One thing that always surprises me is how many politicians have families. Why? Because the government often seems to have failed to learn lessons learned very early by every parent.

For example, no matter how much you love your child, though you never want to see him hurt, or sad, or deprived of anything, sometimes you realize he has to go through those experiences, or, even more difficult, sometimes you have to inflict them upon the child yourself. For instance, you simply cannot give them everything they want, lest they end up utterly spoiled, so you have to deprive them of some of what they want. Other times you must stop them from doing something they want to do as it will bring them harm. And at times that even involves a little bit of additional suffering, as you have to swat their hand away from a hot stove.

However, though the government often seems to view us as children, and think it needs to tell us what is in our own interests, it often seems to have missed some of these basic lessons. While it is busy forcing privation upon us lest we overheat the globe or eat too many transfats, when it comes to "hot button" topics, the government behaves as an overly indulgent parent, basically letting us run our hands all over the hot stove rather than upsetting us by telling us no.

For example, take our current financial problems. A reasonable government would tell us, yes it will be uncomfortable for a time, but trying to buy our way out, especially through inflationary means, will only cause us more pain in the long run, and so we simply need to buck up, wait it out, and tough out whatever ills may come. However, the government that has no problem snatching away cigarettes, drugs, or unhealthy food, which has no problem forcing us to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets, which forces upon us endless regulations of all kinds, can't bring itself to tell us we have to endure a bit of discomfort to avoid worse future pain.

I can only think of two explanations, both of which are probably partly true and partly false.

First, many in the government likely still believe in Keynesian, or neo-Keynesian, nonsense and think the Phillips curve is genuine, that there is a direct relation between deficit spending/inflation and unemployment, and an attempt to balance the budget, suffer through deflation, or reestablish solid currency will bring about the collapse of the job market. I doubt these true believers are the politicians themselves. If politicians could understand enough mathematics to grasp economics they wouldn't have had to go to law school. More likely these atavistic voices of FDR's (misnamed) "brain trust", keeping alive a century old fallacy, are the economic advisors and other "experts" with which politicians surround themselves, as well as the bureaucratic economists of various government agencies.

Second, politicians are afraid to tell us we need to suffer as they know we ARE spoiled children, at least many of us, and we will likely vote them out if we are told the truth. You can see it time and again on these blogs and comments. Despite being the home of nominal conservatives, once you see gas prices rise, the stock market sink, or some other "crisis" loom, half or more of the supposed conservatives will be calling for regulation, confiscation, and all manner of government meddling. It seems we Americans are very fond of smaller government, so long as it remains big enough to solve all our problems for us. And politicians know it.

So I doubt we will hear any truth form politicians in the near future. Until we change our ways, accept that government can't, and shouldn't, try to do many of the things it now does, politicians will continue to promise the moon, will continue to try to cure things they can't, and in the process will adopt solutions which just make things worse, all at our insistence.

POSTSCRIPT

For those who think I underestimate the suffering involved in the government doing nothing, read the numbers on this blog. While the author does not seem to agree that doing nothing is the best solution, his numbers do suggest doing nothing would be a lot less painful than many believe.

POSTSCRIPT II

I know some may object to my depiction of lawyers as second rate intellects, but I offer it as a remedy to the belief many have that it takes great genius to become a lawyer. I did spend a year in law school, during which I started drinking at 11 AM, stayed out all night, skipped many a class (there are ways around the ABA "miss 5 and repeat" rule, especially with lecture hall classes), and still had a 3.3 GPA, so I know of what I speak. And the first year is the hardest. Of course, it is not "hard" in the sense of "academic rigor", but rather in the sense of "meaningless busy work" and "arbitrary standards", as I learned when I actually listened to my legal writing professor's notes, only to have him suggest my second draft should look more like the original, which he had rejected just a week earlier.

Still, I am sure there are many fine minds in the legal profession, but my point is there are also some very pedestrian minds, and many of those, at least those not clever enough to become wealthy ambulance chasers, go into politics. (Or in the case of John Edwards, go into politics after a lucrative run as an ambulance chaser.) I simply want to dispel the myth of the intellect required to practice law.

NOTE: When I wrote this, I forgot the link in Postscript I. I have now (01/29/2009) fixed that.