Metareviewing, or Why Does Bryan Caplan Hate the Constitution?

Daniel Casse, reviewing Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter (interview with co-blogger Trent McBride here) for the Wall Street Journal, concludes with this:

The deeper problem with Mr. Caplan's thesis, however, is its lack of any reference to the special character of American democracy. For him, democracy fails because it doesn't produce the most economically efficient results. He would prefer to see independent experts shape policy or to put more power into the hands of the unelected solons on the Supreme Court.

Such a strategy might be more efficient, but then again, American democracy has never been about efficiency. Hamilton and Madison (conspicuously absent in "The Myth of the Rational Voter") consciously set out to create an inefficient system that let one faction counter the other.

This analysis is deeply confused. First, it's based on equivocation. The Constitution was not designed to produce economically inefficient laws, as is implied here in the contrast Casse attempts to draw between the economic efficiency Caplan advocates and the inefficiency designed into the Constitution. Rather, it was designed to make the process of introducing new legislation inefficient, expressly for the purpose of preventing a proliferation of new laws. Caplan's recommendations aren't at odds with this feature of the Constitution--they're explicitly designed to make the process of introducing new legislation even more inefficient.

To give an example, Caplan proposes a Council of Economic Advisers who would have the ability to strike down laws deemed uneconomical. Such a council would be able to shape policy, but only in the sense that a sculptor can shape rock: by chiseling away, never by adding. One might even say that Caplan consciously set out to create an inefficient system that let one faction counter another.

Another of Caplan's suggestions is to give an extra vote to college graduates, who tend to be better informed economically than the population at large. On this point, Casse may be right about Caplan's proposals running contrary to the spirit in which our nation was conceived. After all, if the Founding Fathers had intended to depart from the one-man-one-vote principle, they probably would have restricted the franchise to property owners or something absurd like that.

Share this

Such a strategy might be

Such a strategy might be more efficient, but then again, American democracy has never been about efficiency. Hamilton and Madison (conspicuously absent in "The Myth of the Rational Voter") consciously set out to create an inefficient system that let one faction counter the other.
Typical leftist view of society as a struggle between groups trying to steal rights from each other, and a just society as a balance of this struggle. They view society as fundamentally based on violence and theft and their politic mirror that view.

A practical question springs to mind...

To give an example, Caplan proposes a Council of Economic Advisers who
would have the ability to strike down laws deemed uneconomical
.

Why would legislators ever agree to cut their own nuts off?