OPINION:
2017 was the worst. This should be a shocking opening line and yet, somehow, it has become incredibly cliche. It has been a growing trend (See 2015, 2016 and 2017) that around this time of year we look back and say sayonara and good riddance to the mess we’ve put up with over the past year.
What’s to blame for such despondency? Well plenty, but politics in particular ruffles our feathers. Executive actions and congressional inaction seems incredibly capable of riling us up to swear off the atrocities of the previous year. The fact that politics seems so central to our feelings of deepening despair and misery is no accident, and it’s nothing new either. Adam Smith taught us this lesson long ago.
We let too much of our life, and quite frankly too much of our love for others, get filtered through political action. When we want to help the under-educated of the inner cities, we turn to politics. When we want to stem the tide of the opioid crisis, we turn to politics. When we want to create a safer community, we turn to politics. We often filter our compassion for others through the institutions of government action. Sometimes it seems like that is all that we can do.
What’s the big problem with that? The problem is we often do not know how to help those most in need. And, as a result we often spend our compassion in areas with little return. Political action often suffers from unintended consequences; frequently, we intend to help but instead do great harm. Think of the DARE programs of the 1990s, which were backed not only by the care and concern of U.S. citizens who wanted to decrease drug abuse but also incredible amounts of tax dollars. But DARE programs had no effect on reducing drug use and some studies actually showed increased drug use by teens within the program.
Over 200 years ago Adam Smith taught us more than just the economics of wealth via markets and exchange. If you actually read Smith, you see that he highlights our inability to see globally extended spontaneous orders. He argues that we are not very good at understanding how our local actions actually influence our global context.
Perhaps the famous line of Smith’s is, “he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” Many focus on how self-interest seems to be the driving force of wealth generation in a Smithian system, but they miss out on the context of Smith’s claim.
An overarching theme that runs through Smith’s works is that we are wired to deal with what is in front of us and are often blind beyond that. We cannot masterfully tinker with, regulate, and publicly plan our society towards a better future. If you read on in Smith, within the same paragraph he states, “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.” Smith is not merely mocking the ineffectiveness of government action. He’s also reminding us that we often better understand how to impact our local culture and systems than we know how to impact what’s global.
Smith’s insights remind us that we should be focusing our efforts more locally. We frequently waste our compassion on a large institution that mucks things up and fails to take unintended consequences into account. Local acts of kindness and caring are often far more manageable — and far more effective. Each of us knows his or her own community better than we know the nation as a whole. Start there. You may feel insignificant, but it’s better than constantly trying to do more, but ending yet another year let down and in despair.
• Michael J. Clark is an associate professor of Economics at Hillsdale College and the Wallace and Marion Reemelin Chairman in Free Market Economics
Please read our comment policy before commenting.