"The word "cause" is an altar to an unknown god."

William James, Principles of Psychology, 1890

"I hardly know which is the greater pest to society: a paternal government; that is to say, a prying meddlesome government, which intrudes itself into every part of human life and which thinks is can do everything for everybody better than anyone can do for himself, or a careless, lounging Government, which suffers grievances, such as it could at once remove, to grow and multiply, and to which all complaint and remonstrance has but one answer, ‘We must let things take their course, we must let things find their own level.’"

Thomas Babington Macaulay, House of Commons, 22 May 1846

"There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of people."

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776

_______________________________________________

In the first two parts of this discussion of Dr. Sowell’s quite workable division of notions of the responsibilities of government, we learned that there were, simplistically but functionally, two "visions." There was the view that believed that "government is best that governs least" traceable to Adam Smith and Edmund Burke and, more recently, Oliver Wendell Homes, F.A. Haydek, and Milton Friedman. Dr. Sowell refers to this as the "constrained" view but we might also characterize it as, predominantly, conservative (politically) or capitalistic (economically). The other view - categorized as "unconstrained" - was the opinion championed by William Godwin and Marquis de Condorcet in the 18^th century and, later, George Bernard Shaw and, in the 20^th century, Chief Justice Earl Warren and John Maynard Keynes. This thesis could be described, politically, as "liberal" and, economically, as socialism. If interested, links for these names and further descriptions of the terms used can be found in the earlier sections of this series.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will use the distinctions of an "passive government" (constrained) and "active government" (unconstrained). We now get to the point of this lengthy introduction: Which approach to America’s problems - sociologically, economically, internationally, etc. - is best? In Part Two, I discussed examples where each type of government could bring positive change to American society. From the Legislative Branch, the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) were auspicious examples of "active government" that served to further the often-rocky but ever-progressive goal of equality in our country. Judicial activism was shown to have potential as both a positive outcome (Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954), overturning the constitutionality of "separate but equal") and a negative potential (through the progressive expansion of the rights granted in Miranda v. Arizona).

Clearly, there are times when "active government" is necessary. I am not, in general, in favor of active judiciary as the only body in government that is chartered to "make laws" is Congress. When the Judicial Branch acts to "right a wrong" - as overturning a "bad" decision (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896) with a reversal (Brown v. Topeka) - it is clearly within its constitutional charter. However, when judicial activism "makes laws" - as it has increasingly done over the past half-century, the separation of powers upon which our country is based has been grievously breached.

Beyond the reasonable justification of Miranda warnings to assure that an arrested knows of the rights available to him, judicial activism has exceeded the traditional boundary of common sense. For example, the late Judge David Bazelon of the U.S. District Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, was clearly one who couched his judicial decisions in the view of the "unrestrained." He argued in his writings and his opinions (generalizing here) that crime in the U.S. was not so much caused by antisocial criminals as it was brought about by the failings of society. Criminals held less blame that the society which "created them." To better fulfill this vision, he actively sought, through judicial activism, to bring the criminal justice system more in line with his particular vision: namely, less jail time, more "rehabilitation" and that it was the duty of society to better understand the "root causes" of crime.

One example was that his court expanded the scope of the "insanity defense" (Durham v United States. 1954) which, although eventually overturned (United States v.Brawner, 1974), brought the endless delays and "expert witness" parades that plague court trials to this day. Guilt, today, remains more in the hands of the psychiatrists and sociologists and not in the hands of the jury. Eventually, with confusion reigning over the nebulous and fluctuating court standing on the insanity defense, Congress - the appointed body for enacting law - finally codified the issue with the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. However, "unconstrained," activist judges continue to make judicial porridge with murky jury instructions and can still reek havoc with individual verdicts.

Thus, and self-evidently, activism in government can often bring about great good; occasionally, it can cause decisive harm. In Dr. Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed, he argues the impact from several examples activism. His book addresses specific political (Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society," with its far-reaching encroachments, ranging from the National Endowment of the Arts to E.E.O.C.), judicial (the push for criminal rehabilitation rather than incarceration), and societal (sex education in schools) activism. I will not dwell on this in depth at this point as they are clearly laid out by Dr. Sowell.

Before I add to the litany of legislative activism that has followed what Robert Merton (And others before him) described as "the law of unintended effects," perhaps it would be instructive to briefly review the modus operandi of those who would be activists. These (Sowell’s "anointed" few) move in clearly defined stages and, when one is aware of these, it become an easier exercise to more thoroughly examine and critique their plans. Not necessarily to discern their goals - which are often worthy - but their approaches to solving what they perceive to be "problems."

