"Delusions are states of refuge. The mind, unable to comprehend realities or to deal with them, finds its ease in superstitions, beliefs and modes of irrational procedure. It is easier to believe than to think." Garet Garrett
Elections operate on a spectrum of irrationality. That’s because voters tend to cling on to absurd mushy beliefs while candidates reinforce this by peddling drivels.
In the Philippines, corruption appears to be the single most crucial issue that could determine the outcome of the next political leadership. And it’s been the primary focus of the campaign trail.
And it’s why most of the political missives I’ve seen (through email messages) have been fixated on innuendo or character assassinations (ad hominem). And it also why leading protagonists have engaged in an outlandish squabble over slogans like “I am not a thief!”
Yet common sense tells us that NONE of these leading candidates are likely to cleanse the mythological Augean stables.
We can even see this from just one aspect: Election spending.
Measured in ad spending alone the top 6 candidates have already spent an estimated “real ads spending” of 2.1 billion pesos and counting!
Unless these candidates are doing it for charity, elementary inference tells us that these are “investments” will eventually extrapolate to “investment returns” by the winning party.
With the salary of Philippine President pegged at 300,000 per year (Wikipedia). You’d wonder why so much moolah is being put to risks for the top spot (by the candidates, sponsors, friends, alliances et.al.).
But the perspective changes when one realizes that the Office of the President’s budget is at an estimated Php 4.259 billion annually.
In addition, with 1.54 trillion ($327 billion) pesos earmarked for government spending in 2010, then one would reckon that there’s simply tons of money to be made with by the winning team through “political endowment” or “privileges”- political concessions, monopoly, behest loans, subsidies, silent partnership in public-private programs, undeclared fees etc...
This is otherwise known as crony capitalism.
As Murray Rothbard describes on why political leaders needs an elite group...
"the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens. Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic interests. Therefore, the King [President] alone cannot rule; he must have a sizable group of followers who enjoy the prerequisites of rule, for example, the members of the State apparatus, such as the full-time bureaucracy or the established nobility. But this still secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority."
In short, political privileges endowed to core groups are key to the preservation of power by the political leadership. Or simply said, keeping certain interests groups happy, who will work to control or contain the majority, ensures the tenure of power by the political leadership.
Hence, election spending alone is a great indication that none of the campaign promises (on corruption) will likely be met.
Though the ideal is to vote for candidates with little spending and or with a small political baggage. But this isn’t likely to happen, because democracy is a popularity contest!
Yet for voters earnestly believing that their choice of candidates will represent “change”, regardless of such facts, I’d quote Professor Bryan Caplan’s views on why he thinks voters are irrational, ``Even when his views are completely wrong, he gets the psychological benefit of emotionally appealing political beliefs at a bargain price.”
As an old saw goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same....
Elections operate on a spectrum of irrationality. That’s because voters tend to cling on to absurd mushy beliefs while candidates reinforce this by peddling drivels.
In the Philippines, corruption appears to be the single most crucial issue that could determine the outcome of the next political leadership. And it’s been the primary focus of the campaign trail.
And it’s why most of the political missives I’ve seen (through email messages) have been fixated on innuendo or character assassinations (ad hominem). And it also why leading protagonists have engaged in an outlandish squabble over slogans like “I am not a thief!”
Yet common sense tells us that NONE of these leading candidates are likely to cleanse the mythological Augean stables.
We can even see this from just one aspect: Election spending.
Measured in ad spending alone the top 6 candidates have already spent an estimated “real ads spending” of 2.1 billion pesos and counting!
Unless these candidates are doing it for charity, elementary inference tells us that these are “investments” will eventually extrapolate to “investment returns” by the winning party.
With the salary of Philippine President pegged at 300,000 per year (Wikipedia). You’d wonder why so much moolah is being put to risks for the top spot (by the candidates, sponsors, friends, alliances et.al.).
But the perspective changes when one realizes that the Office of the President’s budget is at an estimated Php 4.259 billion annually.
In addition, with 1.54 trillion ($327 billion) pesos earmarked for government spending in 2010, then one would reckon that there’s simply tons of money to be made with by the winning team through “political endowment” or “privileges”- political concessions, monopoly, behest loans, subsidies, silent partnership in public-private programs, undeclared fees etc...
This is otherwise known as crony capitalism.
As Murray Rothbard describes on why political leaders needs an elite group...
"the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens. Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic interests. Therefore, the King [President] alone cannot rule; he must have a sizable group of followers who enjoy the prerequisites of rule, for example, the members of the State apparatus, such as the full-time bureaucracy or the established nobility. But this still secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority."
In short, political privileges endowed to core groups are key to the preservation of power by the political leadership. Or simply said, keeping certain interests groups happy, who will work to control or contain the majority, ensures the tenure of power by the political leadership.
Hence, election spending alone is a great indication that none of the campaign promises (on corruption) will likely be met.
Though the ideal is to vote for candidates with little spending and or with a small political baggage. But this isn’t likely to happen, because democracy is a popularity contest!
Yet for voters earnestly believing that their choice of candidates will represent “change”, regardless of such facts, I’d quote Professor Bryan Caplan’s views on why he thinks voters are irrational, ``Even when his views are completely wrong, he gets the psychological benefit of emotionally appealing political beliefs at a bargain price.”
As an old saw goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same....
No comments:
Post a Comment