple actions to stop the march towards a Constitutional Convention (Article V Convention).

First, people must understand PCT’s role in sabotaging and overthrowing the will of the nation.

Those wishing to control us and our nation have applied Public Choice Theory (PCT) within the political marketplace to sell distrust and division rather than our unifying national ideals. Use of PCT taps into self-serving desires and emotions rather than commonsense consensus on solving our common problems. By keeping us divided, its use is torpedoing our right to govern through consent.

“… our reality is that economic theory fostered a political strategy to supplant our constitutional republic with ‘a private governing elite of corporate power.’”

Corporatists, globalists, oligarchies, robber barons, despots, totalitarians, authoritarians, white Christian nationalists, fascists — the label doesn’t matter. They are enemies of the United States when they choose to control the governing of our republic. Governing is “reserved to the people” (The Federalist No.1).

“To the People” never meant “a faction of the people”—one group over another. That is a truth — a guiding principle of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Why Weaponize PCT?

Achieving a Convention of States, as the mechanism for changing the Constitution, is a mammoth undertaking requiring that voters in two-thirds of the states give control of state legislatures to pro-Convention of States’ candidates. Then, in order to pass changes to the Constitution, those changes would require ratification by three-fourths of the state’s legislatures.

They argue, but have they explained that view? Are they being transparent about the changes they believe will save the republic? And, do those changes make sense in light of the exceptional reasoning the Founding Fathers used?

Changing the Constitution in this manner requires a massive number of voters to cast votes ensuring domination by pro-Convention of States’ lawmakers. But candidates aren’t openly running on the proposal. And voters don’t have it as a priority issue. Therefore, those wanting to change our constitution to fit their agenda need to entice voters using other reasons to vote for “their” guy or gal.

Now, think about how enemies of the republic might use the principles of PCT to analyze us and tap into what motivates us to buy what they are selling — an anti-government sentiment in a government designed for self-governance. It’s a twisted plot.

This was a primary race between two Republicans in North Idaho. Emotional propaganda? Precisely targeted messaging? It worked as planned.

And once our right to have a voice in the lawmaking process is further controlled or eliminated by changes to rules, laws, or the Constitution, we’ll have no chance at true representation. That’s the end of our democratic republic. So …

Here’s What’s Crucial To Understand

Three elements are essential to establishing any massive political movement of this magnitude (whether it is productive such as the American Revolution, or destructive like the Nazi regime):

  1. weaken prevailing beliefs,
  2. undermine established institutions, and
  3. discredit those in power.

Once that preliminary work is done, people with differing priority issues (the economy, education, guns, religion, health care, immigration, abortion) need consolidating into one overwhelmingly powerful party. It’s being done using insight from PCT research to tap into what motivates the single-issue voters.

“Single issue voters do not need a deep understanding of every issue nor do they need to know where a candidate stands on every issue. … In general, single-issue voting gives more power to political parties.” [But] “the power to shape the government should belong to the people and not political parties.” ThoughtCo

Targeting and Using Voters

In PART ONE, I wrote “it’s PCT —not CRT (Critical Race Theory)—being used” in destroying our republic. Here’s why I said that and why I chose CRT to use as an example.

CRT was a theory unknown to most people. That made it easy to shape into a concept made-out to be divisive in nature. In that manner, it was aimed at our national belief in unity. So rightly so, it triggered patriotic passions. That passion, in the form of anger and distrust, was aimed directly at public education institutions and discredited all those seen as holding power in those institutions.

What do you call these actions? Manipulation, FOR SURE! But what else? Thought control? Triggering? Gaslighting?

Without direct knowledge of the (CRT) theory, the public was vulnerable to destructive political propaganda.

The words on the image are a quote from YouTube captioning (not added by me).Image taken from an April 5, 2022 Livestream presentation by Christopher Rufo at Hillsdale College, Michigan, titled, “Laying Siege to the Institutions.”

Those weaponizing CRT did so by controlling the narrative, the propaganda —our ability to have reasonable conversations. They weaponized PCT (Public Choice Theory) in a similar manner — only worse.

