On the one hand Arnold Kling is right. It is very unwise to believe that if we just elect the right people our public policy problems will be solved. Our political system and our media culture work together to ensure that the weasels will win, regardless of what party they’re in. The process creates the incompetence and not the other way around. Hayek pointed out in Road to Serfdom that this is key reason why socialism necessarily leads to despotism. Calhoun, moreover, pointed out long ago that democracy inevitably leads to factions whose only interest is power … not representation.

Thus it would seem libertarian types are in a bit of a tight spot. Asking a politician to cut government is like asking a mother to kill her own child. So what can be done? Kling advises “Do not look upon the electoral process as a search for great leaders. At best, it gives us an opportunity for damage control.”

But on the other hand, should we accept it as fact that our electoral process can’t be improved? Of course it will never be great, but can it be better? Kling writes:

Democracy does not lead to particularly good choices. Most successful institutions in society are not democratic.

An example of an institution that I believe works well is a sports tournament. A good chess tournament or tennis tournament produces a winner who is far better than mediocre.

But the problem is not necessarily a problem with democracy per se. College football rankings are still somewhat democratic, albeit with a limited franchise, and there are those who defend its polling process as superior to a playoff.

The problem is there are no hard and fast criteria for what makes a good leader. Anyone can say the right words, and still ultimately be a money-grubbing fake. There’s an intangible aspect that we’re not very good at and that betrays the fact that we’re not really sure (collectively) what we want.

Since we don’t know what we want, we have to have a vibrant system that gives us real options. But our current system doesn’t do this very well. The question is can reforms make it better? Kling seems to think the question is irrelevant but I think it’s crucial. Perhaps liberals shouldn’t be abandoning politics so much as they should be abandoning the notion that any good change can come from the existing two-party system.

For my money, I’ll take a little reform.

[Hat tip Pej]