Opinion Archive

What to Make of Government by Simulation

April 23, 2008

In a democracy, where so many political interests are represented, it is often easier to pretend to govern than to actually do it. Recently, the Mexico City state assembly spent a lot of time and effort passing the toughest anti-smoking legislation in the country, despite the fact that hounding smokers is not anywhere near their constituents’ top priority. But solving the key issues of crime, poverty and urban blight require a level of work and leadership that the local authorities have tacitly decided they are unwilling to provide. So they go for the low-hanging fruit, which is a time-honored tradition in this city. When urban lawlessness became a big issue for Marcelo Ebrard, for example, he ditched civil liberties to go after drunk drivers using roadblocks. Street violence is still as much of a problem, but at least the checkpoints provide a semblance of authority. Local PAN governments implement similar red herrings using blue laws, or firing up the religious base with anti-gay marriage legislation and other such gems of political simulation.

Cognitive dissonance

The US government is also simulating leadership in order to appease anti-immigration groups by pretending that a wall will solve its illegal immigration problem. Never mind the fact that around half of unauthorized migrants arrived by plane and overstayed their visas, or that you can always go around, under, over, or through a fence. Republican presidential candidate John McCain knows the whole thing is a farce, but is aware that simulation is the only politically viable option. “I get it”, he says, grinding his teeth, “we must secure the border first”. Some have simulation thrust upon them.

The two leading Democractic candidates are simulating economic leadership by bashing NAFTA, when both obviously know better. Barak Obama says that “I will restore that leadership by working to advance the common prosperity and security of all of the people of the Americas. That work must begin with a renewed strategic partnership with Mexico.” But if his NAFTA simulation ever came close to being taken seriously, Mexico would be thrown into an economic crisis that would banish the hope of both “common prosperity” and a “strategic partnership” for at least a generation.

Trade has a long history of forcing politicians to simulate leadership. Simulation was what allowed President Clinton to justify his original backing of NAFTA, pretending that the “parallel” labor and environmental agreements were for real. The current Democratic Congress has jumped on the politically expedient protectionist bandwagon, effectively killing a small but symbolically fundamental piece of trade legislation with Colombia, perhaps the most important ally the US has in South America. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s position makes no economic sense and goes directly against her country’s strategic national interest, but political theater often trumps intelligence.

Simulation is what the PRD is doing, receiving public money from institutions that represent the status quo and then preaching violence and blockading their own offices in Congress. In this case, the taxpayers are Lenin’s “useful idiots”; naïve fools who pay for peaceful coexistence and effective conflict resolution, but receive neither. There are many within the organization who are sick of this doublespeak, but are terrified of not simulating support for the charismatic leader of the radical half of their shrinking party. Simulation is often born of fear.

Vive l’indifference

Government by simulation is a product of political expediency. This is related to opportunism, which is “the practice of taking advantage of circumstances with little regard for principles or consequences”, according to Merriam-Webster. At the end of his life, Francois Mitterrand was asked what was the most important quality for a successful politician. “Indifference”, was his damning reply. Nevertheless, except for the fanatical fringe, driven more by fear than by information, expediency comes from a belief that the voters are unwilling (or perhaps unable) to understand the analysis that is required of intelligent political decisionmaking. When smart politicians adopt evidently stupid policies they are throwing in the towel, convinced that voters will never understand the detail required to back real leadership on a given issue. It becomes easier to follow than to lead… and it becomes impossible to speak your mind.

It is expedient to say that Mexicans are to blame for unemployment in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It is a cop out to say that PEMEX should remain in the clutches of kleptocratic power brokers. It is disingenuous to say that white rust belt workers are not bitter and that Mexicans on both sides of the border are not their scapegoats. But every time we demand compromise; every time we fail to go into the nuanced detail of smart policy; every time we are charmed by the soundbite, we participate in the simulations that throttle the possibility of progress.

For the latest thought-provoking article by Agustin Barrios Gomez please go to our Opinion Column page

Return to top