Unlike the massive media coverage and open debate over CRT, there’s little talk about PCT outside the circle of “political economists.” And there is little talk about changing the Constitution. That tactic leaves us all vulnerable to targeted propaganda and is sure to end our right to govern if we don’t counter it.

“Although public choice economists have focused mostly on analyzing government failure, they also have suggested ways to correct problems.” Public Choice Theory by Jane S. Shaw

As a research theory, PCT (like CRT) has a legitimate use. But its abuse in the political marketplace — in precisely targeting our voting behavior — is the danger to the republic most in need of addressing immediately.

Here’s Some Simple Actions You Can Take Right Now

We restore our right to govern ourselves by recognizing and resisting the influence Public Choice Theory has over us in the political marketplace.

Judge groups and people by their actions.

Watch your language for divisive words. Listen carefully to words others are using, especially when you find them troubling, confusing, or triggering some other emotion. Question whether or not you and others are being manipulated.

Confront lies. Don’t let them stand as truths when you are certain that what you are really seeing or hearing is destructive propaganda. Correct lies immediately as ” false … fake … untrue … incorrect … dishonest … wrong.” Stand firmly on the truth without arguing.

Decide what you will and can do.

  • Choose an issue or cause that will help on the local, state, or national fronts.
  • Determine how much time you can give, stay devoted to that commitment, and do it with a determination to not give up.
  • Research organizations that are already actively addressing your chosen pursuits, in a way that makes sense to you, and consider joining them. Make sure they are legitimate.

Know a candidate’s position on changing the Constitution.

Vote in every election! Do your best to inform yourself. Then go vote! If you find you don’t have enough information on some contests, it’s okay to leave them blank.

Everyday — try. In everything you read or hear, try to sort out the truth for yourself.

“In politics, being deceived is no excuse.” Leszek Kolakowski

Public Choice Theory: Unleashed

Posted on by
Reply

PART ONE

“Public choice [theory] should be understood as a research program rather than a discipline or even subdiscipline of economics.”* 2003

Those words are from a Hillsdale College speech by Nobel Prize winning economist, James M. Buchanan, in explaining “Public Choice Theory” (PCT). But his advice was too little, too late. PCT —a research theory— had already been weaponized and unleashed on the public.

While using PCT to manipulate the public, what started as a stealth attack aimed at the heart of American democracy is now a full-fledged, outright war against the People’s right to govern. “Winning” requires the crippling of public institutions essential to ensuring educated and informed voters. Therefore, with public education being imperative to educating the masses, the masses now need to understand how PCT —not CRT (Critical Race Theory)— is the weapon being used to destroy public education and the core of our republic.

Understanding is crucial to being able to repair the damage.

From the screaming matches at local school board meetings to the halls of Congress, the PCT strategy of tapping into passions—using people’s desires, fear, anger, and frustration as bait—is focused at American “Rule of Law.”

“Their” Problem Created A Problem for Us

As political economists have long viewed it, the problem is; how can democracy (majority rule) provide justice for all (not discriminate against minorities) and “yield net benefits”* to taxpayers?

That is the mixing of political theory and economic (market) theory that defines the group of scholars called political economists. But the problem for regular Americans is that we don’t think in their terms, or live our lives based on their theories. Unfortunately, it’s their theories applied to our rules of governing that is destroying the foundation of our country.

Our problem is we are feeling the negative effects of the “Us versus Them” War without being able to see who “they” are or understand how “they” are using us.

Here’s how I came to that conclusion — by looking more closely at PCT.

The Foundation of PCT

Buchanan explained the basis of PCT in reference to two levels of collective decision-making.

Ordinary politics is how decisions are made by legislative bodies.

Constitutional politics sets the rules for ordinary politics to function under.*

Reasonable enough?

We all have an opportunity to try and influence ordinary politics —vote, go to hearings, testify to lawmakers, work with organizations to influence the lawmaking process, etc. But it is within the rule-making process —of constitutional politics—where most Americans cannot remain vigilant enough to guard against those wishing to subvert the “consent of the governed.”

