Subscribe Place Ad Buy Trib Photos Readers' Choice Contests
Jobs Homes Autos Classifieds
Trib Total Media Contact Us
ShareThis Page
Donald Boudreaux: Progressives are unrealistic | TribLIVE.com
In closing, prosecution asks jury to convict Rosfeld of murder
Featured Commentary

Donald Boudreaux: Progressives are unrealistic

Donald J. Boudreaux
Donald J. Boudreaux | Thursday, January 3, 2019 7:00 p.m
595626_web1_gtr-cmns-Boudreaux-010419

Progressives take pride in their reliance on science. They insist that society should be governed according to objectively discovered facts rather than ruled by superstitions, dogmas and baseless fears and fantasies.

I believe that progressives are correct — which is why I’m no progressive. Progressives’ agenda is inconsistent with their boast of being “reality-based.” Progressives unwittingly promote government according superstition, romantic delusions and a tremendous detachment from facts.

In the progressive mindset, each democratic society contains a subset of people who, if given power over their fellow citizens, will reliably exercise that power with superhuman magnanimity, Solomonic wisdom and near-omniscience.

Consider the example of automotive fuel-efficiency standards. Should these standards for new automobiles be raised? Progressives believe that this question can be answered through scientific analysis by government officials. But, this belief is a superstition.

Government officials have no way to predict future gasoline prices. Nor can these officials know just how automakers will achieve mandated hikes in fuel efficiency. Will automakers invent more fuel-efficient engines? Or will automakers start building their cars and trucks with lighter and, hence, more flimsy metals? Maybe automakers will simply stop making large vehicles. Bureaucrats cannot know the answers to such questions.

But, even if bureaucrats could know the answer to each such question, they can’t possibly know whether or not auto buyers will be made better off or worse off as a result of mandated higher fuel efficiency.

Progressives will protest: “Of course auto buyers are better off if their vehicles become more fuel-efficient!” Alas, this protest fails.

Higher fuel efficiency isn’t free. (If it were, every automaker would already have achieved it.) In reality, to offer more fuel-efficient vehicles, automakers must either raise the prices of their vehicles to cover the higher cost of manufacturing engines that are more fuel-efficient or reduce the weight or horsepower of their vehicles.

For some consumers, improved fuel efficiency will be worth the higher prices or the greater risks of being injured due to cars being smaller or sheathed in flimsier metal. But, other consumers will not find the improved fuel efficiency to be worth the higher sticker prices or the greater risks to life and limb of driving less-safe vehicles. These consumers will be stuck with an array of automobile choices worse than would have been available absent the mandated hike in fuel efficiency.

Contrary to progressives’ superstition, there is no one optimal level of fuel efficiency. Because automobile buyers differ from each other in their preferences for style and for risk, as well as in their incomes, there are almost as many optimal levels of fuel efficiency as there are automobile owners. Yet, progressives unscientifically ignore such differences among individuals. Progressives believe that a handful of bureaucrats are capable of doing what is literally impossible — namely, divining the optimal level of fuel efficiency for tens of millions of diverse automobile buyers.

To justify centralized control — not only of fuel- efficiency but of countless other aspects of our lives — progressives unscientifically pretend that reality is vastly simpler than it is in fact.

True “reality-based” politics — for example, classical liberalism — understands and respects reality’s colossal complexity and the enormous diversity among individuals. Unsurprisingly, such a politics deeply distrusts centralized power. It leaves as many decisions as possible to each of the many individuals on the ground and gives as little power as possible to mandarins in capital cities.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor
of economics and Getchell Chair
at George Mason University.
His column appears twice monthly.

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.