“I’m special (special)
So special (special)
I got to have some of your attention, give it to me!”

- Brass in Pocket, The Pretenders

Throughout this election, both parties have talked a lot about special interest groups. Much of this talk, at least on the Democratic side, comes from the Ralph Nader-John Edwards school of populism: special interest groups are evil. Why? Because they’re greedy. The end.

In Tim Harford’s new book, The Logic of Life (which I just read and highly recommend), a different view is put forward:

This government program is a surefire winner: Take $1.9 billion away from a large group of voters, then give just over $1 billion to a much smaller group of voters, then throw away the rest. Would you vote for it? It turns out that Americans do just that, time after time.

Harford uses the example of sugar subsidies. These subsidies help the sugar industry a lot — a big farm could get $10 million a year from the deal. On the other hand, Harford estimates the total cost to every taxpayer at roughly six dollars.

The reason that this happens, Harford argues, is not that the sugar industry is comprised of evil super villains bribing politicians. It’s that you have a situation when a minority of people really care about something, and a majority of people care very little. And why should they? Six dollars isn’t enough to buy a ticket for a movie — it’s barely enough for the popcorn. The minority that benefits from sugar subsidies, on the other hand, stands to gain much more than six dollars, and is therefore motivated to lobby, vote, and contribute money to make sure they get the favorable outcome. This applies not just to the owners, but the workers too — those subsidies protect their jobs.

This is what’s so frustrating to me about all the free-trade bashing that’s gone on this year. Most free trade benefits a majority of people, while hurting a minority — a loud minority. On the Democratic side, this often times means unions and blue-collar workers.

The implications of this argument are huge. It’s not just a modern problem caused by crooked politicians but a problem intrinsic in democracy.

Is there a solution? According to Harford, the majority has to get organized and make their voices heard. There’s a problem here, too:

The total benefits of being organized are large, but the benefits for any one member of the group are pretty small. Saying “Get organized” solves nothing.

After all, it’s hard to imagine a March on Washington to save six dollars a year.

Once again, this is where Barack Obama has the potential to change this. Part of his pitch is that he’s getting more people involved in politics. His charisma isn’t insignificant at all — it gets people interested. Remember, Obama used to be a community organizer. One of the central theories of the campaign is that getting people to pay attention to government is precisely how you affect change.

It’s easy to see how people could critique this as mindless optimism. It isn’t. The reason special interest groups have power is that the majority of people aren’t paying attention; the hope is that an Obama presidency would motivate people to start. If he’s as good working from the Oval Office as he is from the campaign trail, he may just have a chance.

The danger is that Obama will simply trade one set of special interests for another. Unions will no doubt play a big role in the general election. On the other hand, his campaign has received donations from more than amillion people. If Obama is elected president, and if he wants that same number contributing to his re-election, he will need to be accountable to the majority of Americans, not special interests.

–Hillel Aron

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net