Accordin to Dr. Sowell, there are four stages in the process undertaken toward political, sociological, or judicial activism:

Let us look at each stage more closely. The stage one process often begins in the lofty towers of academia; less commonly it can originate directly from political "dream makers." Regardless of origin, the problem is typically characterized as a "crisis." To identify a perceived problem - whether it is merely a chronic, if undesireable, state of affairs or actually and significantly worsening - as a "crisis" is of great importance. Activists fully understand the constant cacophony of media input that the citizenry is exposed to and, in order to be adequately heard over the din, those who seek change must make themselves heard. "Crisis," "emergency," "life-threatening" - all phrases which imply immediacy - are often applied to what might, on closer examination, prove to be simply the status quo.

In stage one, those seeking the desired change must recruit others to achieve the critical mass that produces adequate public attention. Typically, the line-up is based on tried-and-true sources. In newspaper circulation, one need only tap at the door of the New York Times, Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times to get gallons of ink about the depths of the "crisis." In the broadcast media, a simple nod and, perhaps a wink, at the producers of CBS’ "60 Minutes" or NBC’s "Dateline" will - if the subject is sufficiently critical in their visions and will lead to a spike in Nielson Ratings - produce a juicy, much-publicised "expose." [Based on past stories, one need not have all the facts before firing an alarm salvo]. With the growing popularity of the internet, there are innumerable BLOG sites that will leap to carry a "hot" new controversy and, since some have regular readership of several hundred thousand, the dire warnings of imminent danger can now be spread with lightening speed.

After the mass media has been incited to the call for action, there appear, miraculously, legions of "experts" which have been recruited to "explain" the urgency of the crisis and, if not that, at least display concern "within the scientific community." (One wonders what these "experts" were doing all along if the "emergency" is so dire). Recruitment of this second wave is easy:  the proponents can guarantee copious "face time" with myriad television and radio talk shows that can turn a self-proclaimed "expert" an instant celebrity..

Once a critical mass of public awareness has been reached, the move for political action begins. The "crisis" requires government intervention and, of course, this will require a huge fiscal expenditure and an accompanying massive federal bureaucracy. No one, it should be noted, openly discusses the impact the budget allotment will have on taxpayers, business or the economy as a whole. If someone does speak out and suggest another approach or dare suggest that there actually is no crisis (or that the emperor has no clothes), they are loudly and quickly silenced. Even the vocabulary used against these "heretics" is scripted: they are "insensitive" or "unaware of the complete details" of the situation. If it is a sociological intervention - say, a "solution" to poverty or homelessness - the critics of the proposed government intervention are accused of "blaming the victim" regardless of the logic or common sense of their critique.

Stage Two - Thus, the dye is cast. With growing public support - fueled by a barrage of media attention, celebrity spokespersons, ivory tower intelligentsia and bandwagon politicians - Congress passes a national program for alleviating Problem X through Solution A. Perhaps, it is labeled, as so many programs are (see War on Poverty, Drugs, Terror, etc.), the "War on X." Politicians and PACs know that Americans love a good war. And the War on X is a "good" war. The evidence that Solution A will actually alleviate Problem X or that Solution A is cost-effective is never asked for nor offered. Solution A is, simply, "the right thing to do." Solution A will bring about Results A. Again, when opponents manage to be heard and suggest that Solution A will bring about Results Z - not a solution but yet another problem - they are shouted down.

Stage Three: Solution A is put into affect. Time passes as Problem X is pushed farther back into the public consciousness as it has now, indeed, been replaced by Problem Z. As the deafening roar of histrionic rhetoric about the new problem have all of the public’s attention, the results of Solution A for Problem X begin to trickle in. Quietly and with little fanfare. Solution A does not solve Problem X. In fact, Solution A (as critics had suggested) did not only did not solve Problem A, it has caused Problem Z. But, the public and, with it, Congressional attention has moved on. No one - save the critics who were not heard on Solution A - seems to care that Solution A did not solve Problem X.

Stage Four: Dr. Sowell calls this "The Response" phase. It is the phase of the process where the defense of the failed solution is called into action. The previously-recruited experts (who have written their bestsellers and glowed in their 15 minutes of fame are now called upon to explain why Solution A for Problem X appears to have failed. The "experts" dismiss those who would dare say that Solution A failed as "simplistic" for ignoring the "complexities" involved with Problem X. There were "many factors" that went into determining the outcome and some of these factors are "just now coming to light." To say that Solution A failed "is not helpful" and to say that Solution A has caused Problem Z is "irresponsible" and "dangerous." The burden of proof is deftly thrust on the critics not the failed proponents. As the final defense position, the proponents say that, surely, Problem X would have been even worse if it weren’t for the wonderful programs that were instituted through Solution A. Proponents will even dare to argue that Solution A was "not adequately funded" and that additional funds (or time or public/government action) will "end Problem X in our time."