“From the perspective of both justice and efficiency, majority rule may safely be allowed to operate in the realm of ordinary politics, provided that there is generalized consensus on the constitution, or on the rules that define and limit what can be done through ordinary politics.” *

Hum…generalized consensus on constitutional politics? That is exactly what “we” have lost control over. “They” —those with enough money to play the political game they created— have ALMOST total control in a majority of states. Hold that thought.

John W. Gardner (R)(1912-2002). This picture probably was taken during his time working in the Kennedy administration. The price has only gone up since then.

Buchanan, and others, may have honestly wanted to contribute to solving the problem of maintaining stability, justice, and efficiency in government. But instead, PCT’s application —a research theory’s application— in the United States fostered distrust and dysfunction. It may lead to total destruction of our republic if we don’t stop its aim at the Constitution.

Our defense starts with understanding.

Precursor to Public Choice Theory (PCT)

Buchanan drew from the work of Swedish economist Knut Wicksell. Back in the 1800’s, Wicksell assumed majority rule produces discrimination against the minority along with government inefficiencies. He concluded collective actions require unanimity. However, knowing unanimous consent on all issues is impractical, qualified or supermajority votes seemed a logical solution.

There’s logic underlying the idea of a supermajority requirement in constitutional politics. But the problem now appears to be where that logic is applied and where it isn’t. For example, some states require supermajority votes for needed school building bonds. Yet, when determining life-long seats on the Supreme Court (a constitutional political action), the Senate supermajority rule has flip-flopped without so much as a thought to our general consent.

But back to the PCT story. Wicksell’s conclusions led Buchanan, with Gordon Tullock, to write The Calculus of Consent. On Amazon, some excerpts from the book’s description explain major points.

“… The authors acknowledge their unease as economists in analyzing the political organization, but they take the risk of forging into unfamiliar territory because they believe the benefits of their perspective will bear much fruit.”

“… We examine the [choice] process extensively only with reference to the problem of decision-making rules.’”

In other words, they looked through their economic lenses as to how individuals make marketplace purchasing decisions and used those observations in analyzing public decision-making —such as voting.

When all of us are seen as “self-interested players in the marketplace,” ** we are vulnerable to division. Competition for public services runs the high risk of destroying community values. The Fierce Urgency of Now

Now consider this, did “they” then use our individual purchasing habits to manipulate our political decisions?

And the rest of the story…

The Birth of the Public Choice Movement

Buchanan and Tullock’s book was so well received they organized a conference of scholars “that were engaged in research outside the boundaries of their disciplines.”* Then they formed the “Committee on Non-Market Decision-Making” (technically what PCT is) but soon changed it to a catchier name —“Public Choice Society.” Thus, they unleashed “the idea of the profit motive from the economic sphere to the sphere of collective action”* —politics.

I see this as taking the profit motive from the marketplace to the voting booth; it’s treating the public’s voting decisions as a commodity to capture —that pays dividends.

After a half century of studying the impacts and effects of his research program, Buchanan concluded this:

“both the punditry and the public are more critical of politics and politicians, more cynical about the motivations of political action…”*

But after a half century of this theory’s application to the politics of our country, where’s that leave regular Americans?

Where I live, distrust in government turned into distrust and disrespect of local school board members as well as neighbors of differing political persuasions. Ordinary people want the insanity to stop.

PCT —not CRT— has undermined trust in our foundational public institutions. Its twisted misuse violated the sanctity of representative government. PCT —not CRT— weaken the glue of unity in America, the Constitutional Rule of Law.

The weaponizing of Public Choice Theory is divisive.

We have to unite to take back our right to govern.

How? PART TWO

#####

* FROM THE WORDS OF JAMES M. BUCHANAN ⇒ “What Is Public Choice Theory?”, Imprimis, Vol.32 No. 3, March 2003, Hillsdale College, MI

** FROM A LIBERTARIAN POINT OF VIEW ⇒ Daniel J. “Dan” Mitchell, former senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “A Taxpayer-Funded Smear Job of Professor James Buchanan”