Let me ask you a question. Let us suppose you went to a chiropractor, and he told you he could help cure your back pain by adjusting your spine. You would think that was reasonable, as it makes sense, the two seeming quite related. Now, let us say he claimed he could cure your headaches as well. That may be possible. Or he could help you cure insomnia? A bit farther afield, but maybe possible. But what if he said he could cure your diabetes? Or cancer? A few ardent fans of chiropractic care might accept it, but most of us would be dubious. Now, suppose he said he could solve your tax problems? Your marital difficulties? Make your car run better? At that point, almost everyone would think it was absurd. (I say almost, as some equally far fetched claims have been advanced for systems such as Dianetics, and people have accepted them, so I do not doubt there are overly credulous individuals in the world.)

Now, let us go even farther. Let us suppose you have been seeing a chiropractor, and he has helped your back a lot, so you are kindly disposed toward him. You complain of back pain, headaches, insomnia, and you also mention your business is having financial problems. He offers to fix all of them. You chuckle and think he is joking, but seeing he is serious, you agree to let him try, figuring it can't do any harm,. You humor him and let him give you a "business repair" spinal adjustment, along with ones to fix headaches, back pain and insomnia.

After a few treatments, as expected, your back feels better. And, though not completely gone, your headaches have improved as well, which has also let you get a little more sleep. And so the chiropractor claims success in all his attempts. Except, sadly, your business, which is still failing.

But, he claims, it is not his treatment that failed. You simply did not undergo enough adjustments. He did the right thing, he just was limited to too little time. Had he been allowed to do more work on your spine, your business would be fine.

Since he seems to be helping your back, and even your headaches, you give in and let him try again. And, coincidentally, your business sees a small improvement. And, as you can't explain it any other way, you are willing to credit it to his intervention. So much so that the enxt time business goes bad, you rush back to him. And., when he fails to fix your business, you decide it is because he needs more time, and you begin scheduling more and more adjustments, even as they seem to have little effect.

What I just described is the pattern of people who become obsessed with various non-rational therapies, be they chiropractic quacks (please see "Opposing a General Principle With a Single Example" and "Science and Government Intervention" for my disclaimer about legitimate and illegitimate chiropractic treatment), "alternative" psychological therapies, dubious cancer remedies, faith healers, fortune tellers or any other remedy without any proven track record. The only real exception is that in the example my subject was a bit too skeptical going in, most enter the whole business willing to believe. Still, the pattern above is a fair description, a coincidental success provides "proof" after which all the failures in the world are irrelevant, and any failures can be ascribed to either a lack of faith on the part of the believer, or too little power being given to the one providing the remedy.

What I have also described, sadly, is the approach modern Americans have toward government. We do not ask what theory supports the government's involvement in any area, we do not ask why government's solution will work, we do not ask what side effects may occur, whenever a problem arises, we turn to our government faith healers, and demand they "do something." Worse, when their solution fails, we accept their claims that they just didn't have enough money or enough power, that they had too little discretion, or even that some sort of sinister forces obstructed their plans. Even when there are clear consequences to previous remedies, problems that are undeniably the result of government meddling, or, worse, when it is obvious that government remedies not only have such consequences, but didn't work anyway, we still go back to government for the answers. Government failure is not seen as an argument against more government, but as proof that we have too little. (Cf "Recipe For Disaster", "The Endless Cycle of Intervention",  "The Cycle of Compassion")

Actually, government has it easier than most who try this approach, as those calling on government to help do not realize how much they are paying. Yes, we pay taxes, but there is no clear indication how much of our tax bill is tied to any particular action. And worse still, there is no way to see the other costs, the economic consequences of government actions, meaning we can never see the costs. So, from our perspective, it appears to be effectively free to ask for the government to help. We pay taxes anyway, we do not see them rise in response to the creation of new programs, and so we imagine that any given solution is effectively without cost.

Nor is the government as limited as others in what it can claim as success. A fortune teller or a quack has to have some sort of real, or at least perceived, success every once in a while. The government can claim almost anything as a success. As the state claims to be the author of almost everything that takes place in the nation, it can find success in any news. Prices rising? A vibrant economy! Falling? A lack of inflationary worries! Standing still? Stable economic indicators! Wages rising? Improving conditions for the working man! Falling? Declining operating costs for industries! There is almost nothing short of the end of the world that cannot be spun into good news for some sector of the economy*.

And so, thanks to the appearance of no costs and the ease with which successes can be found, the government appears to be the ultimate quack cure. Which is rather depressing, as other quacks tend to do their harm one person at a time. The government, once it has enough believers, can hurt us all at once. And, since it is so easy for the government to continue to deceive them, the odds are strongly against anyone coming to his senses anytime soon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* We can see the ease of making good news out of any event by the opposite ability, the ease with which political rivals and the news media can make bad news out of any event during an administration they dislike. If they can spin anything into a negative event, it seems obvious they could also spin them into positive news.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I have often blamed this tendency to adopt short sighted solutions without thought of consequence on political pragmatism. ("The Shortcomings of Pragmatism", "Pragmatism Revisited", "Pragmatism Revistied, Again", "The Plural of Anecdote is Not Data") And in many cases, especially for the moderates of both parties, it is. Many of our politicians are far from doctrinaire, adopting a general political "stance", but having no clear theoretical beliefs. They may be "for business" or "pro-union" or "for the poor", but they are not orthodox libertarians or protectionists or socialists, they shift their positions from moment to moment to match the polls, or even as their thoughts change. A great many of our politicians are far from systemic thinkers.

On the other hand, there are others who do hold to some doctrine, be it liberalism or socialism or protectionism, and they often use populist and pragmatic dogma as a disguise for their beliefs. Rather than be labeled a liberal or a progressive and risk political fallout, they act like the rest of the politicians, argue it is "just common sense" and push through their agenda as if it were a pragmatic move.

So, while pragmatism does cause many of these problems, it also serves as a disguise for many political doctrines which try to enact their agenda under the guise of pragmatism.

POSTSCRIPT II

I have made similar points many times in the past. These arguments can be found in "Doing Something", ""Doing Something" Revisited", "What We Deserve",  "Don't Blame the Politicians", "Who Is To Blame?", "What is Wrong with Us", "The Single Greatest Weakness", "The Difficulty of Principle", "Damn the Torpedoes!" and by following the links in those essays.