And so the song goes, next verse same as the first. Over the last half-century, we have seen this tragicomedy played out repeatedly. The stages have been large and small. Dr. Sowell outlines details of some of the greatest travesties in The Vision of the Anointed. I will use one he does not mention that has had major economic and deadly consequences of hundreds of thousands of people. I will, in "honor" of this month marking the 100^th birthday of Rachel Carson, discuss an environmental intervention that follows, quite clearly, Dr. Sowell stages.

The publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962 began innocently enough. It was a simple book about the purported affects of pesticide residue, specifically, DDT, on bird egg development. Carson was an obscure zoologist whose book rocketed to the New York Times bestseller list where it remained for 86 weeks. The timing of the book coincided with the anti-establishment sixties with resounding resonance. With the growing anti-business and the progressive movement toward "organic living," Silent Spring brought a outcry of indignation. The stages, thus, fell into place.

Stage One: Problem identification

It was the indiscriminate spraying of DDT that was the root problem. Consequences included, but were not conclusively linked, thinning of bird eggshells and subsequent reduction in brood numbers. To add insult to injury, the American Bald Eagle - our national bird - was showing signs of decreased reproduction. In the words of one recent critic, "Carson predicted that pesticides -- namely DDT -- would cause "practically 100 percent" of the human population would be wiped out from a cancer epidemic after one more generation. This would come about because a race of super-insects, impervious to pesticides, would come about threatening U.S. farms. Desperate farmers then would triple the amount of pesticides they were using so they could stop the super-bugs from destroying their crops. As a result, DDT would eventually work its way up the food chain, killing off first the bugs, then the worms, then the birds (hence her title), the fish and finally mankind." (Link to this article here.)

The recruiting began. "Experts" testified before Congress and, despite the equally-qualified experts opposing the removal of an extremely useful pesticide, the EPA - under Judge Edmund Sweeney ruled not to ban DDT. However, Head EPA Administrator, William Ruckleshaus (an attorney with "ties to the Environmental Defense Fund"), overruled Sweeney and decided to remove DDT for all uses in the United States in 1972. Further, international aid from U.S. agencies was suspended to countries, particularly Africa, where DDT was of great effect in controlling malaria.

Stage Two: The Solution

The U.S. ban was quickly followed by a worldwide parade of nations - donors of foreign aid and recipient countries - fell into line. Attempts in the United States to appeal the EPA’s ban were stonewalled as "Ruckleshaus appointed himself as the appeal judge." DDT was effectively removed from use against vector-transmitted disease worldwide.

Stage Three: Assessment of Progress

With the virtual worldwide ban of DDT, malaria infection rates exploded, particularly in Africa. Today, malaria infects 300 million people worldwide and causes approximately 1 million deaths - mostly in children under age 6 - per year. Areas where malaria had been virtually eliminated in the 1960s have now had near epidemics of the disease. The costs on African nation’s domestic productivity and the disease’s health care costs in already-impoverished countries are impossible to measure but has been estimated to be 5-10 per cent of every sub-Sahara countries GDP.

Stage Four: The Response

Despite the massive and easily quantifiable impact of the DDT ban, the proponents continue to wage war against its use, even today. With death and avoidable morbidity staring them in the face, The Stockholm Convention, agreed upon in 1995, would permanently ban all organopesticides (including aldrine, DDT, chlordane, dieldrin and others) worldwide. It has been signed by President Bush and is awaiting approval from the U.S. Senate. The Clinton Administration pressured Mexico to stop producing DDT if it desired NAFTA to pass - which they did. And, finally, this apologist rationalization appeared in the...wait for it...New York Times just last year:

"DDT is not the magic bullet that will eradicate malaria. We need to refocus resources and attention on something most Africans do not have: basic malaria education, and prevention with insecticide-treated bed nets. A mosquito net costs $6.50 and can last up to five years. An average of three people can sleep under it, and the only harmful effect we have heard about, after having distributed 11,000 nets in the Kamuli, Jinja and Kayung districts over the last two years, is people being hot at night." (emphasis mine)

Another example of the intervention of the "unconstrained" intelligentsia. The litany of interventions from those who hold this vision of the world is growing even today and their history of failure to achieve their lofty goals (and their tragic "unintended effects") litters the last half-century. I cringed, personally, when Al Gore was recently "hailed" as the "Rachel Carson of Global Warming." While Mr. Gore glowed at the mention of Carson, I could only think of the children dying from malaria- even now - in Africa.

I don’t know about you, but I am beginning to see a troubling pattern here. And Dr. Sowell saw it first.