If politicians, civil service and media are going downhill why is that?

Someone pointed me to this old 2013 piece by Dominic Cummings today. Therein is quote:

For example, very few in Parliament, Whitehall, or the media have any training in statistics. They therefore do not understand terms such as ‘normal variation’ (bell curve) or ‘variance’ which makes it impossible for them to make informed decisions about some things for which they are responsible, or to understand scientific discussions. Issues such as ‘how financial models contributed to the 2008 crisis’ or ‘intelligence and genetics’ cannot be understood in any depth without some basic statistical knowledge.

Courses such as Politics, Philosophy and Economics (and economics in general) do not train political leaders well. They encourage superficial bluffing, misplaced confidence (e.g. many graduates leave with little or no idea about fundamental issues concerning mathematical models of the economy (cf. p.21-5 & 214-229)), and they do not train people to make decisions in complex organisations. Ministers are selected from MPs but MPs are not selected for their ability to devise policy, prioritise, manage complex organisations, or admit and fix errors. In the absence of effective training, many default to gimmicks and attempts to manipulate the media. In the choice between ‘to be’ or ‘to do’ , insiders tend to choose the former because the system incentivises behaviour that is contrary to the public interest.

Much thinking and discussion in Westminster is either a) vague ‘dinner party’ speculations about the distant future, or b) gossip about the daily crisis – amazingly little involves concrete operational planning to get from A to Z. Most media commentary on politics overstates the extent to which news derives from ‘plans’ (‘strategy’ being the most abused word) and understates the extent to which news derives from panic driven by chaos exacerbated by lack of operational grip. In Government, there is constant panic but little urgency. (A few footnotes deal with specific issues concerning Westminster. E.g. footnote 191 & 200 (media); 198 & 199 (Westminster dysfunction).) ‘We do not have a problem with “too much cynicism” – we have a problem with too much trust in people and institutions that are not fit to control so much .’

Yes, ok … let’s assume this is all true … (and it does sync with my personal first-hand experience advising government and being involved in policy-making — though I would add, consonant with the below, that most of the civil servants and many of the elected officials I met seemed like decent people caught in a self-perpetuating system …).

And let’s ask: why is it so?

Answer: because these features are what the system, and specifically the electorate directly (or indirectly) select for.

First a comment on tone — and perhaps intent. As written, the piece seems to blaming the people involved: those ignorant, media-obsessed, superficial MPs etc. As if it is failure of character of the people involved. In fact, it comes dangerously close to exhibiting some of the very flaws it deplores: replacing systematic, thorough analysis with simple finger-pointing and blame-gaming.

The basic point is MPs and the overall system is selected by the electorate. Democratic politics was always tough (cf ancient Greece (where the very term demagoguery came from) but is even worse at the scale and complexity of modern civilization.

Tens of millions of voters makes the collective action problem and principal agent problem exponentially worse.
Topics are often complex involving expertise from a range of areas including cutting edge science or research and involving difficult trade-offs (how much should we do on climate change today vs spending on education vs the military?)

In short, the reason we have poor quality MPs, civil servants and media (assuming that is so) is for systemic reasons mainly related to the electorate that selects them or reads them.

We aren’t going to get more training in complexity theory and statistics because that is not something that makes you more electable. Why are so many politicians (ex-)lawyers? Because law teaches you rhetoric and argument. If the median voter suddenly started caring about statistical literacy of their local MP (or told their MP they cared about that

(Of course, it is more complex than that, with important feedback effects i.e. causation in both directions. E.g. media helps shape the views and values of the populace which in turn influences what media is wanted. This is a bigger topic beyond the scope of this short post.)

To the extent things were better in the past (pretty unclear but one can point to e.g. J.M. Keynes at the Inda Office pre-war, Reith at the BBC etc) it was due to a more elitist system in which many, especially whitehall civil servants, were much more insulated from the public — and from politicians. But that came at a cost e.g. elitism and is increasingly intolerable in our ultra-egalitarian world.

Appendix

Take a specific example like:

Much thinking and discussion in Westminster is either a) vague ‘dinner party’ speculations about the distant future, or b) gossip about the daily crisis – amazingly little involves concrete operational planning to get from A to Z.

Well what happens to people who do concrete operational planning? Is it something rewarded by the system and specifically by the wider public? Not in my experience and not in historical experience — Reagan wipes the floor with Dukakis in 1988 (Dukakis was a very sensible, rigorous planning guy). People like Roger Stone get away with straight up fabrications and help get Donald Trump elected etc etc.

Meanwhile ‘dinner party’ speculations are entertaining and gossip directly relates to political survival both internally and in keeping approval from the wider public.