Political lobbyists are the target of a lot of bad press,
and deservedly so. Big corporations,
unions or other interest groups pay them to get the attention of lawmakers and
to persuade them to pass laws or propose regulations that favor their
particular industry or group. Some say
that these activities keep lawmakers informed on the subtleties of certain
industries. Better understanding of the
dynamics can reduce the number of unintended consequences and those in Congress
cannot be experts on everything.
On the other hand, most of the population has the impression
that these meetings and lunches are little more than legalized bribes for the
rich to disproportionately influence government, an attempt to bring “government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.” The auto industry and banks get their
bailouts. The military is given weapons
they haven’t requested and don’t want.
In short, to lobby is to try to get your way without regard to what
others want or what is best overall for the country.
But there are other activities almost the same as lobbying
that most people either ignore or consider healthy. This came to mind when I came across a news story from England. It is about behavior
in a foreign country, but the type of behavior itself is certainly not foreign
to Americans. In fact it’s quite common.
The controversy arose over the new five-pound note. When vegans and vegetarians discovered that the
new tougher and more waterproof bill was made from a plastic polymer containing
small amounts of tallow, derived from animal waste products, they took to
social media demanding the contents be changed.
They called the use of even a small amount of animal products not cool
and disgusting. Their rights were being
trampled. Since they were not going to
eat the pocket money and the contents were by-products of a food production
process that would be thrown away otherwise, it’s hard to see how any harm was
done. It’s not like more animals were
being slaughtered. Yet some circulated
a petition, gathering over 40,000 signatures, demanding that the contents be
changed.
It’s so easy to click a box and sign an online
petition. And you get to feel good about
yourself for caring about an issue
that’s important to a minority. You get
to stick up for the underdogs, the victims, people whose beliefs were not even
considered when the government tried to make their paper money more durable. But 40,000 is less than one-tenth of one
percent of the UK population and only about 3% report being vegetarian. Does this even make a difference?
This behavior is repeated nearly daily in America. People will protest slights against groups
they aren’t even members of. The protests
are based on the theory that if they can get a large enough turnout and enough
press coverage they can influence the national, state and local policy. The lure is the same – be a savior, do the
noble thing, defend the moral high ground. Feel good about yourself for
defending the rights of the victims and the marginalized, even if those rights
never existed before and even if the victims aren’t even human. That’s how they get huge, vocal crowds or
thousands of signatures when the issues affect a small minority.
We have seen this mindset recently protesting a pipeline
in North Dakota, defending a mountain lion that was killing cattle in
California, supporting workers who took on obligations before they could earn
enough money to support those obligations, and something about solving a
bathroom problem that few knew existed.
This is all about pressure on lawmakers. They throw an organized tantrum until they either get there way or run out of energy.
It’s also so easy to vote, as the people in Massachusetts
did to require that chickens and pigs live in larger cages. Those in favor of happier chickens spent
almost $5 million with small demonstrations and other means to publicize the animals' need for more comfortable
accommodations. Those arguing that such
changes would raise the prices of eggs and bacon, hitting the poor especially
hard, could only raise $300,000 to try to make their point. The chickens won and the humans lost,
primarily because the emotional appeal of reducing what was portrayed as
suffering for the animals drowned out the appeal of helping the poor afford food. So voters went home from the polls feeling like they had made a
difference.
Some of these causes are worthy of attention; some are
trivial. But it all sounds like exactly
the same dynamic as traditional lobbying to me.
Based on the theories that past behavior predicts future behavior and
that behavior rewarded is behavior repeated, I predict that the future will
yield more of this free lobbying compounding the problem. Lawmakers will feel pressure from all sides,
as every special interest exerts as much pressure as they can, either through
monetary donations to campaigns, by button-holing at the capitol or by demonstrating
in the streets and on social media, as those groups attract supporters with the promise that they will feel fulfilled, compassionate and morally superior.
Personally, I don’t think this second kind of lobbying is any healthier
for the country than the first. But we
will see.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment