The Horns of a Dilemma

David Brooks has an op-ed in the NY Times which very nicely puts the fundamental conflict facing not just Americans but every country in deciding how to go forward. He poses it in terms of two stereotypes, a Mr. Bentham and a Mr. Hume. His conclusion may be a bit stark, but it isn't too far off the mark. And it is a tragedy of modern government:

The people on Mr. Bentham’s side believe that government can get actively involved in organizing innovation. (I’ve taken his proposals from the Waxman-Markey energy bill and the Baucus health care bill.)

The people on Mr. Hume’s side believe government should actively tilt the playing field to promote social goods and set off decentralized networks of reform, but they don’t think government knows enough to intimately organize dynamic innovation.

So let’s have the debate. But before we do, let’s understand that Mr. Bentham is going to win. The lobbyists love Bentham’s intricacies and his stacks of spending proposals, which they need in order to advance their agendas. If you want to pass anything through Congress, Bentham’s your man.

You need to read the whole article to get the full picture of Bentham vs Hume.

Ancient democracies fell because of factions. In a sense, modern lobbyists are just another version of the same rot that eats away at a democracy. In theory the citizen is the ultimate power in a democracy, but as long as lobbyists can work away in the dark and so far as legislators meet behind closed doors to do deals, democracy has been sold down the river.