Politicization and the Loss of Choice

To get an idea of what politicization is, consider the following: During the last national election in 2006, the state of Missouri had a special ballot initiative proposing to change the state's constitution regarding the limits of stem cell research and cloning. During the run up to the election, Michael J. Fox made commercials urging Missourians to vote for the initiative even though he admitted to having not even read it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cAWV821C-Q) He did so because it is believed by some that cures for diseases like Parkinson's Disease (which afflicts Michael J. Fox) may someday be effected through stem cell research. Mr. Fox appeared in the commercial exhibiting obvious symptoms of Parkinson's disease. In addition, while advocating approval of the stem cell initiative, he also urged Missourians to vote for the Democrat Senatorial candidate. In fairness, nationally and locally famous celebrities made a counter commercial opposing the measure but did not endorse a political candidate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw).

My purpose here is not a political one but an economic one so regardless of your political persuation, the interesting if not disturbing outcome of politicizing diseases and searches for cures is the polarization which can follow. For instance, prior to this episode, finding a cure for Parkinson's Disease would more likely have been a non-partisan goal to which all Missourians could be rallied. After this set of commercials addressing a highly polarizing, politically charged subject and associating it with both Parkinson's Disease and a single political party, the worrisome outcome may be that the fight to cure Parkinson's is no longer embraced as whole-heartedly by everyone as before. Forging this kind of association to a political party or the principal philosophical beliefs of a particular political party in the context of a very emotionally charged debate regarding stem cell research can have the unintended consequence of politicization.

One of the most highly politicized subjects making the rounds today is whether or not the small rise in global average temperatures is caused by the activities of humans or whether it is simply part of a naturally repeating cycle of nature. A political commentator recently noted that when 1,800 scientists sign manifestos regarding their belief in man-made global warming and urge political action to stop it, they cease being scientists and start being political citizens. Science is politcally neutral and involves the dispassionate search for truth. When the two begin to mix, science runs the real risk of being politically influenced and corrupted. That is politicization.

Politicization has many faces. Politicization of food and food production technologies (and scale) is rising rapidly both in the United States and around the world. Take for instance the growing problem of obesity which is beginning to follow the same politicization path that smoking in public places has followed. Normally, you would expect what a person eats to be a free choice and for parents to monitor and induce over time, reasonably good choices in their children's diet. In a free market society, choices are provided and customers determine the product mix offered over time through their purchases which act like "votes" in a political process.

By labeling obesity a public health menance, governments are increasingly layering in more and more intrusive control measures which both limit freedom, freedom of choice and potentially introduce market inefficiency by substituting state decisions for market solutions.

For instance, in many places children are being weighed at school and warning reports issued to parents if the child's BMI exceeds a certain threshold, regardless of the added stigma such a report might bring to the child among his or her peers. In a celebrated case in England recently, the family services division of government attempted to seize a morbidly obese young man from his family to affect treatment (a diet, presumably).

What happens next is the crucial choice. Do you handle this problem with education and allow free people to struggle through the choices which they must make or do you enter with the force of the state and begin driving toward a non-market solution? More and more throughout the nation, cola products and vending machine items are being banned from schools and items such as french fries, hamburgers, ice cream and other "fattening" foods are being completely eliminated from cafeteria menus. This limiting of choice is extending beyond schools to public and corporate vending areas and food courts. As this fervor escalates, more and more of the choice is removed and more and more state determined solutions substituted for market based solutions.

If you shift from obesity to animal welfare, you find the city of Chicago banning the serving or consumption of foie gras, the fatty livers of ducks and geese which are produced by force-feeding (http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/us/27foiegras.html).

So far, many people reading this will say, "Whats the problem with this? It makes good sense." Stay tuned...we've only just begun.