Tradeoff s are abundant in politics. Have you ever wondered why governments keep passing new laws, even though they hardly ever repeal any old ones? You would think that with the addition of more and more laws every year for hundreds of years, there would finally be enough.
One explanation is that most laws are designed to remedy an existing problem, but sometimes they create new problems. Tradeoff s are responsible for some of the problems that arise. As one famous example, in the 1990s the Ohio state legislature heard some sad stories about babies being born in prison (because their mothers were serving time). Taking pity on the babies, the government passed a new law to release pregnant women from prison. This solved one problem but created another, because all the women in Ohio prisons realized that they could get out of prison if they got pregnant, and many women would rather have a baby than be in prison. Female convicts began eagerly trying to have sex with male guards and lawyers. Some inmates would get a weekend pass to attend a relative’s funeral—but would skip the funeral and spend the weekend having as much unprotected sex as possible. Thus, there was a tradeoff between preventing babies from being born in prison and encouraging more prisoners to get pregnant. In this case, the law was repealed.
One important political tradeoff links energy issues to environmental ones. Should American oil companies drill for oil in our national forests, where an accident might cause an oil spill that could destroy part of a beautiful forest and kill its wildlife? Many people want to protect the environment, yet they don’t want to pay more for gasoline and electricity—and these goals are in conflict. Hence there is a tradeoff : The more you protect the environment, the more expensive power becomes. It is hard to strike exactly the right balance.
Another tradeoff connects taxes to government services. Everything the government does—maintain an army and police force, collect the garbage, provide public schools at whatever level of quality, deliver the mail, provide food for the poor—costs money, and the main method for governments to get money is to collect taxes. In general, higher taxes enable the government to provide more services. Here again is a tradeoff, because people do not want to pay high taxes, but they do want their government to provide good services.
To what extent do politicians recognize these tradeoff s? Social psychologist Phillip Tetlock (1981, 2000) analyzed the speeches of many politicians, with an eye toward whether they recognized that many problems have two sides. He noted, however, that politicians face another tradeoff in their own careers, because they have to get elected. If one politician says “Everything is expensive, and I can’t give you better government services unless we raise taxes,” whereas another says “I will give you better services and lower taxes,” the second one may be more likely to win the election.
Tetlock found that politicians seem to shuffle back and forth as to whether they acknowledge tradeoff s. When running for election, they make simple promises and ignore the political realities of tradeoff s. A successful candidate might well promise cheaper energy and better protection for the environment, in order to win the most votes. Once elected, however, politicians suddenly begin to recognize the complexity of tradeoff s, and their speeches often refer frankly to the difficulty of the choices, such as noting with regret that efforts to get cheaper oil may well require some sacrifices in environmental protection.
Is this change a matter of learning? After all, when one is just running for office and does not have any actual responsibilities of government, it may be possible to make all sorts of promises without fully realizing the tradeoffs involved. (Most politicians, like most people, really do want both cheaper energy and a cleaner environment.) Maybe they don’t realize the tradeoff s until they actually hold office and have to face up to the difficult choices. But this is not what Tetlock concluded. He found that politicians acknowledge tradeoff s when they are in office—but only until their campaigns for reelection start. At that point, they go back to simple statements that promise all things, disregarding tradeoff s. Tetlock concluded that politicians are dealing with the tradeoff built into the election process: to win an election you must oversimplify the issues and ignore the implicit contradictions.
