Posted by
Andrews on Monday, March 22, 2010 8:07:56 AM
It seems lately I have been finding many analogies for our political problems in non-political fields. Recently it was in religion ("
Analogies
For Political Consistency") and in the way we view historical sources ("
How
Liberals Distort History"), and now, it is in advertisement from personal injury lawyers.
The advertisement in question is hardly an original one, I can recall seeing the same idea being promoted by half a dozen firms in the past few years. And, as I live in Maryland, home of the highest number of lawyers per capita in the US, that is meaningful, as we are awash in personal injury lawyers, and they often predict the direction the rest of the nation will take. Yes, certain plaintiff-friendly districts in Texas and Minnesota, as well as a couple of others are where new legal theories tend to get tried out first, but with our surfeit of lawyers, we often see the cutting edge in advertising and in the quest for new profitable legal theories. After all, local lawyers were in the forefront of asbestos and tobacco cases, a local law professor has been trying for a long while to break into fast food liability, and our state was one of the first to file a state suit against tobacco, as well as one of the first to farm out work to local private firms for a percentage of the take (as well as the first to try to renege on the deal when the settlement was ten times or more than expected).
That advertisement is the claim that "no malpractice claim is frivolous when it is yours." Clearly, this is an attempt to recast the debate over tort reform, as well as to give those who generally support tort reform an excuse should they find they need to sue. However, in its form, this statement is clearly nonsense. Every lawsuit is "someone's" and, just as clearly, some are frivolous. So, while someone must believe every suit has some purpose, that does not mean they have legal validity, nor does it mean personal importance translates into legal significance. I am sure the people who tried to sue George Bush over 9/11 and his role in blowing up the World Trade Center took their suit seriously as well, but that does not make the lawsuit legally or factually valid. Many people place importance on things they should not.
But this advertisement actually points out a disturbing recent political tendency, and one which is horribly effective. That is the tendency to say "well, yes, this is a violation of the principles of good government, or an expansion of government beyond legal limits, but it serves your self interest, so you should support it." That is basically the claim of these lawyers, and it often seems to be the claim of those trying to expand government powers through the handing out of new entitlements.
What makes it disturbing is not the claim, it is an obvious approach for politicians to take, appeals to self interest are always the best first approach. What is disturbing is how many of our fellow citizens, even those who claim to be strong supporters of the principle of small, limited government, are willing to accept that they can make an exception if a bill might help them.
Oh, they won't word it that way, they will find a villain such as greedy hospitals, evil insurance companies, oil speculators, big corporations, and so on ("
He's
Bad So He Must Be Wrong"), or they will find a "crisis" which demands action, but in the end, it is self-interest motivating them to violate their principles. And it is troubling how many supposed conservatives are more than happy to violate their every principle in order to cash in on government generosity.
POSTSCRIPT
Obviously, this is a topic about which I have written many times. You can read my earlier thoughts in "
The
Difficulty of Principle", "
Don't
Blame the Politicians", "
What
We Deserve", "
Who
Is To Blame?", "
What
is Wrong with Us", "
The
Single Greatest Weakness", "
Why
We Lose" and "
The
Presumption of Dishonesty".