Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

How Politicians Use “Smart Folks” To Get More Power

By Theresa Camoriano

Most politicians have an insatiable appetite for money and power.  No matter how much we give them, it is never enough.  Since most of us understand that it is not in our best interests to give them more money and power, they have to trick us into doing it. 

Appealing to our egos:

One way they trick us is by appealing to our egos, making us feel that we are the “smart insiders” in this power grab.  They convince us that we are smart enough to create a paradise on earth if we will just give them enough money and power.  For example, they appeal to our egos as “smart insiders” in promoting “smart growth”, which is simply a power grab that strips the control of land away from the people who bought it and gives it to the politicians.  They also convince us that they need to take more of our money for education programs to indoctrinate the unwashed masses into thinking the “smart” way (i.e. our way). 

Of course, the truth is, if we really were smart, we would catch on to their tricks.

With government controlling more and more of our economy, the fact that crooks have to go where the money is causes more and more of them to turn to government employment. However, there is probably an even stronger reason for individuals to become politicians. That is the power which accompanies political office. Many idealists think they know better than the ordinary person what is good for that person. They consider themselves a cut above the ordinary individual who just isn’t smart enough to know what he or she should do. Idealists seek government power to impose their ideas upon the rest of us. They may be personally honest insofar as not thinking of lining their own pockets with money but have little compunction about bolstering their egos with government power. This attitude explains the environmentalists, the do-gooders, and others whose ego causes them to seek government power to impose their ideas upon those of us who just want to make our way in a free market in open competition with everyone else. — Harry Hoiles

Frightening us:

Another trick they use is to frighten us and convince us that we need them to protect us from scary things.  The scary things can be everything from poor health to floods and famines.  For example, they try to frighten us into thinking that we must give them total control over our health care, literally giving them the power of deciding who lives and who dies, or else risk having no health care at all.  They try to frighten us into thinking the earth is going to experience floods, droughts, and other disastrous consequences unless we give them total control over the use of energy (i.e. control over all our activities).  They try to frighten us into thinking that big business, or people of other social groups or other economic groups will harm us or take advantage of us unless we give them our money or power so they can protect us. 

Of course, the truth is that there is nothing scarier than what will happen to us when those politicians get all that power and money.  If we had any sense, the prospect of the corruption and abuse of power and waste of our money that will occur is what really should cause chills to run up our spine.

Americans are rightfully angry about higher energy and food prices but their anger should be directed toward the true villains -- the Congress and the White House. – Walter Williams

The problem is not that supply and demand is such a complex explanation. The problem is that supply and demand is not an emotionally satisfying explanation. For that, you need melodrama, heroes and villains….A politician's problem is how to get more votes-- and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to be a hero who will save us from the villains. – Thomas Sowell

In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming? – Walter Williams

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN