"now we have a regulation rager sitting in the White House". No, not quite. Now we have an opportunist without any convictions or scruples in the White House, who is not properly afraid of the ugly forces he's playing with. We're lucky the economy is so good and foreign threats are low, or xenophobic anger would metastasize into real trouble.
Paul, it is simpler than you think!
The rage is triggered by the fact that the average elected official is not very technically smart. Accordingly, they often allow the bureaucracy to implement poorly structured, technically incorrect or onerous regulations.
The current situation enriches tech smart lawyers and lobbyists through their explanation of simple chemical reactions and mechanical actions to legislators and bureaucrats.
Who loses; we do because it just keeps on getting bigger, and we rarely repeal mediocre policy.
1
The key to understanding regulation rage, I think, is a very uncomfortable reality: lower education level and resentment about difficulty toward understanding large-scale complexity, long-term values, and the case-making of persons who are difficult to understand.
A Piagetian model of development is useful: Preconventional minds look to paternaistic authority, which is unable to understand normative authority (i.e., evidence-based regulatives that become conventional) in other than paternalistic terms. So, when socially validated regulatives inconvenience the paternalist whose paternal authorities object to the actionable entailments of valid regulatives, the paternalist and their followers have to see the inconvenient results as intrusion, on the order of counter-tribal aggression.
The normal developmental period in which appreciation of normative validity is instilled is late adolesence, typically college years. If one does poorly in high school (and resents the “nerds” and “geeks” who get all the praise by teachers and award processes) or fails to succeed in college, there’s a resentment toward complexity that gets expressed by anger toward requirements to change behavior based on claims about large-scale values that the regulation rager can’t comfortably understand.
The remedy is greater support for public education excellence, especially including home/school partnership between teachers and parents in early grades—and universal preschool.
1
Americans need to be taught what the term negative externality means and it's implications.
It's the adult equivalent of a 2-year-old's temper tantrum because he's been told to do something he doesn't want to do. Two-year-olds do not have much in the way of long-term thinking and humans are primarily short-term thinkers. There's food here and a lion there ... how do I make the best choice so I eat, but don't get eaten. Maintenance (of infrastructure, for example) is much harder to get funding for because it has to do with preventing future problems (and politicians would rather have their name on a new bridge than a repaving crew.)
1
The research is there, Paul. It's called Reactance theory, and it's been around for over 50 years. It applies to many other situations including road rage, and there are thousands of research studies in the Social Psychology literature.
Some of those who feel they aren't respected, Eric Erickson being a prime example, are not respected because they are liars who make a living not through productive work but by making up wild stories in order to rouse people's fear of change and their anger at growing old and being passed by by the youth, whose rightful turn it is to lead. I'm a boomer--getting old isn't a lot of fun, and it involves learning to let go. Many of the rallygoers I see in Trumpworld are definitely not growing old gracefully!
3
Part of the answer to why so many Republican voters are against government regulation, even at their own cost, is Fox News.
Then throw in the Koch funded think tanks.
2
It sounds suspiciously similar to the "ABC Rage" that has overtaken the (what these days passes for) Conservatives here in Australia.
Regulation rage is bar talk run amok. The more you drink, the more angry you become about all the dark forces that are preventing you from drinking even more, until you pass out.
It's the street patois of the truly uninformed, reckless, nihilist sub-strata of society. One fully embraced by today's Republican Party that is desperately attempting to create a coalition of the mindless.
1
"do people remember Trump’s opposition to regulations that protect the ozone layer"?
Yes I do. I remember that he thought it was silly to believe that chlorofluorocarbons in his hair spray could get into the atmosphere. Apparently he believed that Trump Tower was hermetically sealed and didn't realize that if that were true the folks inside would get asphyxiated.
The thing about these contemporary right-wingers is that they are proudly, aggressively ignorant.
How can someone be proud of being ignorant? Good question.
2
@Jack Toner
My guess is that they're proud of their purity, because their minds have not been polluted with the wicked ideas of the enemy.
I'm a liberal for the most part. Since 1994, my shower is required by law to not exceed 2.5 gallons per minute. I completely understand and agree with the environmental concerns that motivate this regulation. Nevertheless, I do think my shower now sucks.
6
@Jeff
The price we to pay for the long term good.
But I expect you agree with that.
We don't have to like it, but we need to do it.
:-)
7
@Jeff
Just as with low-flush-volume toilets, the initial designs were not effective, but they have greatly improved.
Certainly there may be deficiencies in even today's latest designs for individual shower heads; maybe that is why the fancy showers have multiple heads all spraying water simultaneously.
@Jeff
I also have a water-saving shower head, and while my shower doesn't suck, it's a sacrifice that we must make for a good reason.
Taking a shower with an old-style, unreplaced shower head is my idea of a guilty pleasure.
A new rule, finalized today, would reduce the number of government food safety inspectors in pork plants by 40 percent, and remove most of the remaining inspectors from production lines. In their place, a smaller number of company employees — who are not required to receive any training — would conduct the “sorting” tasks that USDA previously referred to as “inspection.” The rule would also allow companies to design their own microbiological testing programs to measure food safety, rather than requiring companies to meet the same standard.
Equally alarming, the new rule would remove all line speed limits in the plants, allowing companies to speed up their lines with abandon. With fewer government inspectors on the slaughter lines, there would be fewer trained workers watching out for consumer safety. Faster line speeds would make it harder for the limited number of remaining meat inspectors and plant workers to do their jobs.
2
You forgot Trump's recent overturn of the Waters of The US act. Farmers have been told that WOTUS would give the EPA the ability to throw grandma off her farm and into jail if there was runoff from her farm. Of course, nothing like that was even remotely in WOTUS, but you wouldn't know that to listen to the GOP decry it.
17
This is the toxic legacy of Ronald, "Government IS the problem," Reagan. He poisoned political discourse and killed belief in government of, by, and for the people.
147
@Richard DeBacher
His deregulatory bent also poisoned us. We have very lax food regulation. Even the hard fought rules on what food is organic are constantly under attack by a food industry looking to weaken what the label means for the sake of profit. Health be damned.
5
@Richard DeBacher
Indeed. We would also be wise to recall that, as soon as Reagan moved into the Oval Office, he had the Carter- installed White House solar panels ripped off the roof and proclaimed: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!
1
The very first regulation Trump did away with was one preventing coal mines from dumping toxic waste into nearby streams that flowed through downstream communities. Imagine an industry that simply can't run profitably without polluting streams so severely that drinking from them, or even fishing, could kill you. Should such an industry even exist?
The heart of the problem is people having been fed anti-government garbage for so long they actually believe industries who pollute their streams are on their side, while government regulations aimed at saving lives are evil.
379
@Debbi I don't know why there's this anger towards the federal government and why some people believe that civil servants working for the government are bad people. I agree with you that there's been this drumbeat, possibly going back to Ronald Reagan, that government is not part of the problem, it is the problem. Trump has made this part of his mantra; by positioning himself as an anti-elitist, against those with experience in public policy, he has no need for experience. He goes with his gut. He says he's always in the corner of the average working person. And regulations hurt the little guy (and girl). His supporters (and fellow Republicans) will never waiver from that corner.
17
@Selvin Gootar
Lack or regulation hurts "the little guy" much more than the regulations. Healthcare is an example; drug costs skyrocket as drug companies rake in profits, while patients who depend on the drugs (e.g. insulin, epipens) get sick or die, or go broke paying for the drugs. Untold numbers of children have suffered brain damage from the effects of lead, in paint, in the water, in products. Air pollution sickens children and elderly people who are vulnerable to respiratory disease. The list goes on and on. Republicans since Reagan have repeated over and over again that regulation is bad. When science proves lack of regulations is hurting people, Republicans attack the science, and the scientists. If Republicans cared about "the little guy," they would work with Democrats and devise sensible regulations with the lowest cost and inconvenience possible. Unfortunately, that will never happen without drastic changes in the willingness of the US voters to educate themselves, and to fight for protection from harmful products, pollution in our water and our air, and ultimately to address Global Climate Change; if it is not too late.
37
@Debbi Here in Maine, the horrific stench of the old paper mills was regarded by workers as "the smell of money."
People desperate for local jobs often decide that having an income today beats any fears about an early death.
10
Goes back to simpleton Reagan: "Government is the problem."
He thought it frivolous to mandate strong bumpers for cars, then costly cars repairs and personal injuries skyrocketed
He thought "government" had no business in public health, then AIDS exploded.
Do we ever learn?
1
It's all about free-dumb.
It's an attitude that I should be able to do anything I want to do with that dang Gub'mint interfering.
So let me remove my truck's emission controls, use any light bulb I like, dump my old oil in the alley, and shoot my guns as I see fit!
OMG, I have to unbolt my refrigerator door before I can put it on the curb. The magnet in the worn out rubber seal is so old my cat can open it. Some kid got latched in a fridge back in the fifties so I have to unbolt the door. You evil politicians, how dare you!
It seems that "the new American democracy" is the "democracy of idiots"; bent in going against their own interest and that of humanity.
Regulation Rage, shorter/truer version : “ How dare you tell ME, a White Man, what to DO “.
Period.
Know it all elitist!
“Modern conservatives hate regulation”. - Except abortion regulation!
1
My guess is a lack of empathy underlies a lot of it. And specifically forTrump: spite for anything Obama especially as a call out to other racists.
1
This is really a telling column, making very plain what most readers have known for a long time: despite his awards and high position, PK does not have a clue about the real world. He is just now understanding the regulation rage and that it may have nothing to do with economics!q No kidding. Was he asleep during the Reagan era?
And how clueless do you have to be to take the President's tougue-in=cheek comments about orange glow from lightbulbs seriously?
Anyone who ignores Trump's erratic, anti-democratic behavior, passing it off as "tongue-in-cheek" should not lecture others about the "real world."
3
@SonomaEastSide I wonder if you also think his comments about hi-tech lightbulbs releasing toxic gases when they break are also "tongue-in-cheek"? LED light bulbs don't have any gases in them.
2
Not a solution but maybe a bit of needed humor. Check out the movie "Idiocracy". Maybe its the future determined by the extension of the current Republican policy .
1
"It is coming from people who, for some reason, don't feel respected, ..."
But really, anyone who comes out with the idea that they should revolt by pulling politicians onto the streets and "beating them into a pulp", and then pronounces that idea publicly, has come up with a contemptible idea, that should be treated with the contempt the idea deserves. Someone pronouncing that idea as a call-to-action to the public, is really running on the jagged edge of being entirely undeserving of respect.
2
What I find most interesting about regulation is the way much of it allows good people to ecpress their values while doing business.
Making sure you follow the rules is onerous, but most of the rules are designed to avoid a race to the bottom where unscrupulous and amoral business owners get to set the floor for business behavior, ultimately making ethical business unprofitable.
People in the past didn't think child labor was awesome, nor did they love polluting all the local waterways. They knew these things were awful. But as long as a few businesses were willing to dump all the toxic waste in the river or pay 5-year-olds a pittance, other businesses had to join in. There was no way to maintain market share if you had to raise prices to pay for proper disposal or living wages for adults. Only a subset of businesses, ones who largely serve richer customers, can afford to go beyond what regulation requires.
4
The psychology underlying regulation rage may also explain Brexit leavers. They didn't like the idea of faceless bureacrats making rules in Brussels.
3
@Bmcg
Very true. And what they will get instead is faceless oligarchs making rules from their corruption-hiding tax shelters.
3
I think that regulation rage is correlated with anarchist tendencies. It's centered around the idea that the founders of the country were people who went off into the wilderness where they could walk for a day and not encounter another human being. The implication of that being that the ideal state of existence is one where you can act completely unrestrained by the presence of others.
2
I support many regulations, but I also recognize that they can be onerous to comply with, and that there are enormous compliance economies of scale. Big corporations have a competitive advantage -- they have the scale to afford specialized personnel (attorneys, engineers, etc.) who do nothing but deal with regulatory compliance. Small businesses find it hard to do that -- costly, and a major pain in the butt. When the owner of the small gym where I train complains about all the regulations he had to comply with in order to get permission to open his business, I'm quite confident he's telling the truth, not just engaging in irrational rage. I'm sure some of those regulations were beneficial for the community, too -- but I don't pretend they didn't have costs for him.
6
Yes, this is all true, but it's not just Trump. It's the entire Republican establishment that wants to deregulate just about everything no matter the cost, no matter damages, no matter the lives ruined or lost. It is more than rage and it is more than stupidity. It is willful malice directed at the nation and mankind.
7
Whenever Dr. Krugman discusses the "real" motivation behind any conservtive cause, you can be sure he find racism at the root. So I read the column looking for the racial tie-in, and there it was with Krugman invoking his suspected "racial hostility." I promise you that I have no hostility toward any human being because of their racial, cultural, or ethnic characteristics, and I find people who traffic in racial arguments, innuendos, and stereotypes appalling, to include Donald Trump, Steve King, Ilhan Omar, and Al Sharpton. That having been said, I still think you can oppose excessive regulation without being a racist. I am shocked I have to say this in response to such falacious reasoning by a Nobel Laureate. The entire column is a series of strawman arguments attacking the most ridiculous expressions of exasperation with regulation. Anything uttered by Donald Trump should not be taken seriously, and Krugman knows this. To suggest that excessive regulation never occurs is to effectively argue that all regulation is good and that government is purely benificent and should be able to interfere in our lives without restriction (except for abortion, of course). While I personally have never felt angry over government regulation, I suspect one of the reasons people become irrationally angry is because of the cumulative effect of what they perceive as patronizing interference. And sometimes ordinary people experience major financial losses due to excessive regulation.
3
@Charles
With all due respect, you're arguing a point the author didn't even make.
When I was raising my Oldest child as a two-year-old, I summed up Trump's problem (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) in reference to my (recently divorced) husband (since, of some 25 years):
"I don't have one toddler, I have TWO."
Narcs act like toddlers. They don't like ANYONE telling them what to do. For ANY reason. Doesn't matter even if it's good for them, to their benefit, something that will be good for everyone *including them!* The ex, last week, whined to Oldest child, that *only* the court could direct him to do anything. What I was *asking* him to do was TO HIS BENEFIT.
Translation: You're not the boss a' me! (He's acting like a toddler.)
Trump is a toddler.
So are the rest of Republicans.
6
@Dejah
Probably what Melania Trump meant when she said she had two boys at home.
Perhaps you're right to parse the psychology of those who indulge themselves in "regulation rage," Mr. Krugman. But wouldn't it be just as accurate simply to point out that those individuals are stupid people? Against widely disseminated knowledge they continue to pursue unwise paths to bad ends.
They know smoking is bad; they continue to puff away. They know cholesterol can kill them but they gobble bacon and double cheeseburgers and die of coronary events at young ages. They heard Donald Trump was ill-prepared and unknowledgeable about government, but they went and voted for him anyway. They did so because they hate to be told they are making bad decisions. They voted for Trump mostly because he, too, was unwise, and stupid.
The government of the stupid, by the stupid and for the stupid will rapidly perish from the earth. And take the rest of us along with it, alas.
4
Trump at his finest (or worst) riling up people he sees as potential voters with an assortment of grievances. Rants full of, "They're coming after your ______________. They're taking away your right to _____________. I'm the only one who can protect from government ______________." He fills in the blanks with whatever will set off the particular audience he is in front of. He cares not about the consequences of his message. Retaining power at all costs is the formula. If he thought he could grab significant numbers by trashing sewage treatment as an infringement, he would turn our rivers back into open sewers.
4
While a lot of the right-wing rebellion against regulation is all tribal virtue signaling, i.e. "own the libs." I think there are a lot of legitimate reasons to be skeptical of a heavy-handed regulatory state at the federal level. A few that come to mind off the top of my head
1. "Regulatory capture" by entrenched interests used to stifle competition in a marketplace
2. Unaccountable, un-elected career bureaucrats making decisions that affect people thousands of miles away that they will never meet and who can't hold them accountable
3. Prosecutorial overreach - if you pass a law, remember it will be enforced by overzealous police/DAs/judges looking to justify their jobs and their existence
Just because some blow-hards think all regulation is bad, does not mean that all regulation is good.
3
It's a pity the government can't effectively regulate stupidity.
2
No wonder Trump said he loves the uneducated. Remember the line in *Body Heat" where William Hurt says to Kathleen Turner: "How stupid do you want me to be?" Or how about the Louisiana man quoted in "Strangers in Their Own Land" who says he knows the nearby chemical companies are killing his children but he hates the EPA? How is one to engage with people like this?
3
@arp
The correct way to "engage" with people like this is to forthrightly call them out for their wilful ignorance.
Nothing "grass roots" about "regulation rage." The GOP (& those corporations) & the incipient right wing media started pushing that button hard back in the 70's.
2
Regulation rage hurumph.
The lazy good for nothing but greed conservatives want to tell their lies with abandon...just like Trump.
It’s the psychology of greed- liars don’t want you to disturb their storyline.
If it's psychology, the place to start is children. Many, if not all, rage at times over regulations to make them safe, or healthy, or sociable. Stomping feet and shouting objections rain when a child, tired and hungry, believes he or she can't have what they want. These are expressions much like Erickson's or Trump's.
The economic universe has a lot of kindergarten in it. Everyone seeking their self-interest. Regulations from above are like being told you can't use the slide because some of its screws came loose. I want to use the slide, and you're evil to deny me that! The Kochs had traumatic childhoods, forced to work, during which they stored a lifetime of angry rage about being ordered what to do.
Trump's dad was no pussycat. He was a guy who penny pinched, brow-beat, cheated, and shouted down his way to wealth, and raised his family the same way. Trump must have hated that. His regulation rage is a symptom of discontent. Perhaps it give him pleasure to know he causes others to suffer too.
Citizens love regulations that protect them and no one else and hate them when they protect others deemed unworthy. Let's do away with all regulations protecting food; keep the cold-cold and the hot-hot; eat it and see what happens. Food recalls; let the buyer beware. Overturned cribs and juvenile furniture; teach your youngins to stop crawling on the furniture. Curtain and window-blind cords... No more manufacture's warnings on anything. Then we'll all be happy rugged individuals living by our wits.
2
The founding fathers loved regulation. Everything "from Sunday observance to the carting of offal"* was regulated in our early history. Safety, morals, health, economic activity and use of public space were regulated in the furtherance of "people's welfare and happiness in a well-ordered society and polity"*.
It's ironic that conservatives, who say they revere the founders, paper over such a fundamental part of their legacy.
*William J. Novak. The People's Welfare
2
Trump like any 4 yr old toddler hates regulations at age 8 he was a tax cheat making 200k per year soon to inherit 400 million, a real self made man.
1
It's the NOBODY TELL ME WHAT TO DO syndrome.
2
@Cassandra
Also seen in people who play loud music on the subway.
Well done.
I hope the Democrats pay attention - their historical regulatory fondness can be used against them.
You can be the right-wing will try very hard to present any Democratic nominee as anxious to regulate EVERYTHING - especially their holy gunz.
The Vietnam War draft dodger and the Republican Party mastered the art of regulation rage. By cleverly exploiting deep rooted racial animus and immigrant xenophobia, less than college educated, blue collar Caucasian workers, disproportionately white males, the GOP and the diminutive dwarf hoisted the electrifying foil of federal regulations as the cause for their discontent. Assaulting regulations implemented to protect interests of the citizenry and quickly rolling back regulatory safeguards designed to promote civic understanding and cultural recognition, dismantling this very framework assures societal chaos. Chaos is the specialty of the GOP and the Vietnam War draft dodger to jealously protect their inner sanctum. The intended objective motivating this destructive road rage will eventually advance to eroding the public accommodations protections of the Civil Rights Act. The ubiquitous 'we reserve the right to deny service to anyone' signs displayed in many eateries is a subtle approach to accomplishing this goal. Recall in 2010 when then Senate candidate Rand Paul won the Republican Kentucky primary, a day or so after he publicly proclaimed that public establishments, including hotels and restaurants, should be able to dispense with the CRA accommodations requirement, signaling to white America a yearning to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear where no law, or regulation, prohibited racial discriminatory practices. This is what we witness today. Race matters.
1
The United States is full of ostensibly grown men who can't get over their resentment at their mothers demanding they make their beds.
1
This is so true. Sarah Palin guzzled down 40 tea spoons of sugar to prove a point that excess sugar intake should be a right. Then there was the viscous pushback to Michelle Obama’s healthy lunch initiative, when all she was trying to do was swap the cupcake for an apple, the pizza for a wrap, the chocolate milk for regular milk. Americans really don’t like being told what they cant do by the government.
2
With all of these self interested but unenlightened people wallowing in their own little victimhoods there is no time for community, no time for personal growth and no hope for the compromise necessary for our government's functioning.
1
And don't ever forget that Trump wants to reverse ANYTHING Obama did. He'll never forget Obama making jokes at his expense at the Correspondents dinner.
1
MAGA- Make Anarchy Great Again seems to be the common theme here.
3
Oh, it's just something to make small men feel bigger, like an AK-47. Defenders of the dishwasher! Lancelots of the lightbulb! Their moms never did a proper job of summoning them inside to dinner and telling them to wash their hands before they sat down--that's all.
1
The Devil, or God I forget which, is in the details.
1
Three words: plastic straws.
They do love regulations designed to cram guns and Jesus into every facet of American life. And they do love laws banning gay and transgender fellow citizens from defending the country they love.
What you are basically saying is the fact Republicans led by their Crime Boss have adopted his tactic of asymmetrical war fare and sneer at norms (Merrick Garland anyone) kill all legislation that doesn’t contribute to death and the destruction of the planet and line their pockets where they can. Wise up; he’s not leaving.
1
Why do even you denigrate people who care about survival as "hippie tree huggers"? Could this be a problem?
1
@jumblegym
Please read Dr. Krugman's column again, CAREFULLY.
Krugman wrote, "the Alliance to Save Energy, which condemned Trump’s action, is hardly a bunch of hippie tree-huggers."
Another factor contributing to regulation rage may be that certain wealthy, privileged white males, who have been extremely entitled for their entire lives, deeply resent having anyone telling them what to do.
2
US democracy is blocked from operating up to modern standards due to the GOPs distorted credo against govt that represents the citizen majority. They want small weak govt for the We the People, but big powerful govt to protect their wealthy mega donors.
They sell this by pretending that our government is actually a 'threat' to us. Instead of protecting the interests of citizens, they tell us big govt is the road to Tyranny, interfering in our 'American Freedoms'.
It's one of the biggest cons in the history of modern democracies. When we stand in long lines to vote, the policy choices we're offered are limited by the dictates of big campaign donors.
They use our supposed founding traditions of independence, self reliance to work against us--- to weaken our laws and norms. That's why we have the most expensive, and profitable medical care ---and also elections--in the modern world.
It's turned into a positive---that unregulated corporations and mega donors are enabled to 'call the shots', in our country's laws --- on gun control, medical care, taxes, regulations, education funding, and weakening of our basic safety net.
Just to reach 20th century international standards of medical care for all is a big fight in our 21st century, and will go on and on.
Sounds like just the opposite of the American Dream. And it is. Yet it's sold to voters as reinforcing the Dream-- a warped version of it.
2
I am sure someone has already mentioned this about an important point that Paul Krugman has missed. Anyone building a house or customizing their home would grow to hate regulations, and the villain is the International Residential Code (IRC) which provides the template for local codes in describing minimum requirements for one & two family dwellings of three stories or less. We could get rid of local building codes and the world would be a more free and happier place. Of course this all goes back to the Babylonians so the blame can be put there. I really think this is a root cause that the psychologists and psychiatrists missed.
@Richard
Yeah, and we'd have far, far, more fires. Most houses blown down by minor winds.
Plate glass in windows near doors.. all that good stuff.
/s
Houses are a commodity and the barriers to buying and selling would be far higher as you'd never know what someone did to make a quick buck or they don't believe in cancer.
3
@Richard.
Trying to guess whether the upstairs jacussi tub will fall into the basement is a challenge when looking to buy a house. It shouldn’t be too hard to get some help with the building code if you intend to sell the house in the future.
Compliance means both following the rules and having people be able to see that the rules have been followed. Building inspectors make it possible to sell houses.
@Bro
I was writing tongue in cheek so to speak. Can you imagine the chaos in the home building industry if we did not have strict codes? Who will do the electrical or plumbing work? Some kid off the street? By experience people have demanded strong regulations to protect themselves and their investments.The whole purpose of strong regulation is to protect the air we breath, and the water we drink, and the homes we live in!
I read this important column late last evening and want to underscore your subtitle. As I see it, this is part of the election year strategy for the GOP to elevate the issue to the classic Free Enterprise vs. Big Government issue to both convince the American people that Government is bad and the purpose of Democrats is to take your personal choice and freedoms away.
1
The anti regulation crew might ponder for a moment how Big Pharma lines the pockets of Congressmen/ women on both sides of the aisle to make sure prescription drug safety stays watered down. People fail to realize that over 100,000 Americans die every year from side effects from taking prescription drugs as prescribed. And that’s not counting opioids. It could be your son or daughter, Ormaybe your favorite aunt who goes in this way.
3
Years ago, the notable conservative voice on TV, Radio, Editor, Debater, and columnist James L. Kirkpatrick had railed against the 'Regulatory State'. He finally organized his thinking and proclaimed that conservatives may agree with many of the regulations that emerged after the Second World War, but it wasn't the job of government to have the right to "tell us and force us to go along" or words to that effect.
He notoriously defended segregation for years after the 1954 Supreme Court rulings that did away with the "Seperate but Equal" public institutions of education, on all levels, from K through 12, with Colleges and Universities, too. The rationale then as surely remains now, is the idea that somebody can tell you what can and cannot be done by the government. "That's what conservatives resent", Mr. Kirkpatrick wrote in his column.
This attitude has just been repeated and the role of any civilization demands major levels of acceptance of laws, values, and standards of behaviors by the individual and the society's institutions.
Apparently these concepts only apply to the republican mind set as examples by Dr. Krugman.
The answer may be summed up by James Kirkpatrick:.“Conservatives believe that a civilized society demands orders and classes, that men are not inherently equal, that change and reform are not identical, that in a free society men are children of God and not wards of the state,” he wrote.
2
As a child I wouldn't eat the crust around bread until my mother told me it would give me curly hair (mine was straight). So I started eating the crust but never did get that curly hair. I have since debated getting regulation passed to make crust-less bread, or sue mothers who lie to their kids. Which would stand a better chance?
1
Abandonment of the FCC Fairness Doctrine during the Reagan era resulted in the explosive growth of conservative talk radio with its righteous antigovernment demigods. Their command of the airwaves has resulted in rule by their listeners in conservative bastions of the country --- primarily small town and rural. Add an electoral college that gives rural voters outside influence to people who tend to believe government regulations are useless and we find ourselves where we are today --- a government run by rural politicians and believers who were given their jobs as a reward for getting money and votes during the last election.
1
Some regulation rage is irrational. Some is dollars & cents related. When lobbyists call the shots on federal & state regulations, people die...as my mother did in a North Carolina assisted living facility.
2
Never before has there been an official OOTWPP in the executive branch of the federal government.
The Office Of The Worst Possible Policy is a signature Trump achievement. It is clearly active 24/7 thinking up the worst possible policies that will harm the USA and the world.
8
Regulations come from the government, and as #40 said, "Government is not the solution to our problem(s), government IS the problem". Mr, Krugman, your assessment is sensible, and your examples support the "psychological" aspect of Regulations-rules, procedures,etc. making sense to most, but represent an assault on freedom to the few. As you pointed out, this POTUS is especially infuriated by them - but selectively... Those regulations that give him cover, so that he can sneak in the darkness like the cockroach he is are great, but the other ones... The other psychological weakness our Toddler in Chief has is with the word NO. Trump was given a priveledged life, and proceeded to screw it up because he can't follow rules, be incorrect, or won't stop at NO. Besides saying again to vote (and get others to vote) on 11/3/2020, be prepared for the emperors reaction to hearing from the American Majority: Trump you are fired!
7
And where are the regulations to stop orange-tinted tanning creams when you really need them? ; )
4
Don't forget, many of the regulations Trump is overturning were put in place by one of the people he really hates: President Obama.
5
Using less gas, according to right wing economics, means drivers drive more and therefore use cars more and demand more cars from Detroit.
Not sure why Trump would take an anti business stance that decreases demand for labor in Detroit.
Oh, yeah, it's about the Wicked Witch of the West - California.
Lotsa witches gonna burn in 2020. Get that rusty pitchfork out of storage and practice at shaking it angrily. Grrrrr.
Hopefully Liz Warren can explain to the terrified nation that there is no rational reason to fear better gas mileage.
4
Light bulb rage........is that what we're down to? For me, I'm buying one of the new coal powered home generators to use during the next hurricane.
1
PK should write on job loss as a cause. The soil for GOP dominance & Trump, our worst president, was cultivated well. Congress approved sending millions of US jobs to Asia and Mexico. Factories closed across the land, as did their support businesses.
The GOP then enflamed resentments based on race and immigration, deliberately misdirecting blame. The Dems, needed campaign money from mega donors, so didn’t fight too hard. They needed votes, and were put on the defensive by GOP State Media Fox News.
The GOP has set political norms & policy limits. Opposition is simply labeled left wing. Period. The media goes along, aiming for ‘objectivity’.
This is playing out now, when Democrats are cautioned to be ‘moderate’. Thus the GOP ends up winning, even if they don’t get all that they want. WE the People lose-- we’re told this is the best they can do.
Trump’s damage extends because beating him is the 1st priority. Many voters gladly support even mediocre Democrats, who are constrained from solving our serious problems by big money donors, and a media that goes along with it.
Our media doesn't discuss how it gets big profits from the high cost campaign ads that swamp our voters, paid for by big money donors. Such ads are banned in many nation. Here, profits keep policy and media coverage within limits.
That’s why we never hear on the media just how dozens of other democracies have paid for medical care for all, for generations.
3
I finally understand why a close relative of the red persuasion was ranting about phosphates and dishwashers a couple of years ago. I had been unaware anyone still defended phosphates.
6
This is an interesting take, but in assessing Trump's regulation rage, let's not forget the extent to which he's motivated by an Ahabesque quest to obliterate the legacy of his predecessor, the illegitimate president BO. Trump wouldn't care if every auto CEO went to him on bended knee begging him to reconsider his regulation rage with respect to auto emissions; this was an Obama initiative and has to go.
Interesting that so many regulation ragers are wealthy people whose lives are so very lightly touched by the regulations they so desperately want to eliminate.
8
Krugman says he'd love to see some serious political science research on regulation rage? I'm sure a Google search could find it. Or ask some of his colleagues at Princeton or the CUNY Grad Center.
But this Nobel is well qualified to analyze. He's not a degreed psychologist either but it's accurate and obvious to correlate it with resentment in the face of any perceived 'restrictions' being a personal insult.
And why not? This is exactly what the radical rw Republicans have been using to mold public opinion, and capture voters. That's why we have lax gun laws and the bodies keep piling up.
It goes along with enflaming racial resentments in white voters whose jobs are lost---because the GOP ok'd offshoring of US factory jobs to Asia and Mexico.
It goes with gerrymandering & voter suppression for political power, as they pretend to fight 'voter fraud', that they invent to justify their anti democracy actions.
The GOP strongly align with financial elites to further concentrate wealth and power in what was once 'the world's greatest democracy'. Then they must misdirect blame. Obvious.
Manipulated voters are vulnerable. The Democrats, put on the defensive, haven't been strong enough in their opposition. They need mega donors, too.
If Krugman wants to promote the regulations we need for democracy to work, let him depart from his usual, and start pointing to positive role models---the US in our past, and other democracies today.
Just do a Google search--it's easy.
4
Googling is not always easy. How do you Google an idea which can be expressed in many different ways with no common keywords?
Krugman is raising an excellent, in fact vital question, one that deserves an excellent answer. Unfortunately, I don't think he gives one. I am hoping some one comes up with a real one and publishes it soon.
3
This form of psychological warfare is to drive liberals crazy. That's its only purpose. It's not about allowing people to dump their auto-detailing waste into your drinking water (although eventually someone will use it for that). So the way to win is to not be driven crazy. The right calls us 'snowflakes' (eternally perfect in our ego-driven ideals). Their purpose is to drag us down into the mud again. The way to win is to go ahead and do some mud-wrestling. Prove that we aren't snowflakes: just people who don't want our kids to drink auto-detailing waste.
5
"Regulation rage" is all too real, and it has been played to and exploited by the maniacs who call themselves republicans (and the swindlers who call themselves "neoliberals") for decades now.
It's "jobs or regulations". As if the world could possibly be that black and white. But that's the nonsense that's been sold to generations of Americans since Reagan took office.
5
Ironically Republicans are the most in need of a nanny - just look at their leader! - nanny-state regulations to protect them from themselves. Forget the dishwasher - Republican brains and intellect have been washed of any trace of common sense to the point of ignoring the facts facing them.
When reason, intelligence and the common good overrides their pettiness they go into a rage and resort to cheating, stealing, illegal actions and if that doesn't work they'll resort guns to get their way - a la Bundy family (Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, etc.).
It's no accident Democrats are called progressive and why Republicans are the regressives party with their regressive ideology and policies that date back thousands of years pre-science.
Indeed, it puzzles me how they claim to follow antiquated ten regulations a guy carved into two stone tablets without going into a rage, yet piously ignore them especially when they coincide with secular law (like lying, killing, and stealing). They flaunt them while going into a rage when they can't impose those ten regulations on others. They have no rage when their elite smarter and holier that them preachers regulate and pontificate on their lives while disrespecting their intelligence by ignoring or breaking God's regulations themselves - because the right-wing elites can get away with everything, no matter how unholy or illegal it is.
6
The U.S. is racing toward a position as a third world country- at a time when most third world countries are moving toward greater prosperity.
China will overwhelm the environmental market and our opportunity to expand manufacturing will evaporate.
Trump’s policies lead to environmental disaster and human annihilation.
Any way this plays out, the average U.S. citizen is the big loser.
4
Part of this regulation rage is economic coming from big businesses and industries that have a lot to hide, value money and profit over all, and have serious means-ends problems (e.g., Koch Industries, chemical industry, fossil fuels, finance and banking...).
But Krugman is on to something when he talks about the psychology of Trump and his supporters, who angrily feel disrespected by professional elites, and rebelliously and belligerently do not want anyone or anything telling them what they are not going to do.
This may be the emotional tie that binds the aggrieved Trump and his aggrieved supporters.
Despite his proclaimed wealth, Trump was long considered a hack, rightfully disrespected, and treated as part of the presumptuous tacky nouveau riche by the elites with class and status in NY, New England, and elsewhere in the world.
The deep-seated, seething feelings of being "not good enough" and disrespected certainly characterizes the Trump fans in the southern wing of our extended family. We & some other family members no longer go to those painful annual reunions in the South. Their negativity & hatred for liberals & the government is neurotic.
As another departing family member said to us, "Those people are so miserable; they don't wish anybody well and cannot congratulate anyone on their success. In fact, seeing others suffer appears to make them feel better.
Trump hawks a toxic brew of negative psychology and white culture that must be rejected in 2020
6
trump's face still looks orange in natural daylight. It's not
the bulbs, maybe it's the shade of the makeup.
6
The radical right Republican Party prefers gun anarchy to public safety; that kills 90 Americans by gunshot each day of the year.
They prefer the Environmental Pollution Agency to the Environmental Protection Agency.
They prefer to defund the IRS so tax cheats, dodgers and evaders like Donald Trump never have to pay their fair share and the national treasury is bankrupted.
The GOP has essentially shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because it gets offended when non-millionaires are protected from corporate predators and the oligarchic swamp.
The GOP prefers the single greatest unregulated healthcare rip-off in the rich world, 'free-market' healthcare that abandons many millions to sticker shock withdrawal from healthcare.
The GOP loves the unregulated 0.1% corruption of American campaign finance that has made America's government a 0.1% timeshare property.
The GOP hates the Voting Rights Act.....because it hates democracy and the will of the people.
The GOP prefers unregulated anarchy and modern feudalism in almost every area of public policy, with the exception being that they love to regulate the nation's uteruses .
All these public policies result in the complete degradation of public safety, infrastructure, the common good, democracy, the environment, people's lives, people's health, consumer rights, female rights and voting rights.
The Republican Party is the party of national self-mutilation.
Stop mutilating yourselves, Republican voters.
8
Ronald Reagan reached the White House in part because of his crusade against government, with falsehoods and emotional triggers. As he put it, government is not the answer but the problem. Regulations then are in this narrative invented by by the "left liberals" who carry out redistribution to the undeserving poor to tie down the free spirits of America. These free spirits are these days presumably the ranting talk-show hosts on the fringe, White Supremacists and xenophobes, as well as the whack-jobs with assault weapons.
2
@Hari Prasad
I always loved it when Reagan railed against government. Imagine the HEAD of our GOVERNMENT complaining that government was our problem...
Don't know if other comments address this - but would love to see P. Krugman write about the link between Regulation Ragers and anti-vaxxers.
1
Gee, I didn’t realize we any regulations left.
3
.
Regulation Rage is cut from the same appallingly delusional toxic cloth as is anti vax-ism
.
Psych Types : why is the human brain so easily triggered to get into such states of mind?
.
Consider the self-harm issue of the anti vaxxers
.
1
This psychologica phenomenon of resentment and grievance (when your talking about right wing ideology, think resentment, grievance, and the need for enemies) is perhaps best expressed by those guys who have these big pick up truck that are modified to emit tons of black smoke. They're called "Rolling Coal" trucks, and they explicitly are designed to pollute in a dramatic way; there is no real practical purpose other than giving the middle finger to the environment and anybody who cares about it.
Another incident comes to mind: a guy was working a solar power stand in a mall in Orange County, California. He was working for a private company, not the government. But regularly right wingers walking by would give him the finger, just to express their hostility to the very idea of clean energy.
Part of this is 30 years of right wing radio, but I have to think there is just something wrong with these people.
3
I remember when the regulation-rage-queen, Michele Bachman, ranted about the evils of “curly light bulbs” and later about “government injections.”
I often wonder if the anti-vaccination movement that has been so destructive is founded in this type of regulation rage.
2
No need to overthink this. The essence of Trumpism is spite, and reversing regulation helps fulfill Trump's daily quota for thrilling his supporters by Owning the Libs.
3
California will never consent to Trump's order. Never.
5
I think this analysis is partly correct, but there is something else at work here: a very specific kind of stupidity, I.e., an inability to think statistically. Anti-regulators typically focus only on anecdotal evidence where a relation of cause and effect is direct and transparent. For instance, they see that a hurricane destroys a region, but they are unable to understand that climate change makes the occurrence of hurricanes in general more likely.
2
There's no regulation rage, Dr. Krugman.
There is however a morass of empty Americans who out of boredom or self-loathing reflexively blame everything and everyone for their alienated, pointless and trivia-obsessed lives.
They have appetites, addictions, afflictions, and a commercially-induced sense of entitlement and instant gratification that has as a monument Fast Food dens of morbid obesity never further away than 5 minutes by car.
They aren't citizens. They are consumers who live on borrowed money and borrowed time. They are bred, fed and led as empty barrels to be filled to the brim with worthless stuff that makes them feel worthwhile. They seek the company of other empty vessels so they feel normal. They fall for politicians who tell them their emptiness is freedom and their voracious consumption is prosperity.
Regulation is like parental authority. It's admitting that someone knows better, which is totally unAmerican.
Jeffrey Epstein believed sex trafficking of minors was frivolous regulation -- no more vile than "stealing a bagel."
Trump hates regulations -- except for the ones he gets to make.
There's no regulation rage. Just Americans who think freedom is license to do to others what you don't want done to yourself.
While turning a huge profit.
2
At heart, "regulation ragers" don't like anything that protects the weak from the strong, because they sense that it means protecting people they see as weaker than them, from them, who they see as stong. They feel that they, being the strong, have a natural right to bully and take from those they see as weaker than them. This is really the mentality of the 5th grade schoolyard bully who's angry that the teacher won't let him beat up the weirdos and other assorted 'losers'. This is Trump's mentality. Trump, the consummate schoolyard bully, exploits the primal tendency of people to follow the schoolyard bully. Killing regulations that protect the public gives him and his followers a shot of endorphins; it's beating up the nerds and weirdos.
4
Middle school bullies never like regulations.
1
Try to imagine what kind of killer snake oil medications would be out there without the FDA. Imagine how disgusting our food would be without the agriculture department, and if we didn't have an EPA, all the red states would have Flint-like water by now. Capitalism without regulation is barbarism.
2
Trump, like Homer Simpson, thinks everyone is stupid except him. Regarding the failing GO-P Party, he may be right...alt-right.
R. Raegan started a lot of this nonsense when he said "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Others have expressed different opinions, more in line with the majority of rational citizens.
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain
"The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy." Woodrow Wilson
"Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike."
Plato
2
Love the inconsistency of all this anti-regulatory talk from ovary regulating GOP and the reverse state's rights stunt they are pulling re California's deal with automakers.
3
I think it's spite. "If liberals are for it, than I'm against it! That'll show them!"
2
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Abraham Lincoln, 1837
3
Perhaps we should take a cue from Elon Musk at Tesla and put more patents into the public domain. Whereas Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway is a strong proponent of patents acting as moats to protect the large profits generated by costly innovative research; Musk states that markets would be more efficient if many patents were voided and freer public access to these unique inventions allowed.
1) Perhaps Musk at Tesla does know more than Buffett. By making such patented devices public, then they can act as marketing and recruiting tools, informing knowledgeable consumers and job recruits about Tesla's expertise.
2) Also, the fact that one of Musk's firms, SpaceX, is able to attract and accumulate sufficient funds from the private sector to challenge publicly-funded NASA, seems to be an advertisement for the need for a better regulated economy, in and of itself. Further evidence of US markets lacking competitive rigor includes Musk's salary of $2.3 billion at Tesla in 2018. Tougher regulatory measures could reintroduce more competition into US markets based on the "creative destruction" principles of the economist, Joseph Schumpeter.
[09/18/2019 Wed 5:00 pm Greenville NC]
[09/19/2019 Thurs 12:30 pm Greenville NC]
Adopt the attitude of a petulant 3 year-old who doesn’t want to eat his broccoli before getting his two scoops of ice cream and you’ll understand this rage.
2
Regulation rage is misapplied when corporations propagandize that "they're coming for your guns or your health insurance or your hamburgers or your lightbulbs." The very real rage felt by the vulture corporations at the hint of regulation is transferred to the individuals who are harmed every day by gun violence or global warming.
We should never miss a chance to explain ourselves when we're accused of being a socialist or a tree-hugger.
1
Two year old behavior pattern, saying "no!" to everything.
2
Excellent article Mr. Krugman. It is spot on. If it wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious human folly to watch so many be brainwashed into voting against themselves......and know we are doing so and feeling happy about it. I hope and actually think our Corporation's will be good citizen's and recognize that 45 will be gone, but recognize also that we won't.
1
What's really driving regulation rage?
Fox.
There you go, Dr. K. That's all the serious political research you need. And I'm being serious. We're dealing with a cult that gets its news from Fox and only Fox. If Fox tells them it's so, it is so.
Tune in sometime, and keep in mind that this is where the 90% of Republicans who still back Trump get their facts from. It's beyond scary.
5
It is nothing short of crazy how this flaw in the human psyche keeps destroying the forward movement of humanity. In Freud's' later years, he turned his methods of analysis towards society as a whole, not just the individual. He wrote, most notably of this subject, "Civilization and Its' Discontents". It tells of how many people resent the benefits of modern day rule and law based order. He describes how there are many who would rather give vent to raw conquest and rage as the force to make the world better. Might makes right, ans so on. This work was published just before WWI. Another, "The Future Of An Illusion", poses the question of, now that science can answer all the questions of modern life (written in 1914, I believe!) what will be done with all the people who cling to religion? The book basically mocks peoples beliefs in things spiritual, but ends with the realization that, because there is seemingly no other way to teach the young to be moral, and sort of lets spiritual beliefs off the hook. To go way back, the Spartans didn't do too well, and the barbarians and magic believers of our day won't either. How dumb are we to be on this precipice AGAIN?!
These people are anti-government in general, and being anti-regulation is part of that world view. They don't think of regulations as protecting people (safety, health, well-being, etc.). Rather, they think of regulations as being limitations on liberty. It's a deeply-engrained philosophy and there's no way to persuade them otherwise. Oh wait, no that's not true...if something happens to them or their family, then they get religion about regulation. That's because they lack empathy!
2
It is all about turning back the clock to a mythical time, when everything worked better. You did not need a university diploma to make it in the middle-class if you were white. It is also about an inherited colonial ethos and the manifest destiny. Trump is speaking to Americans who still see their country as a frontier.
1
When you feel you are ignored or not treated well by the government, then this is just another way to vent your anger and frustration I guess.
To me that feels like one of the forces that got Trump elected and why Trump remains popular with "his base". If you do not see any benefits coming in from government policies, then you might get angry over other "regulations" that could be characterised as the government trying to mess with your way of life.
When will the counterattack begin? Why not get a bunch of outrageous stuff on oligarch and business crimes and abuses and get it out 24/7? And, by the way, be sure to name the offenders personally.
Paul is helping. But, we are in a propaganda war and we are wagging our fingers at platoons of AR 15s and worse.
3
I heard an interview recently with an author who claimed that the reason many men don't want to recycle is because they consider it "gay". And I think that's what much of this is about - it's about macho pride. If one can be told what to do and especially if that act or regulation is one that requires considering or caring for others or empathy, it makes those doing the complaining feel less like men whereas they equate freedom with doing "whatever they want".
Of course, someone who does wish to do anything they want without thinking of others is actually acting like a spoiled child, but they don't see it that way - they see it as an infringement of their freedom. This goes hand-in-hand with their views on capitalism, in which they feel if you own something, like a piece of land, you should be able to do anything you want on it, even if that means poisoning the earth or destroying the tenor of a neighborhood.
So I believe regulation rage has to do with macho pride, however in the case of Trump, he's specifically destroying regulations that Obama had a role in. Trump has "Obama rage" and he is completely obsessed with the man, most likely because Trump knows that he himself is massively inferior.
Have you ever heard any other President talk about any predecessor the way Trump has?
3
"....undoing dishwasher regulations has....become an important conservative cause."
If I may suggest, this is one reason we need to reinstate a top marginal (NOTE THE WORD MARGINAL) income tax rate of 90%+ as we had in the 1960s. Not only has the obscene wealth of the Koch Bros been used to buy the Senate, Judiciary, & Presidency, in a 'use it or lose it' frenzy, they invent moronic causes like this because they need to spend the PAC money on Think Tanks & Lobbyists somewhere or the other.
1
By revoking the California standards with such bravado, Trump was just doing what he felt he must to redirect the attention given to a sixteen year old girl speaking truth to power back to himself.
Regulations limit the power of the individual in order to protect the common good. People who hate regulations ( in general, as opposed to specific ones, which sometimes can be stupid) think their freedom is more important than other people's health and welfare.
2
This Administration and the current GOP never seriously consider legitimate rigorous Ecology/Evolution.
Their World View cannot tolerate scientific truth. If they know science its with mind-set to sound expert when they gas-light issues to undermine real truth.
Example: the Discovery Institute (anti-evolution creationist think tank). Charismatic charlatans to charm the predisposed, credentialed but perverse scientists to give them truthy sounding talking points, and willingness to promote their view at all costs - truth/honor in dustbin.
Of course regulations need review and adjustment through time - things change. And of course NOT EVERY regulation was installed without some political (unscientific) motivation i.e., although the overall umbrella is worthy not every "legal action" was rigorously scientific.
But Science has a METHOD - the Scientific Method - and it corrects its mistakes PROPERLY and soon enough generally.
The current vile GOP, has a self-serving narrow-minded agenda/philosophy (call it theistic, Machiavellian, etc.) antithetical to Science and the Ecology of life!
Example: the SNAIL DARTER. To real scientists it was about the broader ecology of the necessary environment for our lives. Science knows as go markers like the Darter so goes us! To GOP it was fuel for anti-liberal democratic government propaganda.
To diss truth threatens OUR survival! The GOP is an existential threat to humanity. Hope in 2020 enough of us take that FACT seriously!
Many businesses men, especially small business men are running these businesses because they can't stand being told what to do by anyone. Big corporate dogs also get to the top often by a similar type of arrogance, see Silicon Valley.
Regulatory rage is to be expected from this kind of "alpha male" emotional mindset.
2
I'm sorry. I know a lot of conservatives. All of them want regulations when they favor them.
1
Comrade Krugman must be pining for the good all days of the Soviet union were everything was delightfully regulated.
My industry, medicine, is now delightfully regulated. Regulated to the point where the biggest problem in medicine is now physician burnout. And it’s done wonders for our productivity. I can now see two patients in an hour where are used to be able to see four. And what is the cost to society of all this regulation? When I graduated medical school in the United States spent 6% of GDP and defense and 6% on health. We now spend 3.8% on defense and 17% on health. And we’re not living any better or any longer because of that 17%. We’re living longer because people are taking better care of themselves.
Regulation can stifle innovation. It does a very good job of that in medicine. I asked a bright young colleague where she learned her new cardiology techniques that I had not heard of. She said, “in Germany. They have many fewer regulations so we are able to do cutting edge things.“ her words, not mine.
Is it regulations that have made Silicon Valley the envy of the whole world? Hardly. Wasn’t it the heavily government regulated PG & E that caused the California wildfires?
Modest regulation is reasonable and desirable. You could get rid of 3/4 of today’s regulations and the country would be the better off for it.
@Michael Plunkett MD PG&E caused the California fires because they were "heavily government regulated"? That's a new one! How about the fact that they spent more money on advertising than on equipment upkeep? If anything, they weren't regulated enough, and people died because of it.
A lot of people would argue that the American medical establishment imposes higher costs with poorer results because it values profits over care.
1
Regulation rage is about deeply rooted psychology: its about identity and a need to be a member of an in-group. It's no surprise that red hats have caught on and persevered on the right far more so than pink cat hats on the left. Being a member of the in-group is a critical moral foundation underpinning conservative ideology. Haidt and Graham's research on Moral Foundations Theory has shown this to be true.
But once the red hat becomes commoditized on the right, how do the true believers continue to demonstrate their membership to the group: adoption of escalating and more extreme views that act as shiboleths. Trump has mastered this: ignore reason/evidence and frame/belittle regulations in way that make government seem frivolous and overreaching into private lives (e.g., washing machines and lightbulbs). If you're a true believer and member of the conservative cause, you parrot these views on message boards, at the water cooler, over beers in the backyard, and in the shouting crowd. If you can repeat the talking point, you're a member of the team.
Just as one person starts a slow clap, the FOMO on being part of the conservative group promotes bandwagoning. When the common uniting theme on the right is white anger because you feel (or more likely are told by right-wing media) that you're being left behind, you channel that anger as a mark of being part of the group. Being angry is fun and self-validating. But it's ultimately just a fad full of a bunch of mindless posers.
1
I think I can help here. I grew up in the Jim Crow South when the word government meant Yankee liberals telling white Southerners how they should treat people of color. (Republicans - party of Lincoln - were the bad guys back then, but Reagan flipped the parties when he celebrated the 1964 murder of three Civil Rights workers in Mississippi.) Today, when conservatives rage about dish washer regulations they are tapping into the vast reservoir of resentment about the Civil Rights Movement. It's really that simple. Racial hatred is the strongest force in American politics. Always has been.
2
The climate change effects the poor and rich alike. The rich may live in mansions, but those mansions are still on this planet. The regulations are not politics any more. They are directly related to life and death. Removing planet saving regulations reminds me mass suicide at Jonestown, just at global level. Trump committing to a Faustian bargain and afraid the judgement day arrives sooner than later.
1
The roots of the self destructive rage are the lack of education in basic morals, law, and science. Generally low educated Americans are then prone to what appears to be an inclination to what we view as criminal behavior that they are accustomed to as a way of life. A simple mind wants a simple life free of the challenges of the future and it's complexity as the Conservatives wish for the simpler life of long ago.
It is also obvious that the government knows this and the Republicans specifically have embarked on a strategy of undermining education, especially science and other realms that would inhibit aberrant behavior we view as crime or rebellion. Education infuriates some. Regulation is a sensible way of saving lives and trouble, but the complexity of many laws enrages the overwhelmed minds of the less educated. Simpler people are easier to control and that's why Republicans "Like 'em dumb". The Republicans even managed to convince the simple followers to vote for them to actually take away their health care.
I suspect that the ragers do not recognize that there are people smarter than them and they may not realize that there are actually people other than them on the planet.
"Trump, I’d argue, is tapping into a grass-roots phenomenon — let’s call it regulation rage — that is more about psychology than about self-interest. It’s a syndrome that only afflicts a minority of the population, but it’s real, it’s ugly, and it can do a remarkable amount of damage."
Trump and the Republican party have been fracturing and atomizing public opinion in order to serve their political aims. Yet, the biggest threats the planet faces today - climate change, population exodus often caused by climate change, and yawning wealth and income inequality - are problems that cry out for solutions that need national and international cooperation. This is incredibly short sighted and damaging to our collective future.
Logic is not always easy. Most republicans gave up on it a long time ago.
The Donald is an exemplar of someone who can't think for themselves, of someone who is not equipped to evaluate opinions on their merits, so instead relies on an assessment of the opinion-provider. According to his lights all the "right people" are against regulation so so is he.
That in a democracy we should be ruled by our best and brightest, who legislate in the general and national interest, after considering the advice of experts, is scandalous to many a egotistical, sociopathic and/or misanthropic plutocrat and unthinking person generally.
"Movement" (or "Libertarian") "Conservatism" has been a very electorally successful strategy employed by the Republican Party and many in the economic elite against the political and academic elite. Common people have been duped by the anti-democratic opponents of democracy, confirming their prejudice.
Mr Trump has become almost like a comic book villain in his haste to make manifest their hatred for all that is good about democracy and the best that human beings can be. Our potential to utterly disgrace ourselves is winning over our potential to shine. And history is not a test-run.
“Modern conservatives hate regulation, and the Trump administration has channeled that hatred into policy…”
Because they’d rather see…:
Large pharmaceutical companies gouging severely ill patients or denying them medication due to outrageous pricing?
Industries polluting at will?
Our pristine national parks sold off for development?
Faulty automobiles killing drivers and passengers?
Airplane manufacturer’s cutting corners, resulting in unnecessary fatalities?
Bottled water companies depleting public resources, while communities like Flint, MI go without clean water?
Regulations exist for the safety of Americans, don’t be so gullible to think otherwise.
I think that regulation rage certainly has a lot to do with profitability.
Most profitable businesses would be less profitable if they had to be responsible for the damage that they do.
Where would the fossil fuel industry be if they had to be responsible for all of the damage that they do to the air, water, and land. Being able to freely pollute makes them a lot of money, certainly worth paying armies of lobbyists.
And the plastics industry.
If they had to be responsible and clean up their mess, maybe they would be motivated to come up with something better.
It’s true, though that a lot of the rage comes from people who just want to “own the libs”.
Trump is their leader.
He will force America to pollute more.
It will please his base, and it will make plundering what is left of the earth more profitable at the same time.
A real win-win for losers.
1
Paul, I think, is over-thinking this. It's all about being a good neighbor at what ever level you want to examine. On a local level if a neighbor is cited for bad behavior he becomes furious. But then, if the tables are turned he preaches "there should be a law against" doing such-and-such. News flash: we are a nation of hypocrites.
"What do I mean by regulation rage? It’s the startling anger evoked by government rules intended to protect the public, even when those rules aren’t especially onerous and the public interest case for the rules is overwhelming."
God I wish there was a widespread rage over mass murders by way too easy to get guns and weapons of war that are killing little school children, church worshipers, concert and club goers, newspaper employees and on and on...
1
The GOP has, since Reagan, become more and more libertarian. Each of them, mostly Republicans, are self centered ego driven mini "Atlas Shrugged" models of greed and selfishness.
And, they have a following that is very like a 'cult'. Trump is only the latest, but certainly the worst, proponent of the libertarian nonsense. He has not read Ayn Rand I'm sure but he is actually a walking, tweeting 'Atlas', at least in his mind. Regulation represents constraint that is anathema to all who live and breath this ugly philosophy and ideology.
Now, though, we see the early stages of massive revulsion against this childish, immature and even evil power grab of the libertarians. And, I believe it is an international revulsion that will define the next decade. I have hope.
1
The removal of the regulations on the emission coming from from the auto exhaust system will have long-term effects. One would think that the current administration will be described in school text books in the future. The words the Teapot Dome scandal is associated with Pres. Warren Harding, the Watergate scandal is associated with Pres. Richard Nixon, the Monica Lewinsky affair is associated with Pres. Bill Clinton, and now we have the possibility of the increased pollution and global warming being associated with Pres. Donald Trump. Oh woe is me!
Reactive authority problems belong in the world of the personality disorder particularly, especially if they are acted out publicly.
Worth mentioning in this context are the "coal rollers" featured in a NYTimes article by Hiroko Tabuchi on September 4, 2016. These are people who protest auto pollution regulation by modifying their diesel pickups (illegally) to make them produce massive clouds of black smoke, ostentatiously displayed via smokestacks that belch the pollutants into the sky. The article notes that this behavior is often used to annoy, provoke, and intimidate folks who choose to walk, bike, or drive an environmentally friendly car.
Perhaps our next president should set up a Reverse Psychology Department that would design regulations for certain subsets of our population that would make it illegal for them to "get smart and grow up".
As one who knows and lives among many AR-15 owners, I will say that Paul Krugman's description of regulation ragers is a much more accurate characterization of assault-rifle fanatics than Will Wilkerson's in his current Opinion piece.
I think that my four year old grandson said it all...."you're not the boss of me". Some people have simply gotten bigger but haven't grown up.
Regulation Rage is a psychological phenomenon. We have all heard a child say “you’re not the boss of me.” And we as a Country romanticize the rugged individual. We are a nation of Self-expression and we breed for “Regulation Rage” and insult Group-Think.
Yet we do not need to let ourselves be co-opted by the loudest voice. But supporting the collective, love of country and neighbor, must be seen as love of the Planet and the Inalienable Right for the Future to exist. We need not glorify the tallest Poppy nor cut it down. We can choose to congregate together.
Has anyone read the story on CNN.com about Shawn Pleasants, the Yale Graduate and former Wall Street Banker who is now homeless on the streets of Los Angeles? The story is also a piece on “Regulation Rage.” The CNN writer quotes Mr Pleasants:
He grimaced at the notion of ever going to a shelter.
"They're always set up with such rigid protocols. I would leave the place immediately," he said.
Pleasants believes a shelter would restrict his freedom and is concerned he wouldn't be able to keep all of his things due to a lack of space.
We allow “Regulation Rage” to harm us in too many ways.
Can we imagine a world where we cooperate? Where we recognize that “fear of rigid protocols” is disordered thinking?
What happened to humility and the recognition that Life itself—how our own cells grow and divide and live—follows an extremely “rigid protocol?”
"Regulation rage" is a symptom of an addictive system. If you are so stuck in a rut that rage is your reaction when someone makes a slight change in that rut, you have an addiction problem, you're "addicted" to that thing or that way of doing something.
It can also become a kind of inverse virtue signaling and a threat as in the practice of blowing coal, rigging a car so that it exhausts thick black smoke to pwn the Prius drivers. Imagine paying money to make the conversion and wasting gas and oil to create the effect. Somebody's really invested in making sure they are "secure" in their opinion.
1
When the NYT and other news outlets report of another ridiculous trump regulation roll-back they should indicate the probability of the actual rollback to take place. Are they immediately implemented? Will there be a delay from a lawsuit? Will the affected parties actually return to their damaging ways?
And I suspect most everyone on the planet is merely holding their breath and not taking action awaiting trumps departure.
1
Great piece, but let us remember who voted for Trump in droves, uneducated white people.
I'm going out on a limb, but the reactions Prof Krugman notes may come from those less intellectually curious about things outside their immediate field of view.
People have begun worshiping corporations and their bottom line instead of their own health and the public safety.
I think there's some misanthropy involved. The large Trump-idolizing segment of modern conservatism is filled with so many miserable, angry people, they get sadistic pleasure from the degradation, humiliation and subjugation of others. What is the purpose of regulation? To promote fairness, justice & safety, three attributes that are anathema to them and thwart their life missions to make everyone else feel their wretched pain.
To big yo small bosses, the motivation is exerting power. A miracle that some of these businesses owners make money.
Another important root of regulation rage psychology is important to consider: the divine American belief that rules are meant to be broken.
In the end, we are a nation founded by rebels who enjoy getting away with things.
The best example is Felicity Huffman who was quoted as saying at her sentencing that she just wanted her daughter to have a fair shot.
The divine part is harder to explain, but it deepens the stakes enough for this dynamic to already be powerfully in play for 2020.
So, here goes. In a similar way that evangelicals have yoked god’s grace to wealth (it’s a physical manifestation of being a chosen one - so goes the logic), god’s grace is also yoked to freedom, and the only imposition to freedom are rules (motorcycle helmets come to mind).
So, the freer you are, the closer you are to experiencing what it’s like to being a chosen one.
Socialist marms not welcome to the equation of self-regulation and other coercive institutions such as houses of worship and those morals and ethics one subscribes to.
So, when a rule is imposed, it is now a personal affront, and can be considered confrontational. People don’t feel angry, they feel threatened (don’t tread on me).
These types should really read the second amendment out loud; it enumerates the importance of well-regulation, not no-regulation.
Can a dem candidate unspool this? No. Can anyone?
I’m going to eat my calorie-free ice cream now; I’ve earned it. Calorie rules are stupid. That’s true.
Things in the good ole USA must be pretty good. Here we have one of the most prominent economists of the 20th-21st centuries talking about light bulbs! Sounds like we have won. Talk about trivia. Are people angry with the country or just looking for things to complain about with Trump?
Much of the right wing lives in an echo chamber. They generally hate government and large numbers of people and things; then they tune into Fox, Rush, Hannity, etc. where they get filled in on specifics. Fox tells them that the government is messing with light bulbs, so here they go on light bulbs. Rush tells about government messing with dishwashing detergents so here we go on detergents.
The ones that I know and see often are just like The Donald in that they don't know much about anything but they think that they are smarter than anyone else. They know nothing of history and cultures except where they live and they have no clue that life, government, the news, etc. might be much more complicated than they think. They hate the NYT and they hate people who read the NYT.
There are a lot of cranky people in the world. It is a good idea to stay away from them if you can; you aren't going to change them.
1
I don't think regulation rage is a bottom up phenomenon which starts with people who don't feel respected or who are resentful of the elites. Regulation "rage" is a way of justifying the top-down dismantling the state. There are many businesses, run by people who have wealth and some political access, who are resentful of the state requiring compliance with bothersome things like safety and environmental standards and consumer protections. I can think of quite a number of businesses built to take advantage of regulatory loopholes. Stem cell clinics? Charter schools? E-cigs? Short term or association health plans? These newish companies do not want the state to realize their activities are dangerous or sub-par and do not want the creation of new standards. They fight regulation tooth and nail. There is a large swath of the monied class that wants to be free to conduct business and exploit customer ignorance and shove the externalities associated with their activities onto the public.
The Republicans, and some centrist Democrats, have delighted in making the government seem stupid, inefficient and wasteful. Since Reagan this narrative about the wasteful and ridiculous bureaucracy has been sold to the American public.
Sure, many Americans have beliefs that go against their economic interests. But ordinary Americans are not the ones seething with rage about administrative burdens.
Wait until they start talking about toilets. Former Attorney General Matthew Whitaker (remember him? how many investigations into his activities ongoing?) who sold jumbo toilets for men with large junk could be the point man.
Perhaps the people who are so enraged by even reasonable rules and regulations see them as an infringement on their freedom. They believe that they should have absolute freedom to do whatever they want, without any appreciation or concern for the surrounding society that nourishes them and makes it possible for them to live their lives. This is such a childish attitude.
I would posit a direct correlation between regulation rage and the strength of the person's narcissistic tendencies.
Maybe people who are inherently rage-full need a rationale for their irrational anger and use regulations as an excuse.
Ah, the nanny state elites out in force this morning. How about treating people the way the elites treat the banks. Call it $100 trillion in a people's Quantitative Easing and you can have my phosphates and incandescents.
It’s less rage against “elites” than it is rage against the entire idea of outside control.
When you read old interviews with Charles Koch, a card carrying elitist if there ever was one, it seems pretty clear his anarchocapitalist libertarian philosophy grew directly out of his reaction to a controlling father—a reaction so overwhelming Koch made it his life’s work never to be controlled by anyone or anything ever again. The same with the antivaxxers. Elitists like Bobby Kennedy, Jr. and the other college educated folks lobbying against any and every vaccine for their kids are smart enough to to put two and two together on medical science. They just don’t want anybody telling them what to do—regardless how good it is for their kids or for public health.
As another commenter observed, it is all adolescent rebellion. And now the quintessential adolescent rebel is leading the thou-shall-not-control-me cause directly from the Resolute desk.
Listen to conservatives in the media who always talk about how "angry" liberals and leftists and progressives are. They use the word "rage" all of the time to try explain why someone would passionately believe in some cause that for them is self-evidently wrong.
And there are at least some conservatives who'll tell you that this isn't about being far right: its about being extreme *in general*. But I think overall this IS a far-right phenomenon, & I think its a way for a lot of white males who feel down and out & disrespected to feel powerful--like Krugman says. They hope somehow to use their anger to intimidate others into doing what they want them to do--AND supporting Trump & raging at people who disagree w/him is feeling power that comes from raging & intimidating vicariously thru him.
Because hasn't the "secret wish" of the ordinary man, all the way back in human history, always been to have "the whole world at his feet?" I think this rage comes from frustrated wishes to "have it all"--OR, to at least have enough of it to feel better than a lot of other people--rather than just be Joe Schmoe who has to work and struggle and feel like a pawn on a chessboard.
But ya know, MOST OF US have to work and struggle. That's reality, and sooner or later we all have to face reality.
To all the people full of rage, I say, listen to the old Queen song, "Keep Yourself Alive" that's some homespun wisdom there for you!
1
This distortion of democracy stems from the conservative GOP credo against Big Government. They pretend that our government is actually a 'threat' to us. So instead of protecting us and representing the interests of We the People, they say big govt is really the road to Tyranny, interfering in our 'American Freedoms'.
They use our supposed founding traditions of independence, self reliance against us--- to weaken the laws, rules and norms that should be operating in a modern democracy. That's why we have the most exploitive, expensive, and profitable medical care ---and also elections--in the modern world.
It's made into a positive---that unregulated corporations and their mega donors are legally enabled to 'call the shots' so to speak, in our country's policy making-- in everything from gun control, to health care, to taxes and regulations, to weakening our basic safety net.
Just to reach 20th century international standards of medical care for all is a big fight in our 21st century, and will go on and on. Maybe---in 2024---medical care for all--can we try again? What? No? Oh ok, we'll wait.
This is what happens when the highest court is corporate allied, and blesses unlimited corporate money in our elections as free speech per 1st amendment. They amplify the speech of the rich, and muffle the speech of the average person.
Sounds like just the opposite of the American Dream. And it is. Yet it's sold to voters as reinforcing the Dream-- a warped version of it.
1
Big business - which got big because it was capable and followed the rules - are not the business that hate regulation. It is small unscrupulous businesses who have found a crack into which they can push to make some quick money by getting rid of a regulation that most hate regulation.
It starts small and local with developers getting a zoning break to make windfall profits, and the politicians who helped them.
Then those politicians move into higher levels of government.
All along they learn the language of the little guy fighting the system, using our demand for fair play through lies and misrepresentation.
Politics is a training ground in which sociopaths are doing very well these days.
I suspect most of the general public has forgotten the 2016 Republican talking point about "excessive EPA regulations" stifling the ordinary American's daily way of life.
If you ask, "Can you tell me just one EPA regulation that has caused you pain?" it is fun to watch the sputtering as a raging right-winger tries to recall a single incident.
Right-wing radio, TV and print media have convinced the simple-minded that "the government" is controlling their lives through regulation of goods and services while at the same time convincing this same crowd that only government can save them from the "everyday" threats of abortionists, Muslim terrorists, "Mexican" illegals, "socialists," etc.
Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. These are the weapons the right (a small minority of the population) uses to harvest the votes it needs to control the only effective countervailing force looking out for the interests of the average American - government.
4
Pollution, full stop, is wrong. It kills and harms public safety. And if polluters refuse, on their own initiative, to stop polluting, then it is up to all of us to rein them in by regulating. How many case studies does it take? The Cuyahoga River catching fire? Love Canal? Acid rain?
4
I agree with Dr. Krugman's analysis, while disagreeing with his conclusions. What he refers to as regulation rage is more not as much about profits as it is about politics. The world is divided between those who feel that it is the duty of the government to protect us from out own poor decision making skills and those who believe that by allowing us to make poor decisions, we will improve those skills.
The former group is all in favor of regulating many, if not most, aspects of our lives because some of us do not read contracts we freely enter into; do not read health warnings on products we eat, drink, or inhale; do not apply ourselves to determine if what we read on social media or see on television is true or even reasonable.
Members of the latter group are the ones suffering regulation rage. We believe in the adages "The burned child fears the fire". "Once bitten, twice shy". or "Experience is the best teacher". We acknowledge that people will make mistakes because of lack of knowledge but think that the correct response is to teach them, not insulate them. We believe that pollution can be best addressed by forcing the polluters to include cleanup costs in their production, making polluting not illegal but unprofitable.
"After all, anyone saying such things is, by definition, a know-it-all elitist" Yes, if you are telling me you know better than I about how I should run my life, you are a know-it-all elitist.
@michaelscody So how many times do we have to destroy local environments with algae blooms, oil spills, overflowing waste ponds and other industrial "accidents" before we're "twice shy"? We must be "a thousand times shy" by now, eh?
And what sense does it make to force industries to clean up the mess *after* the pollution has already done it's worst? You think the costs of cleaning up their messes aren't figured into their cost-benefit analyses? In many cases, it's cheaper to pay a fine than change your way of doing business.
2
@michaelscody, In today's society "free" individuals do not live in isolation. Many of your actions affect my well-being, and vice-versa. We cannot rely exclusively on "experience as the best teacher" to modulate people's actions when it comes to the public good. When it comes to pollution, for instance, we need a strong government that protects public health and the environment we all share. There are many other activities where the actions of a minority adversely affect others and indeed, the long-term prospects of human life on this planet, so yes, we NEED effective government regulation to curb demonstrably harmful activities. Sorry if that offends your sense of autonomy.
@michaelscody
How is my increasing skill at making decisions going to protect me from the rational decision of the polluter to increase his profits by eliminating toxic discharge controls? How is my sagacity going to protect me from declining fishery stocks (a result of unregulated overfishing)? Or protect me from the fools who choose not to immunize? One of the few regulations that fit your model are seatbelt laws and, even there, when your liberty puts you in the hospital with a brain injury that runs up costs beyond your insurance coverage, the hospital's loss is passed on to the the public. Have you never heard of the "commons?"
It's all about entitlement. These people just want to do whatever they want and to hell with everyone else. For example, they want to ride ATVs off road on sensitive public lands, which is very destructive, and anyone who opposes it is an "elitist." Many of them are rural people who think that living in closer proximity to public lands confers special rights on them to do whatever they want and any rules are an infringement on their "rights."
6
Onerous regulations help big business, often substantially, because it can spread the costs of excessive regulation over a much larger revenue base than small and medium sized companies. The more expensive the regulations, the more all companies except big business are competitively disadvantaged, or frozen out of the market entirely.
Being a small business today is not easy, to say the least. I believe almost every small business, especially small manufacturing companies, are currently violating some part of the gigantic regulatory regime, either knowingly or inadvertently. The list of regulations, and the detail involved is almost endless.
Federal and state regulators earn their livings by regulating, more and more regulations every year. Some regulations are necessary and make good sense. Some are "protecting" us from virtually nothing while driving up costs and complexity of just being in business. It's like buying an expensive insurance policy against being hit by an asteroid, and then needing to annually file extensive reports of all asteroid sightings. If you miss one sighting, then you are in violation, and need to be fined or shut down.
2
I agree that the GOP "BASE" hates regulation for reasons having nothing to do with money, rather they don't want government telling them they have to eat at the same lunch counter as Blacks or serve gays or require insurance when they drive or ,,,,,all the ways in modern society pain in the neck regulation affect so much of our actions and interactions.
But I disagree that the GOP "ESTABLISHMENT" does not oppose regulation for money and power. That is the GOP represents about 1% of Americans on economic issues so it uses anger toward necessary regulations so millions of people can live together to get votes from other than economic issues. But in certain cases, the CA fuel standards, is all about money.
The question is whose money and just think Vladimir Putin and Halliburton. Nobody benefits more from less fuel efficiency causing American consumers to buy more gas than Putin. It is no different than under Bush Jr. when every time gas prices started to fall and Dick Cheney would, so on cue as to make it predictable, shake his fist at Iran and the price of gas would rebound transferring money from American consumers to big oil. It is why Cheney and most Republicans can support Donald "George W Bush lied America into a disastrous war in Iraq (2/13/2016)" Trump because national security, foreign policy and the economy are not why most Republicans are Republicans. For Moscow Mitch and those in actual power, it is about mass concentration of wealth which they view as power.
2
Public opinion does not agree with Republican policies.
The Republicans are a minority government upheld by gerrymandering, faux 501 Cs, industry lobbyists and billionaire's money.
Our "representative" form of government ISN'T.
It is a mere fringe group that runs the Senate and the White House.
12
@Richard
"Our "representative form of government ISN'T. It is a mere fringe group that runs the Senate and the White House."
You got it!
Surely it has something to do with a mass culture and a sense of alienation, loss of community, our petty luxuries. I saw a bit of graffiti on a wall near a local university "Comfort Kills".
I've noted too those most loyal to the current president really seem to admire and identify with his overt self-absorption and selfishness.
8
Regulation haters remind me of a guy named Joe I dated in the 1960s. He was chomping on a burger as we walked along a city street, and when he was done he tossed the wrappings to the four winds.
I remonstrated about littering. He laughed in my face. I dropped him flat. A girl aptly named Dotty married him.
Their offspring live among us...
24
@MLChadwick: Yep. There is a particularly pernicious form of "Me-Me-Me-ism" that runs rampant among the regulation ragers. Being able to do what I want, when I want, and others be damned is how they define freedom. They make no distinction between actual freedom and license and will fight to to the metaphorical death anyone that does.
2
trump's exploitative threat of punishing one state for a national problem due to conservative callousness might make KY a little worried as Democrats can be politically vindictive now and then. Federalism can go from respecting one another's rights amongst states to a less cooperative relationship and our troops will be enforcing federal policy instead of moderating the world's issues or assuring our protection. Civil Corps of engineers, not so necessary. Department of agriculture, forget bout it...
Regulation rage is the hallmark of the libertarians, many of whom can't see beyond the freedom of their own dishwashers. There's a slippery slope mentality: first they come for your phosphates, then they come for your lightbulbs, and before you know it, you've given up your AR-15 and have nothing to defend yourself when the government comes for your home after the collapse of civilization.
In this neck of the woods, there's a strong tradition of libertarianism, likely due to the Utah War when the U.S. Army and the LDS Church had tensions before Utah became a state. So to overcome this mentality, you have to reverse more than a century of tradition that says government is inept, corrupt, and controlling. And with so many examples of all three of those characteristics in our current government, that's not going to be an easy sell.
4
@RoyanRannedos: I once used the phrase "libertarian fantasy" but then realized I was being redundant.
Anyone who can read the Libertarian Party platform, or libertarian treatises, and find any congruence with these and how the world they've observed around themselves their entire lives works is as deluded as those who wrote them are.
Regulation rage is a reaction you get when others regulate you the way you want to regulate them.
3
Eliminating or restricting unhealthy behaviors will continue as long as solid research shows the imminent need to do so. Polio vaccination is perhaps one of the best examples of an urgent public need regardless of your "opinion" or your religion. The rest just follows the same pattern of adaptation when we change yesterday's problems into newly discovered solutions. Changing resistant people's minds requires the rational majority to repeatedly inform others through public service announcements on TV and every cell phone registered in the U..S. I remember John Wayne, dying of lung cancer, going on TV to ask folks to PLEASE put away the cigarettes! The "president" is on the wrong side of history, as well as every important issue you can think of. When traffic jams reach a point where you can't take it any more, a comfortable train-ride will sound great instead. We need expanded public transportation badly along with a long, long list of other infrastructural advancements that J.W. would be happy to support (if he was still alive poor fellow). Many people have commented that we just ignore DJT unless he agrees to put the phone away and actually dictate a memo. His tweets are illegible nonsense, AND one more thing- ANY AND ALL MILITARY DECISIONS must have the full approval of the joint chiefs as well as the appropriate house and senate committees.
Giving an immature, impulsive and ill-informed CIChief is an accident waiting to happen.
5
Regulations are necessary to ensure that corporations don't sacrifice people for money. Corporations often consider the costs of injuring people versus making their product safe; and if injuries are cheaper than safety, they will not make their product safer. Regulation is intended to reverse this decision-making process. It protects us from corporations' drive to make money at all costs.
9
Regd are simply government rules intended to protect the public from harmful effects of corporate externalities --- costs of business activitiies, not paid by them but by consumers and the public. if companies will pay these costs, then regs can end.
1
When I began my career in agriculture, there were very few pesticide regulations. Little to no (mainly no) personal protective equipment was provided for pesticide workers, and I saw laborers ordered directly back into a field still wet with spray within five minutes of an application of acephate. The best thing that happened during my career was the Worker Protection Standard which provided clear guidelines for both my employers and me. There was no more room for debate about safety. It was good for everyone involved including the employer who was protected from frivolous complaints if he followed the regulations. There are stout fines for disobeying them.
That being said, I will have to concede that the majority of the modifications to the regulations since its inception seem pointless, i.e., the requirement that a person with a pesticide license receive training (generally worthless. thank goodness for the Kindle to get me through the sessions) every year rather than obtain a certain number of credits every five years. It would appear that someone earns a salary by making pointless tweaks. Nonetheless, we should never go back to the bad old days, and only crackpots in the industry urge that.
7
@Mark Johnson Professional licenses require continuing education so the regulating agency can insure that the license holders are up to date on improvements to products and procedures.
Licensed Professional Engineer
@Bill Robertson I’m not opposed to continuing certification requirements. But the courses should be useful, and, at least in my field, things were working fine without the change to an annual requirement. It gets to the point that people attend whatever they can find to obtain credits. Waste of time and travel money.
The EPA has not funded education but left it to the states. My state has transitioned from paying PhDs to do the training to outsourcing it to private companies. I know much more than the people “teaching” me and not infrequently have to correct them on, for example, the population genetics of pesticide resistance. And I pay for this!
People do not realize that we live in a constructed world and the consequences of that.
Our constitution is a construction. The way we fail to deliver health care is a construction. The way we use energy is a construction in all its parts, save for physics. Corporate behavior is a construction. On and on, everywhere you look.
None of these — the constitution, health care delivery,energy use, corporate structure and behavior, on and on — have to be the way they are. We made them that way and we made them with flaws that we did not see at the time of their birth. The way they deliver or fail to deliver is our doing and our responsibility. Regulation is our attempt to right our previous error or oversight. Regulation is inevitable, and often a good thing.
13
@Frank: And, contrary to regulation rager dogma, regulations do not spring, unbidden, from some Department of Regulation Creation.
Regulations come about because there are problems, clear problems, that "the sacred free market" is not only not addressing, but is most often actively creating. And that creation can continue because, under our legal system, if something is not illegal then it is permitted.
The old saw, "There oughta be a law," didn't come about because the libertarian fantasy of how the world works is how it actually works. Self-interest of one party or entity very often impinges, sometimes significantly, on the rights of others. It is up to a civilized society to recognize this is an untenable (and immoral) situation and to do what it can to prevent and/or reverse the damage one party's self-interest will inflict on another as a side-effect.
5
What's behind this hatred of regulation?
That's easy.
It's called White Man's Privilege. And like it or not, the United States of America was built on it -- as any close examination of our history will bear this out.
After all, who wrote all the rules? Or even our history?
The white, landed gentry whose wealth and influence gave them the power to construct laws and institutions that would grant them their privileges in perpetuity; which of course included the confiscation of lands and the displacement, subjugation and sometimes annihilation of those peoples living on it for the sake of procuring any of the natural resources found on and within it.
Fast forward that same kind of thinking to today and you have the basis of the conservative mind-think and Donald Trump's entire raison d'etre for despising the laws of governance that might challenge his claim to EVERYTHING.
Why else would this President continually challenge not only state, city and federal laws, but the Very Constitution he was sworn to uphold and protect?
We're seeing the answer why everyday.
9
@N. Smith And after the landed white male gentry guaranteed the preservation of their own privilege, the non-landed, non-gentry Europeans could then expand into the "wilderness" that had been mostly cleared of the Native populations by disease. They could remake themselves and establish "frontier" societies marginally governed by outside rules from a distant capital in D.C., perhaps a federal Marshall and occasional judge, but mostly governed by whatever values their small community chose to adopt. And when they chose to continue the expansion, directly violate treaties with Native nations, and embark on campaigns of extermination, the Federal government had a choice — uphold the supreme law of treaties as co-equal with our Constitution, or Manifest Destiny. Of course they chose the latter, and violated the highest rules that they had established only decades earlier.
Andrew Jackson was the hero of this stage of the genocide, as a general in the Indian Wars of the early 19th century and as the President who defied the Supreme Court to send the Cherokee and other "civilized tribes" on the Trail of Tears. Trump and the NRA preserve his legacy with a rewriting of history, reinterpretation of laws and flagrant disregard for "rules" with which they disagree. It's a fine old American tradition rooted in the history that also explains our gun fetish.
3
@Yojimbo
This sadly doesn't only apply to the plight of Native Americans -- but also to the hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans who tipped the mercantile scales to this county's advantage.
Yet another example of our "fine old American tradition".
@Yojimbo
And don't forget the largest mercantile advantage this country ever had by enslaving hundreds of thousands of African people and relegating them to sub-human status.
Another "fine old American tradition".
The problem is human nature. The character of people who become regulators is, on average, no better than the character of the people they regulate. The mistake of the progressive left is to think that regulators will be more honest in their motives than the regulated.
I speak from extensive experience dealing with regulators in the banking industry. I found that some of them, as individuals, really were committed to the stated purposes of their agencies, and worked hard to ensure sound banking. Other were careerists who, in effect, lied their way up their internal hierarchy, torturing bankers over trivial matters that did not matter, but which resulted in regulatory actions that bolstered their status in the agency.
Likewise, the private sector! There are entrepreneurs and executives who care truly and deeply for their employees and customers. There are others who are thieves, skating just this side of the law.
It boils down to power, and how it is used. The genius of the founding fathers was in recognizing this, and devising a system of government that mitigates the will to power.
Krugman, a genuinely brilliant man, is nonetheless naïve to believe that regulators, once granted power, will not and do not use it to their own purposes rather than the public good. Is there not always and everywhere the conundrum of the Motor Vehicle Bureau?
This suggests a general principle to the effect that "That government is best which governs least" (Thoreau).
With this I agree.
3
@D I Shaw: There is, and always has been, an implied, "as necessary," after that, "least."
As society has become more urban, industrialized, and technocratic what qualifies as "least as necessary" has justifiably changed and expanded. Those who are educated (regardless of how they became so) know that this is a good thing and the general trajectory of expansion will continue because it must.
1
@guyslp
"Those who are educated (regardless of how they became so) know that this is a good thing and the general trajectory of [regulatory] expansion will continue because it must."
...until we are so tangled up in red tape and so frustrated that we rip it all out at the roots, and destroy the good along with the bad; or
until, like ancient Rome, we implode as a society and fall to the control of some latter-day Visigoths.
The urban, industrialized, and especially "technocratic" society you envision sounds like true dystopia to me, where all that was good about the enlightenment is gone, and all of our agency as individuals is lost to the technocrats who "know better" how we should live.
Sounds like China's social credit system to me! What would YOUR score be?
Perhaps as you predict it is inevitable, but I hope I do not live that long. Meanwhile, I will do what I can to keep it from coming.
@D I Shaw
Thalidomide babies, lead paint, pcb contamination of water, air pollution, child labor abuse, lead in water supplies, groundwater contamination, radiation poisoning, coal miner labor abuse and death,
(Ad naseum)... suggest another answer.
2
I often wonder if the anti-vaccination movement that has been so destructive is founded in this type of regulation rage. I remember when Michele Bachman ranted about the HPV vaccination as a ‘government injection’ even though this particular vaccination was not a regulation but a guideline from public health officials.
I suppose the fear among the anti-regulation group is the slippery slope argument. So, if you take away my military-style assault weapon today soon you’ll come for my hunting rifle and then my handgun. But we have always drawn lines against slippery slopes. We have always tried to maintain a balance between our freedoms as individuals and the health and safety of the public. How else can we live in a civilized society? And, it is the most vulnerable among us who suffer in an anarchy.
9
Reminds me of a lot if the arguments used to push for Brexit. Boris Johson has used Regulation Rage to great effect in coming to power.
8
The ironic aspect of regulation rage is that many on the bottom do become subject to all manner of rules, regulations, limitations and obstructions that more well off people do not even know exist.
I increasingly encountered them when during the Recession, became poor for extended periods of time. Unfortunately, the rules are not governmental but business imposed for instance, banks that take an extra day or two to make direct deposit paychecks hit their accounts that can end up costing hundreds of dollars in late fees, get you kicked out of your apartment etc. The better heeled have overdraft protection that the stripped down no charge accounts don't have also racking up fees.
Where government regulations are incurred, behind them on most instances republicans are behind them, for instance regulations to keep Medicaid or Food Stamps.
There is a very understandable rage behind the binding effect of rules and regulation by those who suffer them, cut it has nothing to do with dishwashers, it has to do with those truly to blame are trump et al. who have no intention of setting anyone free.
7
Krugman points out, rightly, I believe, that a minority of citizens is driving a policy that is opposed by a majority of citizens.
This is another argument for ridding ourselves of the Electoral College and the whole electoral stucture that allows a minority of citizens to govern our so-called democracy.
6
If companies, even entire industries acted ethically, with due consideration for the public good, we wouldn't need regulation, or as much anyway.
The article on privacy this very day in the NYT talks about someone who discovered over 50 trackers and other surveillance being placed on his computer by simply reading a single article. 50?! The absurdity of this only confirms that regulation and oversight is desperately required.
In fact, as I noted in another post, we currently have oversight agencies such as the FDA which appear to desperately require oversight. Oversight for the agency in charge of oversight? In this case, the FDA is governed by industry professionals who come from or go to lucrative jobs in the industry they are supposed to be regulating. The fox guarding the henhouse.
It's absurd, of course, but appears to be necessary given the dearth of ethics and consideration business has for the public, the planet, the country, etc.
4
Nothing triggers regulation rage more than the subject of banning plastic straws. Even our waitress freaked out when we declined straws. (She later apologized.)
7
Nothing mysterious about "regulation rage." It's simply about encroachment of the "Nobody tells me what to do" principle which brings me back to my father and the snail darter. "Why should we care about some little fish," he said. Call it psychology.
Some people believe regulation is complication,
9
@Philip Sedlak: And anyone who believes that regulation is complication is right, at least most of the time.
But those who think know why that complication is not only necessary, but most often desirable. That's what the regulation ragers won't do: think.
3
"In fact, however, the striking thing about many of Donald Trump’s deregulatory moves is that major corporations actually oppose his actions."
If 9 of 10 corporations in a particular market oppose deregulation, but the 10th capitalizes on it, and starts producing its product at a lower price - and, as such, grabs a larger share of the market - watch how quickly the stockholders of the other 9 companies force their companies to play by the same rules as to 10th.
Regulation is necessary to ensure a fair playing surface for our stockholder/profit driven corporations.
Sadly, relying on corporate goodwill or the consumer's social conscience is a recipe for disaster.
13
You might be right about "Regulation Rage" as it pertains to a very small percentage of the population that rages at any sort of control by government over their lives, even if it benefits them. However, I don't believe it applies to Trump.
I think the reason for the policy rollbacks is a much more simpler one and fits with Trumps emotional immaturity and damaged psyche: namely it's his racism and the humiliation he experienced at the hands of Obama back in 2011 at the White House Correspondents Dinner. He hasn't gotten over it and has carried it with him all these years.
It's that simple.
16
@Andrew agree! I have often thought the same thing. the scene of Trump at his table at that dinner with a wry smile, hid a seething rage beneath. Trump has never gotten over Obama getting the laughs at his expense.
@Sparky
Narcissists have no sense of humor; NO SENSE whatsoever.
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people (or something like that) - P.T. Barnum (I believe).
8
@Arthur Larkin
The corollary: Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.
1
I would guess that a lot of the regulation rage is top down, rather than bottom up.
A lot of Republicans politicians want to avoid unpleasant conversations about their policy positions that are to a large extent very unpopular.
So the modern GOP has become adept at pushing buttons. "the elites are humiliating you by doing x!"
Although not related to regulations, we saw the apogee with the huge election issue of Hillary's e-mails. Mind you, nobody ever said those emails were related to some underlying crime or malfeasance.
It was enough to hate the woman because she used a private email server and not all of her emails (which would have said what, exactly?) were made public.
6
I remember my dad, a well-educated moderate, midwestern Republican who passed away a decade ago, once went off (semi seriously) about the rotten environmentalists. That didn't really surprise me, but when he later went after nutritionists, that got my attention. If memory serves, he was irritated that McDonalds was going to switch from using beef fat to vegetable oil to make its fries, all because of the annoying do-gooders who were telling us that nothing we ate was healthy. Apparently this was going to make the world come to an end (although there wasn't even a McDonald's nearby). I thought it was funny and kind of nuts.
Why on earth would anyone have a problem with science, and not appreciate the work of environmentalists, nutritionists and all their colleagues dedicated to making us healthier and the world a better place? It just boggles the mind.
26
I suppose the American public has finally accepted the outrage of unleaded gasoline and catalytic converters by now.
Somewhat relatedly, lead fishing gear and ammunition takes a considerable toll on wildlife, and was particularly damaging to the California condor, which tended to eat wounded animals. Attempts to regulate lead in ammunition are usually opposed by the National Rifle Association.
15
Many Republicans, perhaps more than there have ever been in elected office, do not believe in the "public interest" Krugman points out regulations are designed to serve. Having read some Ayn Rand, they're more in line with Margaret Thatcher: "...there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families." To deny the existence of society is to deny the existence of a public interest or common good, and to blow up the foundation for regulations.
17
@Greg Weis
Yes. And that goes hand in hand with their new-found contempt for democracy and it’s fundamental premise of majority-rule (which is NOT a contradiction to the idea of ‘minority-rights’. It is simply wise for the majority to consider such a tradition in the interest of the body politic).
4
The late Wayne Dyer once said, "Change the way you look at things and the things you look at will change". Sadly, America's guiding force for the last century at least has been corporate profits which are maximized when anxiety and fear are maximized as well. So, collectively, Americans are looking for someone or some thing to blame for the uneasiness, even emptiness, they feel when in fact they've been trained to be little else than "good consumers". A life without meaning has to send the disenfranchised soul searching for answers which are hard to come by when the ability to think critically, a skill not required of the good consumer, hasn't been emphasized by the system that brought you WWF, or the NFL or, for that matter, legions of smart phones dedicated to endless stimulation with scant verification of the claims which come across its screen.
Call it "Lost in Place", the new American affliction. Oh, and get angry at something. The raging does make one feel better. The temporary unburdening brought by rage only means that more raging is required for one to feel better again. Good luck with that.
8
I simply cannot get the images out of my head of all the sea creatures we see dead or dying because they're overwhelmed by plastic refuse fouling their home: the oceans. I live 2 miles from the coast in Brittany, France. One day last month, my wife and I combed our local beach for about an hour. We found easily over 100 pieces of plastic in all shapes, sizes and colors that filled a large (yes, plastic) garbage bag. And from afar, this is a serene mile long stretch of sand that is simply breathtaking in its beauty. I wrack my brain trying to find examples where regulations go too far. It's fitting that an economist writes about this because the benefits of rational regulations certainly vastly outweigh their costs no matter what the naysayers claim.
21
Hard to believe we're now living in a world where corporations are going to voluntarily adhere to regulations the GOP has been claiming are "job killers" the business community hates. This must be what Alice felt like when she landed in Wonderland and natural laws no longer applied.
Perhaps the businessmen who would prefer to maintain pollution controls and are asking their patrons not to stalk the aisles of their stores while carrying AR-15s see the GOP's radically destructive agenda as a threat to their own families, not to mention the corporate bottom line.
It's super weird, but I'll take it.
9
Mr. Krugmsn, the examples you use of light bulbs, dishwasher detergent, and guns, can almost speak for themselves. And the word "rage" is a brilliant choice for what drives these anti-regulation forces. At a purely emotional level, the energy behind it feels to me like pure hatred.
I find it very frightening because there is really no argument against it.
26
Apparently many folks feel it is OK to act totally in one's own self interest without any regard for bad effects on others. These folks consider that the obvious and natural state of human condition. Its a dog-eat-dog world and one must eat or be eaten. They apparently don't accept the New Testament at all, even though they are clearly smart enough that it's not lack of understanding. Little empathy, sympathy, compassion, nor mercy. What a world!
11
Dr Krugman, it is Orwellian it is straight out of the 1917 Creel Committee and the Committee on Public Information. It is propaganda and we are all susceptible to it.
I remember the Conscience of a Liberal a liberal economist might welcome unregulated markets because that what liberals do. Conservative like their markets regulated conservative don't like volatility.
The Freedom Caucus is the most extreme liberal group in Washington nothing they believe in has ever been tried even the libertarians have a semblance of a social contract. Talk about Elitist every man a King means no Kings.
2
Paul is overlooking the rational part of regulation rage. Regulations put a considerable onus on small and medium-sized enterprises, and as an unintended consequence provide an additional advantage for big corporation. The small business owner by the sheer number of environmental, financial and social.regulation is almost by necessity violating one or the other at any given time. Big corporations can afford the group of specialized lawyers that ensure the
1
I have often puzzled over this—the fact that the outrage is so completely disproportionate to the actual “impingement” on freedoms. The seatbelt law is a case in point, as are the lightbulb and dishwasher regulations. It is less a problem for political scientists than for psychoanalysts, I suspect: rage over not being allowed to do exactly what I want when I want to. Infantile rage over a denial of omnipotence.
26
@Wrhackman ... and further, the faux rage over seat belt laws aimed at gubmit, when in fact it was 'big insurance' forcing the regulations to reduce costs/increase shareholder wealth.
Some 90% of all gubmit actions can be attributed to monied/corporate/self (vs. citizen/health/safety/welfare) interests... and an objective review of SCOTUS decisions sadly yields a similar bent/bias toward $$$.
Wasn't there a character in an Ayn Rand novel who had, in the past, murdered a congressman for passing a regulation? I can't remember which novel or who the character was, though.
1
@HandsomeMrToad May not matter much. The characters simply have bad cases of hubris.
Regulations are rules that protect something valued - health, water quality, air that's safe to breathe, food safety, competition, planetary infrastructure that allows civilization to exist, clean (not toxic) products, on and on.
They are protections, and that's how they should be referred to.
18
Conservatives also love regulations: any push to repeal regulations requiring, requiring, ethonal usage in gasoline production? Freedom to choose should be regulated? The list is oh so long. Krugman is far too kind when limiting conservatives to anti-regulation.
9
As Krugman notes, it is a small minority, but they have a supersized voice.
Recently NiMBys shouted down a Berkeley housing town hall that was intended to get input on having more infill housing (to cut carbon emissions by enabling more people to live closer to work, thus preventing lengthy suburban commutes)
The voice of 'outrage NIMBYs' could be quieted, by mailing questionnaires to all residents, giving all perspectives an equal hearing.
3
@Susan Kraemer
Quite right, but NIBMYs are as often as not self-identified liberals happy to see government action as long as it doesn’t affect them. Here in L.A., everyone wants the government to solve the housing crisis as long as it doesn’t mean more density or taller buildings in their own neighborhoods.
3
A valuable column that missed a major point;
Regulation rage is also caused, most virulently, by the perception of unfairness and hypocrisy.
Large companies are allowed to "pollute" and are a major contributors to air pollution, but instead of going after "them" regulation won't let Grandma have her wood stove.
And her son's can't bring her firewood and she now has to use gas heat, or a now a switch to electrical because natural gas or propane is itself polluting.
Perceived unfairness to the little guy is the root of Rural Regulation Rage, which as Krugman notes, is indeed a big problem and one being encouraged for right wing political purpose. But its causes are more complex than the essay addresses.
9
@Nelly Please show me ONE regulation that prevents "Grandma from having her wood stove." Also, firewood hauling regulations have been put in place to slow the movement of invasive insects, such as the emerald ash borer, currently responsible for wiping out ash trees in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast US. Firewood harvested near grandma is fine.
@Laurence Carbonetti It is now unlawful to install or operate a wood stove heating system in much of the Bay Area. And a good thing, too. Our air is substantially cleaner without the smoke.
The big anger over Federal regulation was over forced integration.
Farmers hated it because the massive welfare ag subsidies came with regulation. They loved being guaranteed payment for their overproduction. (what business wouldn't) They hated rules controlling those surpluses.
7
The Republican "Party of Red" as they have referred to themselves, is a Racketeering and Influence Corrupt Organization. Four Republican former federal prosecutors helped Trump win. Congressional Republicans passed tax cuts to benefit their wealthy benefactors then taxed the middle and poverty stricken classes with a consumer tax called tariffs to offset the resulting tax cuts deficit increase. Just like the Mafia, they use experts of law to find new ways to skirt and repeal laws. That includes eliminating regulations which are really the same as laws, just a different name.
I still believe Capitalism is the best economic model to follow as it grows an economy through the profit incentive to keep pace with an ever growing population to support, but the current crop of Republicans have over stepped the bounds of what one would consider common sense decency and law.
The aggregate sum of their actions since Trump's election appears as a criminal strategy to rob the nation. Are authorities watching money leave the country and where it's going? I'm confident in my analysis that the Republican locusts are planning to leave the nation in anticipation of a backlash which inevitably occurs in all nations in history. Even Trump's people negotiated for a Trump Tower in Moscow before his election. Why?
7
This column should have mentioned the Kochs. The Kochs have funded and fomented libertarian policies such as regulation rage for decades. Some of their people work for Trump and Pence. Their foundations and think tanks have fed skepticism about global warming for many years.
14
Yes, we can agree that regulations like seat belts, emissions, unsafe chemicals, food safety are certainly in the common interest, but there are also many well intended, but nit picky rules that any one that has ever run a small business knows are more impediment than benefit. Regulations, like any laws, have to be regularly revisited and updated as needed in the real world with input from all sides. We need to be able to have a discussion that does not begin with all regulations are good or all regulations are bad.
13
I absolutely understand regulatory rage. I have dimmer switches in my house that no longer work unless I pay an electrician a small fortune to replace them with versions that work with LED bulbs. I have mandated 1 1/2 gallon flush toilets that you need to flush four times to get anything to go down. I can’t take a decent shower with the constricted shower heads sold in the stores. Shall I go on?
5
@Jeff
So, it's all about being inconvenienced. I can think of worse things, beginning with sea level rise, more intense hurricanes and flooding, desertification and brush fires.
23
@Jeff Since when do you need an electrician to replace light switches? Unless you have to re-wire because it is outdated and dangerous that's an easy homeowner fix. Also, I have low flow toilets that flush great and paid for themselves in water bill savings after a little over one year of install. Shower heads are up to your discretion. You can buy whatever one you want. They work fine. You are exaggerating.
1
@Jeff There are lots of 1-1/2 gallon flush toilets that work fine. Do a little research and buy the ones with good reviews instead of being a churlish cheapskate.
Ditto with showerheads.
Dimmers are easy to replace yourself unless you are too dim to follow instructions.
Fair enough. If this is an attack on libertarianism (which shares way many attributes of Marxism in its various forms), fine. BUT. What do we know? What we know is that the License Raj was like a disaster for India. We know that the World Bank has endorsed this with its Doing Business Initiative. Ditto work at the OECD. We know that discriminatory regulations, per Walter Williams or Jennifer Roback (Morse) have an ugly history. And we know that a lot of land use and environmental regulation drives up the cost of housing. In short, we know a lot. Are libertarians bananas? I would say so. But cultural Marxists are not? Good sensible regulation comes out of good political philosophy, with a lot of cost=benefit analysis required. Which should provide enough employment for the economists that a society actually needs.
4
Deregulation leads to monopoly and the anti-thesis of free markets. Deregulation frees up the market contradictions and leads to greater consolidation, less competition, i.e., Plutocracy, Oligarchy.
8
The trouble with regulation is that it interferes with normal market incentives which, if left to work themselves out, can usually be counted on to produce constructive social and economic results. Framers of regulations pretend to be able to predict the future, know how consumer needs and technology will develop, and direct activity intelligently based on little or even no knowledge, they're like a man driving a care blindfolded. Those who seek to design regulations and prescribe appropriate actions and investments have no more chance of getting it right than stock market prognosticators or plain-old fortune tellers. When it comes to regulation, less is more.
@Ronald B. Duke
History does not agree with you. A “free market” without regulation is like a car with a powerful engine and no steering wheel, brakes or windshield: an unguided missile. You can hop on one but I want these things and good seats, with belts, side impact beams and air bags. The free market is a myth: nothing is free. Even Adam Smith warned of this.
Civil society isn’t cheap or easy or perfect but it is much better than the alternatives.
42
@Ronald B. Duke
Normal market incentives cannot be counted on as drivers of constructive social and economic results. Those "normal market incentives" are really just "make the shareholders money, at any cost" given a shiny coat of paint.
It was "normal market incentives" that allowed Wells Fargo to defraud its customers by opening lines of credit without their consent.
It was "normal market incentives" that allowed Equifax to profit from the security breaches that exposed millions of their products (because the public is not a consumer to the credit bureaus, but a product to be sold) to identity theft.
It is "normal market incentives" that allow Facebook and other social media companies to ignore the repercussions of disinformation campaigns aided by their algorithms on their platforms because the ad revenue makes them money.
When "normal market incentives" actually become aligned with the public good - the so-called "constructive social and economic results" you mention - then we can stop trying to regulate businesses through govt policy. But until then, businesses have no business self-regulating themselves because their interests are inherently selfish - the dollar matters most, not the consequences of seeking the dollar.
31
Ah yes....the fuedal system just called; it wants it's unregulated markets back. There is not a single example of an unregulated state economy operating efficiently. Not one. Ever.
21
while I agree there is a regulation rage apart from corporate greed, I believe this is a strongly right wing American male phenomenon of asocial, utter selfishness and ignorance about what it means to be a mensch. This is a demographic that rejects national community, let alone national sacrifice. Let's face it, Americans have not truly been put to the test for great sacrifice since the Civil War. Even in WW2 the US was the only major combatant that suffered no homeland destruction (Of course this doesn't mean that the US military forces didn't make major sacrifices or didn't show valor).
12
Societies regulate themselves. They always have and always will. The rage reaction of certain Americans against even the most understandably sensible regulations has to do with the adolescent and even infantile conceptions of freedom held by those Americans.
41
President Theodore Roosevelt was asked why the government should regulate meat and he is reported to have laughed and asked, "Are you sure that's beef?" Talk radio has to give the mob some red meat and trashing the regulators is easy kill. Very few people ever read federal regulations and even fewer even understand what most regulations are. Michael Lewis author of 'The Fifth Fix' details how partisans lacking concise knowledge took over federal departments and were bewildered and unable to do anything out of ignorance and unjustified contempt. What we don't need is ignorant hysterics attacking what they don't understand. Give them an incandescent light bulb and send them to their room.
20
@David Fairbanks Like in a game of monopoly, what happens when 1 player owns the entire board and the bank? Game over. Let's keep the game going by recirculating wealth...like a heart pump...from the head to the feet. Replenish the oxygen and water at the base, which is often lacking due to being uptaken and concentrated at the top. A top heavy tree cannot sustain.
5
@David Fairbanks
Your meat example is particularly timely as trump is saying he'll functionally remove pork from inspection by shrinking the department down to bathtub drain size.
I don't think Americans are prepared to cope with all of the illness and death these regulation rollbacks will cause. Yet I can hear those nasty partisans now, snarling that if you want a high-quality food supply, each of us is free to hire our own inspectors.
@David Fairbanks
"The Fifth Risk," actually -- but your point is well taken and well expressed.
If we separate freedom from and freedom TO, something interesting happens. Children resent restraints or all kinds, because they're just starting to learn how to move about. They want freedom from all restraint, just as conservatives do today. But freedom TO is another matter entirely. To be free to make and carry out long-range plans, e.g., education or professional training, compels us to restrain ourselves. But today's conservatives resent self-control every bit as much as they resent control by anyone else. This renders them (a) self-destructive and (b) furious. But why do they resent self-control, even when they're no longer children? I think it might be that we have decided to train children of the rank-and-file to be impulsive consumers rather than planners, savers, and investors.
13
Naw, Paul; I still think at its most fundamental level, this is still basically about greed--the regulations people don't like are the ones that keep them from further self-aggrandizement.
Of course, our Calvinist ethos contributes to this, as it posits that the most worthy of God's and society's favor (members of the Elect) are those who can be recognized as such by their ability to accumulate the most wealth and resources for themselves. This also to a great extent accounts for why we treat our poor so badly, because obviously being poor is a definitive sign of unworthiness.
But, as has been mentioned here, even the car companies who don't want more stringent mileage and pollution regulations rolled back are taking that stance because they don't want the expenses of uncertainty, of having to probably have multiple standards for different locales--and most importantly, because they feel otherwise they'll lose market share to outside competitors who will make more efficient and less polluting products.
It's greed one step removed--but it's still greed.
8
In some psychotherapy circles this regulation rage is a form of an authority issue which reflects a battle of wills between the child and a very harsh, inconsistent, controlling authority figure. This reaction responds to a "look alike event" such as regulation in the adult's present context.
7
@pietrasanta
So much of our current national distress is down to grown-ups who didn't get their needs met in infancy and childhood and so have impaired emotional regulation.
Paradoxically they accuse the Dems, who favor careful, prosocial, communitarian policies, of being out of control and pie in the sky, even as they howl into the void from the despairing cribs a part of them still reacts from. It feels SO GOOD to put fear and pain into people who drive Priuses or ride bikes, they'll rack up credit card debt in order to roll coal at them.
We need a bunch more psychotherapists, and good health insurance that covers their services, to begin to haul more of us out of the untreated trauma that results in these bizarre, unexamined death wish reactions.
2
Has more to do with right-wing radio hosts, I think. They need subjects to go on about for hours, and regulations are just another sign of the enemy. Most people wouldn't even be aware of the regulations they rail about if they didn't listen to Hannity et al.
17
@DFR I was today in a forum on the internet when someone I don't know starting complaining about another round of layoffs of good people. I was thinking GM and asked if he was in a union. No! He was in the energy sector in Texas and they don't do unions. It was the fault of HR. Bunch of people chiming in about how bad HR is after that. I asked does he listen to Rush. No! He hates those RW nuts. So, there's that.
I am thinking about the people clamoring for the old style dishwashers before regulations that save water and energy, the kind that made so much noise you wouldn't dare turn it on while wanting to talk to anyone in the same room.
9
"Modern conservatives hate regulation (...)" Since I am neither modern nor conservative I will leave that on the table.
The issue Mr. Krugman overlooks is the implementation scope of any regulation. In 1789 with a population of ~ 4 million the Founders penned the 10th amendment. The argument was that a central Federal government could not possibly write meaningful laws and regulation about every subject under the sun for ~4 million people. We are now at ~330 million people with regulation impacting every action in our lives. As the conglomerates learned in the 1970's imposing control on multiple disparate industries doesn't work. Trying to regulate the actions of ~330 million people in every aspect of their lives doesn't work either. "Regulatory Rage" isn't about regulation but the incompetence of the regulations. I have no problem with regulation written at the most local possible level of government. At least those people have a shred of accountability. It is about the fact that every regulation creates winners and losers and the broader the scope the more losers impacted by unintended consequences.
Some nights I dream that SCOTUS will once again uphold the 10 Amendment. It must be gas.
2
@Captain Roger
I agree with you that a lot of anger is directed at "the incompetence of regulations," but truly "incompetent regulations" are only slightly more common than the the mythic "illegal voter."
17
@Captain Roger
How about assessing any regulation on common sense criteria such as scientific grounds, cost effectiveness, etc.? Otherwise, it just maybe plain ignorance in opposing them.
By the way, our chemical industry is producing well above 100,000 toxic compounds as a byproducts. How many there were in 1789?
14
@Captain Roger The fact is that with modern communication and using science, not greed in determining medical, occupational and environmental standards, it is indeed possible to put national regulations in place. Accept the fact that we all need to make compromises/sacrifices such as reducing energy use in lightbulbs, keeping lead out of drinking water and paints, holding pharmaceutical companies to proving their medicines are safe and effective, etc. These are minor inconveniences at most. As far the war against catastrophic climate change, an anti-regulation viewpoint only assures catastrophe.
9
A child in my neighborhood was riding her bike with her mother walking in front of her. I said "she should have a helmet on". Where we live it is the LAW that children are required to wear a bicycle helmet. The mother replied "she has one at home". Where do you go with such people? Pity the child! How many times have I seen parents without helmets and helmeted children biking by? Children often rebel against what their parents tell them to do. In the case of my neighbor, common sense nor the law are enough to adequately safeguard a bicycling child. I convinced my own children that if they had anything between their ears they should wear a helmet to protect it. If not, don't wear one. What level of education do you need to want to teach your children about basic safety? Sadly, we can legislate against ignorance; but it's hard to work with those who haven't been thought to think at all.
14
Regulation rage seems to me to be another manifestation of a claim of privilege and an aggressive attempt to prove and enforce that claim.
9
This regulation rage has been promoted by right wing radio hosts, Limbaugh, Hannity, Erickson and others for the last 25 years. Five days a week they complain how the "elites," in government, always Democrats, but never Republicans are consumed with regulating Americans lives. Along with Fox "News," they have created their own logic and truth.
And now that "their," guy is president they are supportive of his every effort to rip up, tear down, withdraw, and end any thing the rest of us deemed as important towards improving peoples lives and the planet.
18
@A P
I hope the history of this eye-popping era -- provided the species survives -- begins in 1980, with the election of our first openly anti-government president and then, a few years later, the debut of limbaugh's first hate radio show in Sacramento. The lobbyists who low-key write our laws (taxation without representation!) should also be included in the stew of factors that brought us to our current existential precipice.
The Dems aren't perfect but my goodness, how terribly destructive the GOP project in the modern era has been.
1
Dr. K, you must be too young. I encountered Reg.Rage back in the early 70s targeting OSHA regulation. "They put beepers on trucks backing up, then required hearing protection for truck yard workers because of noise!" Phosphates, seat belts, tobacco warnings, etc. all fed into Reg.Rage. I never thought of it as a well defined group like the "anti abortion" or "gun rights" single issue voters, but rather a ploy used by all such groups. Meanwhile, in NYC, water consumption is way down thanks to low-flow plumbing device regulations, and billions have been saved on water infrastructure. And nationwide electric usage is stable or declining thanks to efficiency regulations. Vote for good government, and good regulations!
35
What a fiasco! I just bought a new Citroen C3–gas powered, turbo-charged—that gets 55 mpg. Great little car with four doors and usable trunk space. The US is going to get left behind. Caveat emptor.
23
@David Walker
It already has but not by French and Italian vehicle makers.
If a a business can't operate profitably with reasonable regulation, that means it either should be shut down, or - if important to the country in some way (jobs, defense, key product, etc) - it should be nationalized, government paying the cost of regulation & monitoring, including job training).
It's that simple.
12
I think "regulation rage" is the product of narcissistic myopia, and can be largely attributed to boomers and boomer influence.
Regulations exist to protect the interests of society as a whole, or society in the future. They de-prioritize the "here" and "now" and fly in the face of hedonistic convenience, self-interest and exploitation. While there is, of course, always a bell-curve distribution of different traits within a population, Bruce Cannon Gibney has elegantly made a case for boomer's skew to the more sociopathic/narcissistic end of the personality spectrum as a group in his seminal book on the subject.
Modern day conservatives are largely associated with "regulation rage", and modern day conservatives are also largely composed of aging boomers. The stripping of regulations that protect and preserve things like the environment and middle class in service of temporal convenience and short-term profits won't burden the curmudgeon seniors raking in their social security and enjoying free healthcare while the world [literally] starts to burn, so they will continue to prop up politicians who do so.
8
Dividing people up by date of birth is literally no better than astrology when it comes to designating traits. If Boomers are the selfish narcissists who abhor any limits, who has spent the last 40 - 50 years writing and implementing those same regulations?
Dr. Freud meet Dr. Krugman.
There's another aspect to this story. The rage of the disrespected against the supposed elites is also very anti-science. Seat belts, phosphates, global warming are all grounded in science, not wishful thinking. They deal with inconvenient truths attempting to protect the human community and the environment that it is dependent upon. In short, such regulations are grounded in reality.
Little children deal in magical thinking, adults do not. So what has happened to common sense and our education system? How long can I get away with the claim that sometimes gravity is a repulsive rather than always an attractive force?
Ultimately corporations, if they are interested in the long-term profitability of their operation, may indeed want to pay homage to reality and not magical thinking. So that even corporations may find the Trump rollback anathema is not all that surprising but rational.
So Dr. Krugman is correct when he says it is psychology because the nature of the push back isn't to present alternative policy suggestions based in reality but to rail against the whole idea that anything should be regulated.
Let's get rid of traffic lights!
29
@John Babson And if we can't make a gun regulation, we should be able to buy an army tank loaded with ammunition.
3
@John Babson
We don’t need to get rid of traffic lights...just starve government until our infrastructure completely crumbles. It’s on its way to doing that now.
1
Regulations introduce constraints that limit ways of doing things. This means that the opportunities to accomplish tasks are reduced.
Replacing well working ways of doing things with less effective ones can be frustrating. For example, Freon which was a coolant used in refrigeration and air conditioning was a very good coolant, the best in examples in thermodynamic texts. Asbestos was a versatile fiber which was an excellent fire and heat resistant and sound absorbing product. Replacing them means going to less effective substitutes. The same goes for some pesticides and herbicides, they work very well. The problem with all is that they just do not work well in our world because they cause very destructive side effects. Freon is basically a highly reactive gas that dissolves the ozone layer which protects life on the Earth from exposure to too much radiation. Asbestos is a fine fiber that causes fatal lung disease.
Regulations also protect us from the distorted incentives of markets. Switching from internal combustion engines is not technologically challenging but it involves scrapping a lot of very profitable operations in favor of replacements that would not be profitable until the existing ones devoted to the internal combustion engine are replaced. Right now, we could replace every internal combustion engine with gas turbine engines and save money as well as reduce emissions, but unless all the automakers did it, those who tried it would go broke.
3
Commenters have made many fine points here on Mr. Krugman's wonderful article. That he did not cover all the possibilities in one short piece is the fault of form, not of the author.
His limited point: Much of the rage against regulation is psychological, and given his examples and so many others (anyone want to talk about guns?) he made his point well.
Have thought for years that one of the mains differences between the D's and the R's lies in their psychology. While it is not always true, R's tend to be more paranoid (in part because less educated?), angrier and less willing to be persuaded by fact.
Born that way or not, studies everywhere from universities to the kitchen table confirm these differences.
One other factor: R's are alsomore given to the urgings of self-interest, call it selfishness, one of the reasons they fear the abstract spectre of socialism (they're going to take my stuff), even though they are happy enough to cash their social security checks and don't reject medicare (those checks are for them).
It's arrested development, in a way. The difference between a child who wants and an adult who has matured enough to distinguish between a want and a need. And they never take the next step of thinking about what's good for me and what's best for everyone.
16
It all started with racism and the bible belt’s fears that ‘their religious beliefs were being attacked’ by the government. The GOP played into these fears and gathered support from this group, and those efforts were incredibly successful. It’s not surprise that from that point on the GOP has strategized to gain support from as many angry and scared cultural groups that they can. After all, misery loves company, and if a lie is repeatedly enough times it can become the truth. So now flash forward to the last few years and what constituency makes up the core GOP voting block, and it’s perfectly logical that all the conspiracy groups, hardcore ‘christian’ fanatics, science deniers (which is just anyone not educated enough to understand), and other deplorables are all beholden to whatever Fox News says.
Ignorance and lack of education runs deep, and these problems won’t be fixed in four years, ten years, or even twenty years. Change must start with the children; it’s sanity’s only hope.
1
So what if regulations add to the cost of goods and services? Your baby wasn’t killed by an unsafe crib. Your toddler didn’t suffer neurological damage from ingesting lead-based paint. Your seat-belted teenager walked away from a bad accident. Last night you safely ate dinner in a health-inspected restaurant. By and large, regulations save or enhance your life and the lives of the people dearest to you. Isn’t that priceless?
38
@Drusilla Hawke
Exactly!
Think of the coal miners who suffered and died from lung disease because no one could be bothered to regulate their working conditions. I'll bet some of the biggest "ragers" are from coal country, too.
3
The Trump administration is conditioning us to accept deregulation on every front. There is an insidious intent.
The unspoken truth: Government and regulations became the enemies of certain groups of Americans when the government started enforcing the constitutional rights of minorities
"Big government over-reach" is simply euphemism for integration and civil rights enforcement. The anti-government fervor in the south and rural areas stems from resentment and backlash to having government enforced civil rights change "their way of life"
They are quietly allowing institutional discrimination to flourish without government intervention.
It should be noted that they have started appointing judges who do not consider Brown vs Board of education to be settled law. HUD is making it harder for people to prove housing discrmination. DOJ civil rights division is basically non-existent.
Trump and many conservatives believe that they can only remain in power if they disenfranchise those who are driving the demographic changes of the country. And deregulation is the trojan horse that will be used to achieve their goals
13
I am in the lending business. My last banking audit was horrific where regulators gratuitously attempted to literally break me using sneaky tactics to corner me. They have no accountability whatsoever.
They also jeopardized my customers files.
I could never vote for Trump but this is a sad state of affairs.
3
@Ellen
What exactly bad people have to do with regulations?
One has to begin with the realization that the far right is neither fact based nor rational. That being said, we Americans tend to lack subtlety and to see complex issues in black and white. Corporations need strong regulations since their basic purpose is profit and will do anything to maximize it. One can make a pretty good case that at the local level there are too many regulatory hoops to jump through. Unfortunately, we tend to lump it all together and pick a side.
7
I would like to invite Professor Krugman to the hospital where I work: he can see for himself the result of "regulations" imposed on physicians over the last several years.
I do not suffer of "regulation rage": I am saddened by the fact that arbitrary "guidelines" have slowly robbed doctors of their ability to care for human beings based on their individual needs . Medical care has not improved, costs are still skyrocketing, making the medical note pretty is more important than talking to the patient, and critical thinking has become obsolete.
6
@claudia So... that makes it okay to remove anti-pollution regulations that are both bad for the environment and bad for the economy? 'Regulations' is as broad as the population they serve, and many times they are not written or implemented effectively, but that by no means implies that all regulations are bad. The rivers used to catch on fire when the 8 year olds would toss their cigarette butts before their 6am factory shift started (since they didn't get breaks). Regulations are why billionaires like to live in nice places, regulations are why most of the nation is safe drinking the water in our homes, and regulations are why uncertified doctors aren't allowed to practice out of their garages. Not all are bad by a long shot.
17
@claudia
If you cited some examples of overregulation of doctors harming patient's care, you might convince readers, but simply saying it's happening with no evidence is not helpful.
My experience has been that some doctors are more concerned with how many patients they can run through their offices to increase their "earnings", while failing to keep up with the latest treatments and medical news.
My last ex-doctor routinely kept me waiting 2 hours past my appointment time because he overbooked appointments, then rushed in for a 5 minute consultation before ordering a prescription that would only treat symptoms, never cure anything, and which had so many dangerous side effects, you risked permanent disability every time you took it. He actually told me, after administering an EKG, that I needed to see a heart specialist, because his machine was so unreliable. But he billed my insurer for the test.
7
@claudia Actually, it does sound like you have "regulation rage".... You seem to be blaming "government regulations" for a variety of changes in the medical profession, some of which have nothing to do with regulation. For instance "note taking" is more important in a profession which increasingly treats patients with a series of unconnected specialists and doctors who work 40 hours per week, with guaranteed maternity leave, rather than funneling everything through a primary care doctor on call 24/7 365 days a year. One can see this as regrettable for patients (as a patient, I do) but blaming it on government regulation is misplaced.
8
I've met people who are enraged by others who act for the common good. It's like they are angered and insulted if someone does something that in any way questions their way of doing things. I'm reminded of a time when a friend of mine was verbally attacked by a guy standing in line at the grocery store, who was infuriated, apparently, by her use of re-usable bags. All the insults about people who have given up straws. What's it to them if someone else, without saying a word, wants to offer a small sacrifice of convenience for the common good. What is it that makes these people so angry? Is it that deep down they know they might be wrong, and are upset by that?
36
@Anne
These are good points. I am also puzzled by this mindset when it comes to their derisive use of SJW and virtue-signalizing. Isn't it bizarre to come out against social justice, and also to suggest prosocial people aren't actually promoting goodness but instead are pretending to in order to gain attention? The mind reels.
3
@Anne
Yes, I believe it is that deep down they know they might be wrong, and/or feel ashamed by that other person for not wanting to change their ways.
@Anne
Some of the anti- Obamacare, and now anti- healthcare -for -all was exactly this. Some feel it’s all about their self esteem...to have to mingle with the masses in the doctor’s office if everyone has healthcare takes away their feeling of being better than “ the other”.
1
While we talk about regulations and the aversion of the fossil industry to them, an interesting article. Did anyone know that eight electric utilities, including ConEd, are fighting the plan to undo Obama's Clean Power Plan?
"Nine large electric utilities led by Consolidated Edison have petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's decision to withdraw the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan and replace it with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule."
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/coned-8-other-utilities-challenge-trumps-energy-rule-repeal-of-clean-pow/563074/
It's like we're in a virtual reality simulation - large corporations pushing back against the government's attempt to loosen regulations that affect them. That's how out of tune the Administration is.
25
@b fagan - if I wasn't my own proofreader I'd fire my proofreader.
"Did anyone know that NINE electric utilities"....
Boris Johnson rode this anti-regulation horse into the prime ministership. The EU may be even more regulatory than the USG. On the other hands, regulations, like taxes, are the price we pay for civilization. Washington famously wrote at the end of the deliberations leading to the drafting of the Constitution that (and I paraphrase): "We must give up some small liberties in order to enjoy the benefit of much greater freedoms." Clean air, clean water, safe drugs are all benefits we enjoy because we are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom (especially the freedom of polluters and drug companies.)
20
Lets face it: abhorrence of being dominated, forced into behavior we don't want, is sort of a primal instinct that sits deeply within us, and it is a trait within observed within many mammals.
Not wanting to be commanded around and being checked upon is a prevailing sentiment.
And, as a sentiment, its removed from logic, can not be reasoned about, its hart to get by with rationality. So how do we get over it? Two ways:
(Bad) One: Breaking it by brute force: As was done in slavery. As is done to soldiers in many armies in the world. As we sometimes do to our pets (especially dogs and horses). And as we still frequently do to our children under the cover of a misguided 'education'. And as is still observed in many companies and countries, cowing their employees and citizens into compliance with a selection of threats.
Second (better): Insight. That is - education done right. Instilling the insight, that any of my actions, from needlessly wasting resources crucial to all to bullying around others will come back to haunt as all.
Obviously, many of these insight might just be temporary, subject to emerging knowledge.
The tragedy today is this lack of education, and it starts with inadequate schooling, and doesn't end with outrageously expensive college education.
What we need is a new age of enlightenment: promoting to at least distrust our primary instincts, give reason a chance, and accept, that the inevitably almende exists, and needs some rules.
5
You are describing the difference between "breaking" a horse (a peculiarly American - and Spanish?) technique, and "gentling" one. The names speak for themselves...
@retiring sceptic
Actually, I got that expression from one of M. Roberts Books - but surely I wouldn't insinuate, that horses can be made to understand human rules.
What I instead wanted to convey, is that one mans regulation obsession is the other mans regulation rage. And this is a thing about dominance among equals - which implies strong feelings, especially about who is to make the rules.
Now the 'conservatives' are not exactly known for being short on rules, or having a rational rule set: many of them are what would be called a 'Gessler Hut' in Germany. (e. g. regarding clothing, hair style, skin color, sexuality). What they really resent, is somebody else changing them in a way, that beaks their habits. As Mr Putin(!) once put it: "Beating up queers is part of the Russian tradition. Don't tell us what to do!"
On the other hand, in a universe that has limited resources, we need a way to share them, unless we accept eternal war about them. This can only be managed with a set of rules, that all can agree upon. Agreement by all implies: nobody gets killed by applying these rules. This again requires insight and understanding, not the least to accept, that my wicked neighbor with crooked habits has the same right to live as myself. This again requires education about the rules and how to moderate your feelings.
Obviously, people who like the war, won't agree to any of that! At least as long as they believe to be on top of it. (->naturalistic fallacy)
Sorry for the rant!
Let's not forget to be circumspect about this line of thinking. Making intelligent regulatory decisions sometimes means choosing between good and bad implementations, and making the bad choice because you're standing against "regulation rage" doesn't make it a good choice.
Take LED lighting, for example. Tremendous technological advance, remarkable energy savings, and would not be viable in CA or anywhere else without government regulation that basically forced the market to pay more initial money for a better light source that ultimately costs way less. They last a very long time, and cost about 2% of an incandescent light source to run. BUT, does it make sense to change the standards on almost a yearly basis, as California does? That just throws the manufacturers and market into a tailspin. Many of them just give up trying to keep up with the California Energy Commission's hyperactive regulators.
And, PS, the light quality from a good LED is light years ahead of a fluorescent light source, and the best LED's are better than the best incandescent sources. When Trump is shopping for a diamond ring for his latest, he is looking at it in the light of a high quality LED source.
11
The psychology of Regulation Rage is astonishingly simple: Children dislike being told what to do and throw loud, self-pitying tantrums when they can't get their way, while adults listen to other adults and make changes to their behavior in the name of a common good. Conservatives 'Love' America like a two-year-old loves it's Mommy, while Liberals love America like a 30-year marriage full of ups and downs. Regulation Rage is a reminder that you can be an adult or a Conservative, but you can't be both.
35
A right-wing mindset seems to be: If the government does it, it's wrong by definition, because it destroys god-given rights to own or do whatever we want. It's all about me and how I feel; Rush just opened my eyes.
More than a little snarky, the above, but, tragically, it's also more than a little true.
I see Dr. K losing his patience with the right-wing in this op-ed, but the ridiculousness from the far right is mind-fracking. We need to bring back primal scream therapy.
9
Another spot-on assessment, that regulation rage is "coming from people who, for whatever reason, don’t feel respected, and who see even mild restrictions on their actions as insults perpetrated by elites who consider themselves smarter than other people." Some people don't want to be told what to do, period.
4
@MR This reminds me of a four year old saying, "You're not the boss of me!"
This doesn't look like republicanism because it's not. It's coming from billionaire libertarians who want to reduce the influence and impact of the federal government to zero. They pretend to be republicans because their true ideals would horrify most US citizens.
14
Sounds like regulation ragers value the personal good to the exclusion of the Common Good. How can a civilized society survive that?
12
After just watching Erin Brockovich, you know just why we need regulations. They may save our lives just as air bags and seat belts and other innovation in autos have. There may be an anarchic anger that this taps into, but it is completely misguided by Trump for the regulations being revoked are ones that protect them and their loved ones. Elizabeth Warren also taps into that anger, but in a positive way of channeling anger to advocate for reform that will bring economic fairness. So, on the right and on the left there is legitimate anger, but Trump is using it, as he always does, for his own benefit not for those he's selling his anti-establishment, snake oil version of populism.
8
Have a Trumpeteer friends and first on the accomplishments list appointing conservative judges, a ministerial function but nevermind. Next deregulation absent any specifics. The rage an invention to incite or mollify.
2
I am a liberal. I also worked for the US government for 27 years in an executive capacity. I saw vast numbers of rules that made no or minimal sense, and I was largely unable to do anything to get the people administering them to change. After all, their jobs and power rested on a body of regulation. A last straw came when Jimmy Carter's administration required match books that could only be struck on the back. Do you really think that I do not know how to strike a match?? That said, regulations are how a polity tames unbridled capitalism. Well thought out regulations protect us in many ways. They just need to be well conceived and developed with ALL stakeholders involved. The regulated often have good insights and information to offer to the regulators. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
7
@john scully The match regulation was a good one. It prevents children from setting themselves on fire.
I wonder what Krugman thinks about the law passed in Canada that for every new regulation passed, an old one must be removed.
Regulations are well-meaning, but many of them only serve to help lawyers. The Clean Air Act is a great example: it was written in the 1970s and has yet to be updated to reflect new understanding of how air pollution works. If you don't know this, you probably have never had to deal with complying with it. People who have are angry because of it.
Democrats could seize this debate by discussing meaningful updating of regulations, but they are beholden to the environmental groups and lawyers that feed off lawsuits generated using antiquated regulations.
As an economist, Krugman should look at the economic impact of regulations rather than talking about silly terms like "regulation rage".
3
@Paul said "in Canada... for every new regulation passed, an old one must be removed." Before Canada, there were zero regulations. Why not use that as the 'magic number'? I was thinking that as I rode my electric scooter down the sidewalk, while chatting to my ex on my smartphone this morning.
3
@Paul - You know "the economic impact of regulations" ain't so easy to measure. Suppose you have a regulation that cuts 0.1% off of the GDP, but saves the lives of 100,000 people every year. Those dead people have a bad effect on the economy also. They are not producing, selling or buying stuff. Oh yeah, and you've killed them, too.
What about a very expensive regulation that cuts 2% from the GDP for 5 years, but there is a 50% probability that it saves human civilization in 50 years. How do you balance that?
And finally, do you believe Krugman's examples of regulation rage are based on more up to date science?
9
@Paul
“Regulations are well-meaning, but many of them only serve to help lawyers.”
Yes, lawyers are necessary to navigate the legal questions surrounding legislation. However, I think the Clean Air Act helps more people than just lawyers.
11
I live in a world of regulations as someone that maintains aircraft, Part 121 (the airlines) are heavily regulated. Are these people willing to get on a aircraft that isn’t following maintenance a piloting regulations? I didn’t think so.
43
This traces back to the deregulatory fervor of the Reagan years... which was bad enough, but had at least a few sensible boundaries, in terms of not attacking things that were obviously effective (and cost-effective) and popular.
The GOP has spent the last generation effectively pushing any and all reasonable people concerned with good governance out of the party, though, so the notion of accepting boundaries on a doctrine that's become an article of faith is right out.
At this point, the GOP voting base has been reduced to the most fervid, irrational loyalists (and the same is true of most of its contingent of office-holders). This is just one of the bizarre ways their passions manifest... and sadly, one of the more destructive.
18
Those of us on the side of protecting safety and the environment have to learn how to make our pitch aspirational -- life expanding. The way we current bring in regulations makes most feel like they are losing choice, freedom, financial resources. Telling people that they can't fly on planes, eat meat, drive affordable cars is a non-starter for most. The pitch -- and the reality -- has to expand choice, make life better and do so at lower cost. Our leaders in the Democratic party need a much more creative, forward-thinking message. It can be done. For example, with solar roof-top energy, wind energy, we can charge affordable electric cars at a much lower price than we currently pay for gasoline powered cars. With Impossible "ground beef," we can eat burgers with reduced production of greenhouse gases or the health risks of red meat. Tons of examples! Let's get out a positive message for a bright future! It's the only way we can move forward without all the rancor we constantly see.
4
One principle that underlies legal frameworks in many countries (including the USA) is that individuals are mostly free to do what they wish, except when it causes harm to others. This is critical for a society to function. Once you understand this, the basis for most regulations makes sense.
Example: you can’t sell faulty products that might injure someone. Likewise, you can’t pollute the environment because it invariably ends up eventually harming someone. Yes, this is simplified, but it’s not elitist thinking - it’s common sense (it’s also consistent with the moral values of most religions). In my opinion, the psychology here is simple: you either don’t understand the principle, or you’re selfish. Or perhaps both.
25
@CK I would say, to add to your statement, that the white population appears to be intent on harming others. It’s very much an obsession. I sometimes wonder whether this isn’t somehow tied to the desire for the apocalypse that would bring Jesus back, or some such thing.
"But as I said, regulation rage seems to be more about psychology than about self-interest. It’s coming from people who, for whatever reason, don’t feel respected, and who see even mild restrictions on their actions as insults perpetrated by elites who consider themselves smarter than other people." You nailed it, Paul. Most serious regulations are based on some sort of science. Regulation rage is also "anti-science' rage. For example, consider the gun lobby's opposition to the CDC collecting data on firearm violence as a pubic health issue. They are fearful that the data might lead to a finding that guns are a public health hazard, and regulations would follow. If political scientists do conduct regulation rage research, they should collect data on the amount of science education the "ragers" have. My hypothesis is that it is less than those who don't have regulation rage.
14
“Government is not the solution, government is the problem.”
- Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
Reagan’s often quoted saying is the genesis of the ‘regulation rage’. Too many Republicans view government not as a necessary evil, but as something entirely evil. Those people are wrong.
Believing in small government is one thing. Systematically dismantling protections for people and the environment, while reducing faith in public institutions (like the FBI, CIA, State Department, Justice Department) is something else entirely. Too many Republicans cannot tell the difference between the two.
31
I've been reading Sidney Blumenthal's vast 4-volume series on Lincoln, and I never cease to be amazed at the parallels between the politics of the 1850-60s and those of the Trump era. Central to that strife was Southern resentment against educated Northerners, particularly the Ivy League-educated elite of New York and Massachusetts. Slavery was economically devastating to the large majority of lower-class Southerners who did not own slaves, yet the Southern "base" was fiercely loyal to the Confederacy because they had such resentment against the Northern elites. I think we see the same today, where Trump's blue-collar base sticks with him while the Republican Party walks all over them economically, all because they see Trump's animosity to immigrants, minorities, and Muslims and conclude that he "gets it".
44
Argue against regulations that save lives. They do. Argue against regulations that save energy (LED lights, energy efficient appliances, etc etc. They do. Our new home, built to our specifications, uses 75% less energy, was built with less than 5% waste material of construction and cost less than 7% more to meet those standards with a payback time of between 6 and 7 years. The appraisal alone made it worth the extra cost. Let them waste money. What do conservatives conserve anyways?
32
@tom
Good for you! Its nice to hear that new home owners are willing to think in terms of sustainability as we grow!
This column reminds me of a photo taken in 2009 of a man at an anti Obamacare tea party rally. The man, who appeared well over 65, held a sign stating "government should keep their hands off of my healthcare". Apparently it had not occurred to him that his medicare insurance was a US Government program.
39
Remember the anti-Obama diesel trucks that were made to spew black smoke and particulates into the air. My Dad was one who was enraged by anyone telling him what he could or could not do. He was under-educated although a very intelligent man, could figure out almost anything mechanical. For the most part, once you understand the reasons why the regualtions exist then they make sense.
However, brings up what I see is the real problem in this country. We never as a people want to do anything that will benefit someone else in any way. I don't know why we are like this, but I see it alot. People will refuse a tax that will benefit themselves if they think it will help others who may not deserve it (in their opinion). I've just doomed Warren's medicare for all, which I really hope goes somewhere.
23
@RAH
Exactly this. Despite figures that suggest Medicare for All would save over 1/3 in cost for healthcare in the US, there are folks all up in arms because that system would pay for IVF procedures and transgender treatment. There are lots of folks who channel the Reagan 'welfare queen' anecdote despite all data to the contrary. Both the lack of real data and this unwillingness to 'share' underscore a lot of folks in this country. Even when their needs are not quite central to normal healthcare. This will be a hard nut to crack moving forward, assuming we get the chance to try.
5
@JohnK
I don't think we can begin to correct the disinformation a solid 30% of Americans consume until we regulat -- hahaha -- our airwaves. As long as there are platforms where grifters are allowed to skillfully tap into the audience's diffuse grievances and falsely convince them who's to blame, we'll continue to have a population addicted to rage and blame, and unable to countenance prosocial solutions.
The modern GOP speaks directly to our lizard brains, via their sick merchants of dissatisfaction like Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson. These are all liars with big megaphones, pouring out ugliness around the clock. We need to bring back something like the Fairness Doctrine so deceit isn't allowed to brainwash our neighbors.
1
Regulation rage is concentrated in rural parts of the country. Some of the rage is understandable, and is directed at national regulations that are desirable in urban or suburban settings but less so elsewhere (e.g. restrictions on firearms.)
But the roots of the rage are cultural and reach deep in history. Appalachian views of government rule are closer to those of rural Afghans than to the views of New Englanders or Germans.
16
I think Paul’s talk of “regulation rage” misses a key point: remember Stephen Bannon, the spokesman for the Mercers who laid out the plan to dismantle government? More than words, the actions of the Trump Administration and Mitch in the Senate exactly reflect this goal. The idea is to so dispirit the populace with their government and the chaos it can’t handle that they will install a dictator to put things right. So far, the plan is working. Puppet Trump is rallying the possessed, and the Oligarchs are paving their path.
35
The regulation rage is driven by a perception, fair or not, that the rate of return of ever more rules, at all levels of government, is now negative--on both the economy and our sense of personal freedom.
3
@bruce liebman
That is their excuse.
Selfishness is the reality.
If you look, there's probably big money funding the messaging for regulation rage.
12
I'm surprised that Krugman and the NY Times, who "hate" big corporations are so supportive of them. Each new regulation tends to come with high costs. So, of course, big oil supported the new regulations re methane emissions - can't let those annoying smaller producers - who might not be able to afford compliance - keep at it.
Yes, some regulations are necessary. But a cost benefit analysis should also be considered. When regulations - and the paperwork required - put smaller businesses out of business, for minimal benefit, maybe there is a problem?
Not too long ago, this paper had an article on the cost of meeting state and federal regulations for a relatively small apple orchard in upstate NY. How many small businesses do you want to fail?
3
@Somebody
If your small business pollutes the air with methane, you don’t deserve to be in business.
If your apple orchard creates so much nitrogen and phosphorus run off from the fertilizers you use that it polluted the drinking water and causes massive fish kills, you don’t deserve to be in business.
1
This is the adult (age wise) expression of infantile rebellion. Logic or reason is denied while the right to do what I want to do (independence regardless of consequences) is paramount. We need to stop being intimidated by irrational rebellion.
31
@Rev Wayne - Enlightening comparison. Indeed, it seems that quite a few adults have never really grown past the second stage of Kohlberg's sequence of moral development, the "narrow self-interest" stage.
They're stuck in perpetual adolescence, and the well-being of others (or even the long-term consequences to themselves) is outside the scope of their concerns.
Unfortunately, they vote just like real adults... and they all seem to concentrate on one end of the political spectrum.
8
@Chris M.
"They're stuck in perpetual adolescence, and the well-being of others (or even the long-term consequences to themselves) is outside the scope of their concerns."
This is especially true of the older types who never had to get beyond adolescence to immediately get the benefits of society.
As the economy has soured and their living standard declined, their view was that their downward economic spiral was due to forces beyond their control. They've been convinced that this was regulations rather than the unwillingness of the wealthy to invest and instead speculate.
2
For the longest time, after Trump laid claim to the GOP, I thought surely the Republican Party would split into a group consisting of the ones who headed for news broadcasting or retirement and the party enslaved to Trump any of several delusional reasons. But no, Trump has seized on multiple Republican and ethnocentric gripes about reality by both ignoring it and exploiting it.
4
Anti-regulation began its efforts to help big business (profits) while placing more hardship on consumers (the public) under the hand of Ronald Reagan.
A clear reversal of the Robin Hood effect.
The stranglehold held by corporations, sustained by a Republican machine, over the market continues its work, creating and maintaining the radical social and economic inequality now almost irreversible.
Almost. Only an equally radical awakening of a voting majority can begin a determined march toward more balanced and democratic economic policy.
7
Trump benefits from pandering to all kinds of ragers but there is no evidence to suggest that he cares about their causes.
19
I wonder how much of it is personal, e,g. hatred of Obama (and Blacks), hatred of Democrats, etc.? In other words, they are enraged about regulations because we are for them. It was already a thing, but it became more of a thing.
Similarly, I am shocked at how some of my friends who have long been fiscal conservatives, have recently become social conservatives and climate change deniers.
20
@dr. c.c.
How can one be a fiscal conservative and a RepugliCON? There's just no evidence that the party supports this.
@dr. c.c. And they were never "fiscal conservatives" unless a Democrat was in charge and the benefits under question were going to someone they didn't like (like black or brown people). Read "Troll Nation" by Amanda Marcotte.
Just like the old horse and carriage industry which faced obsolescence when the car industry came into being, the Trump car mileage assault is the last gasp favor to the oil industry. High mileage cars will become the norm and when the electric cars make it into the mainstream, gas and diesel powered cars will phase out or become a niche industry for enthusiasts.
The same is probably true for every other regulation he is attacking. Trump is a man living in the past and the sooner we consign him back to his life in the bubble the better it will be for the country.
26
@Gary Valan Look at Big Oil influence states to ban electric chargers and charging ev owners fees to replace gasoline taxes. In some states it is 3x the amount paid by a gasoline buyer. But the utilities really like selling the power to recharge these evs. Big Oil v Big Electricity. Could be a Marvel movie.
3
trump's attempt to gut California's fuel standards is obviously connected to his relationship with Saudi Arabia, whose interests he keeps putting above our own. After all, they've spent $400 billion in the US, he tells us, so naturally we're throwing out any sensible restraints.
It's not yet clear whether he dances to their tune because they're blackmailing him or bribing him. I wish we could figure out how to make it stop.
1
The Tea Party movement has had a lasting influence by convincing people that government can only do harm and the less of it the better. The current administration philosophy of bilateral "deals" where there is only a winner and a loser in each situation and never a "we are all better off" compounds the mistrust,
9
I am going to assume many of these corporation s are run by Republicans that can think unlike the Congressional ones elected.
Perhaps they will stop supporting the non thinkers and actually help those who show some of their qualities.
It is always nice to have a dream.
3
Any regulation, by its nature, assigns a subservient interest to the regulated vs the regulator. If you're Trump, you take personally that your individual interest in having your hair spray work well is not seen as important as society's interest in preventing skin cancer. And I think Krugman is right that this comes from folks who feel pathologically disrespected; but let's look to the roots of it. Economic dislocation only exacerbates underlying emotional leanings. Disrespecting, demeaning parents raise fearful children who as adults might be more prone to look for disrespect in the world around them. The Repubs have created a tribe for them to belong to.
19
Here in Oklahoma regulation rage in part is about plastic bags. In Norman, a university town, there was a movement by the mayor and city council to ban them. Then legislation was introduced at the state level to make any such ban illegal. It's definitely reaction against progressive elites ("smarter than other people") who happen to be in power in Norman presently.
13
When ever someone says to me there are to many regulations and they should be removed, I say oh really, which ones, they never seem to have an answer.
14
@MDM
Well, I could list a few. Where I live, a person can't build their own house without taking lengthy courses in all the trades that are involved. I built my house 45 years ago with a few basic tools and a book, and it's still standing and functioning well. Building codes are also usually overdone and sometimes seem to be more for the benefit of the manufacturers than the homeowners. Other regulations, particularly environmental ones, seem very important to me.
2
@JSD Regulations aren't about one person. They're about the greater good. You were apparently able to responsibly build a good house. But many others cannot (including many professional contractors) and if there were no such regulations, it's quite obvious that there would be numerous disasters. Even with regulations, we sometimes have buildings that collapse or cause other problems. Maybe everything in building codes doesn't need to be there and maybe some aspects are obsolete, but overall, I'd rather have them the not have them.
4
@MDM The same is true if you ask them, "when was it exactly that America was great?"
If they say the 1940's, I say, "do you mean when we were at war and thousands of Americans died?"
If they say the 1950's, I say, "do you mean when African-Americans were still living under Jim Crow and when the highest marginal income tax rate was 90%?"
If they say the 1960's, I say, "do you mean when JFK, RFK and MLK were assassinated and we were fighting the war in Vietnam?"
Etc.
I agree entirely that regulation rage is getting out of hand. We will speed up our planets destruction massively if Trump is allowed to eliminate environmental controls. But I would suggest another important reason for the rage: We are being assaulted daily by such rapid changes to our systems and technologies and work places and products that when another regulation comes along, it drives everyone crazy. Tax rules change and we have to figure that out; a new android version comes out and we have to relearn our phones; if we liked a space heater we bought last year and want to buy another, this years' version is badly made. Rapid change is why large-scale immigration is so disrupting. Can we start to address the need to slow it all down? Regulation is essential to a successful society but maybe we could limit the changes to just the most important areas.
5
American society is based on individual rights, and not the collective good.
Freedom of speech sounds good, but what about hate speech? When does something go to far? American law gives everyone the right to be hateful and hurtful and wrong.
Is this good for society as a whole?
American law gives individuals the right to carry loaded guns and the right to not back down and shoot other people if they “feel” in danger. Is this good for society as a whole? I would say no.
American society does not provide universal healthcare, so some people can save a few dollars, while others go bankrupt. Is this good for the collective whole of society? No.
28
@Buttons Cornell
I would change your comment a little:
To many on the right, American society is based on individual rights, and not the collective good.
And to many on the left our society is based on the collective good. This disagreement is the foundation for many of our differences.
In fact, for us to continue to self rule and not decend into civil war, we must realize that, moving forward, both of these political aesthetics must be respected and addressed.
Sadly, our current polarization has come to this point: "my side is right and you are wrong" with no nuance, no room for pluralism and no room to respectfully disagree.
So in regard to regulation, this view prevails, with a simplistic and ignorant result, a large number of people who believe:
"government regulations are bad, period".
3
@Buttons Cornell
"American society is based on individual rights, and not the collective good."
If this is true, then entities(corporations, religions, Chambers of Commerce, lobby groups, anti-union, etc) that gather millions of people and money game the system to promote laws that protect them and individuals have virtually no power and less money to restrain them.
If you want to know how we are where we are, there it is.
1
@Buttons Cornell
Who defines hate speech? These days I see a lot of what I would call hate speech directed at those who happen to have been born with white skin, against police, against anyone who doesn't fall in with the current "woke" culture. In a nearby column, I see hate directed against those who believe that a person born male, presenting as male, should not be admitted to womens' shelters where many of the women have dealt with male violence, because they state they are women. So, tell me, who defines hate speech?
Trump and the other Regulation Ragers are exhibiting a kind of epistemological damage caused by exposure to what amounts to a Psychological Operations Weapon.
In recent years media tools (of Cold War military design) have been supercharged with data-driven propaganda phraseology and are now capable of creating un-Civil rage in a psychologically targeted television audience through the repetition of tragic or morally infuriating anecdotes/images that are carefully strung together with (even flatly irrational,) non sequitur reasoning.
When the hyper-sensitized topic is raised, those who have been exposed to the Weapon re-experience the indignant anger they felt during these repeated and psychologically engineered discussions (or conditioning sessions) on TV and they're emotionally flooded with the conditioned anger response.
At such moments they're fully incapable of Reason. The Poor Devils may as well be one of Pavlov's Dogs.
10
@Just Another Heretic
Yes, and let's not forget hate radio, social media, and YouTube . . . taken together, we have a small group of sociopaths shepherding a large group of people in this country to voluntarily stew in primitive emotions (baseless rage, avid and simplistic blame, sadistic pleasure in others' pain and misfortune).
It is a vindictive and petty assault on everything Obama. The racist - in - chief can't stand it that a black man actually helped make the US safer for people , animals and lowly shrubbery.
God help you folks.
20
@john
It is horrible that this feels true. But I think the commenter who suggested a lot of it is “too much change” rage - and the anxieties that go with that, about immigration, technology, globalization- is closer to the mark. An unreasoning psychology of hunkering down, pulling up the drawbridge, returning to some weird regulatory “freedoms” of someone’s youth...not governing that appeals to humanity and common sense for sure. Less racist, maybe than Andrew Jackson. But horrifying. Hang in there, Canada!
Ironic that 'conservatism' has become so short sighted, all the while putting everything on the federal credit card for the next generation.
16
Try reading your constitution and Declaration of Independence. That’s the source. Many citizens want to have a King, and no it’s not Donald, they want government poking into every nook and cranny and others don’t. Those that don’t recognize the idiocy of federal regulations promoting lightbulb standards when markets do so better, reflecting individual choice. And it’s not about saving energy: the first generations of ‘long last’ energy efficient bulbs cost a fortune and burned out early, and what about bulbs lasting 20 years in a college dorm desk lamp? Liberty and freedom have meaning. And thousands of bureaucratic regulations churned out each year are stifling it in our populace so much so that an educated man, Dr Krugman, cannot see the obvious answer.
2
@Lem The answer is only "obvious" if you completely accept the notion that the "free market" solves societies problems, including climate change. All the evidence shows that at best, the "free" market is morally neutral and will not tilt in favor of the common good if there are profits to be made. A quick look at the fossil fuel industry shows that these polluters have negative impacts on health and that costs all of us. It's changing the climate and we are already beginning to suffer catastrophic consequences, and they still won't stop. And they are heavily subsidized and pay BILLIONS of dollars to get legislation that favors them rather than promoting the general welfare.
Regulations aren't stifling me at all. But poor air quality from fracking and other fossil fuel usage hurts my lungs.
The "free market" doesn't favor life-saving policies that protect workers, or children with asthma, or my sensitive lungs. The "free market" is not going to stop releasing the carbon and methane that are going to kill us all.
Industry would literally kill us for their profit, as they do in countries that don't regulate them. Why would anyone think that deregulation of life-saving measures will be OK because of "free market?" Mr. Krugman, the Nobel prize winner, just explained it to you.
24
@CKats so lightbulbs that cost more to create due to mandates, thus using more energy are a good idea? So allocation of resources based on political considerations are more efficient that market allocation based on demand? Wonder why the US has achieved greater reductions in greenhouse emissions than others following a stricter regulatory regime? It’s nonsense. Progressives yearn for collective action regardless of truth and always at a loss of freedom. And it’s interesting the equation of free markets with individual rights. Not the same.
@Lem
Taking the long view, yes, it is a good idea to innovate around products that will result in improved quality of life. It's not "political considerations" that make energy efficiency a goal imposed on certain businesses, it's survival of the species.
Reading Dr. Krugman's opinion piece reminded me of my kids when they were little and fighting. It wouldn't take long before one of them dropped the big bomb:
"You're not the boss of me!"
Some people never grow out of that stage.
24
We are the descendants of people that did not like people telling them how to live their lives. They disliked it so much that they gave up much of their few assets, got into horrible ships with families, got here and survived horrible conditions to make a new life. The people that put up with other people telling them what to do stayed in Europe, Russia, China, India, wherever. Even the Native Americans that were here when the above group arrived descended from people that hated where they were and marched the length of 2 continents to get here. Why would expect the current crop of either group to just accept anything some official hands them? It would be more surprising that we are as accepting of government intrusion as we are.
1
@Michael Blazin
Please. We are also the descendants of people who lived in caves with members of their own families, eating whatever could be dragged home. We live the way we do now because we learned, thousands of years ago, to band together and contribute energy toward the common good of a community, taking the benefits and sharing the responsibility of bein a member of one's society.
5
@Michael Blazin
" Why would expect the current crop of either group to just accept anything some official hands them?"
And yet, the followers of our top official accept as gospel any tweets that he made today, whether or not he said the opposite last week.
1
@Michael Blazin actually many of the first colonists were jobless vagrants swept off the streets of London, privateers, or religious fanatics ostracized by the rest of society in England and later Europe. We were a dumping ground for people in debter prisons, and military adventurists.
The absence of regulations is not liberty, it is anarchy.
65
@Rich M
It is liberty for the tiny part of society that can afford to escape the anarchy. That's why they live in gated communities that have lots of regulations while attempting to eliminate them on the outside.
@Rich M
Who said the simplest answer is usually the right one?
I appreciate your insight.
@julia
His name was William of Ockham, and its called Ockham's razor.
Just a little tid bit I learned from teaching history.
It seems to me these people are more libertarian than conservative. More John Birch than John Adams.
Milton Friedman and his ideological brothers got this ball really rolling in the 70's and 80's. Their ideas fellow on fertile ground with Reagan and Thatcher.
It played well with American mythology, John Wayne, Davey Crockett, etc, the Marlboro man, riding across the landscape on his trusty steed, just the two of them against the world. Oh, yeah!
The lies we've told ourselves for over 200 years might well be out undoing. The strong, independent loner could never really make it on his own, at least, not for long. We are a tribal species and we rely on the group, like it or not.
14
What a brilliant article, hope it will be the beginning of a national conversation. Industry actually doesn't mind having a fair Umpire. When they are doing things the right way, they expect their competitor across town to do so also. This is when regulation is at it's best, ensuring that all players are meeting minimum safety/environmental standards. I appreciate the observation that behind the RR (Regulation Rage) - the person feels disrespected. My take is that the person is fearful or immature...Perhaps the person with dishwashing liquid rage is afraid that they are being disrespected. Phosphates, are pretty (cost effective) to regulate ...Proportionally the benefits of limiting them far outweigh the harm to manufacturing...Phosphates directly cause harmful algal blooms that kill aquatic life and are very toxic. When I worked in environmental enforcement, having a clear set of rules, along with the rationale for them, respectfully implemented, got very little pushback from industry, and most were in compliance. However, the state/federal rule writing is overly complex, and requires a part time interpreter just to decipher. That costs business a lot of money. Regulatory agencies have painted themselves into this corner by way overcomplicating things. They need to revise/simplify.
5
@Dee - The thing is, one of the main reasons the process is so complicated is precisely *because* it's been structured to incorporate input from those who will be regulated, at every stage of rulemaking and implementation. It prioritizes public transparency (and industry buy-in) over simplicity or efficiency. If you've worked in environmental enforcement, surely you know this.
It does, of course, make compliance a complicated matter. But the alternative would be to have administrative and regulatory decisions made behind closed doors, and imposed top-down without explanation. That would probably elicit some pushback as well, I imagine.
2
@Chris M. I disagree that the only two alternatives are to have overly complicated rules shaped by the regulated industry or a top-down rule-making process without stakeholders involved in the process. In our state, compliance with federal law is often determined by workers with minimal industry experience. I say this as a person who plowed through a barely comprehensible 100-page rule just to prepare for one inspection. Poorly written and overly complicated permits and rules are sometimes weakly enforced over a handshake. That is my observation.
Psychologist John Bowlby's "Attachment Theory" probably forms a basis to what Mr. Krugman is calling "regulation rage" and also to being "right-wing" in politics. Bowlby discovered that children had to bond or attach to a primary caretaker in the first couple of years of their lives in order to form a model of how they fit into society.
Those with loving, present caretakers form a "secure" social attachment and develop a flexible attitude towards others. Those of us who got enough care, but some connection with others form an "ambivaliant" attachment to others and displaying introverted behaviors. Those with angry and/or abusive parents form a "hostile-avoidant" relationship and may have actually been punished for seeking help from others.
Studies have shown that progressives tend to display secure attachment traits and hardcore conservatives largely fall into the hostile-avoidant category.
The disproportionate "rage" and regressed self-absorption is a subconsious "outrage" of not being cared for in infancy and a reaction of rejecting any parental control which triggers earlier childhood abuse sensations. Not only should they not ask for or be subjected to control and protection, but for others to do so signifies a moral "weakness" and "snowflake vulnerablility". The rage is very deep and subconscious and colors one's view of the world throughout their lifetime.
10
One of the most important principles of community-building is "buy-in". The fact that the once more-or-less American community has become deeply divisive over the last two decades is because "buy-in" is now in almost complete abeyance...
Consider how regulatory rage plays in this scenario. Somebody, somewhere comes up with a regulation. The need it's intended to address is obscure, the correction it's meant to achieve, illusive. Meanwhile, no one takes the time to build-up public support for its implementation. Then you, as a member of the American community are expected to comply with it -- just as seemingly more pressing activities hang in the balance.
Yah, under deeply frazzling circumstances, you too might pop your cork. "I'm all fed up and can't take it more!"
Then, there are those situations where regulatory restrictions are masterminded to promote pecuniary interests. But that's a different regulatory story...
And, of course "regulatory rage" can always be used to rally the attention of the masses for political purposes, which is probably the real point of Paul's article.
2
in the UK, regulation rage amongst a small but very vocal section of the population is a key contributor to Brexit. A cherished yarn amongst the eurosceptic set tells of the EU's attempts to ban prawn cocktail flavour crisps, and the current prime minister spent the early part of his career as a journalist writing entertaining if not always factually accurate stories about regulations emanating from Brussels.
7
I recently retired after a 30-year career as a government regulator. I often encountered the regulation rage described by Dr. Krugman, and my response was always the following question: do you think you should be able to drive on whichever side of the road suits you at the moment? Most people would automatically respond "of course not."
Regulations are not imposed by an invading Martian army, they are almost always a response to a mutually recognized need. The only argument should be with respect to the best way to go about getting optimal results with minimal discomfort.
99
@Three Bars I appreciate your common sense comment.
Allow me to share my definition of a libertarian: Someone who gets up one morning and decides to drive on the other side of road, runs into you with his car and then blames you because you are infringing on his "rights".
It's "rules for others and none for me" kind of thinking and doesn't belong in a democracy.
3
I see two currents at work. Bro. Krugman notes the first one. I would add that the anti-regulation rationale would also apply to driving on the right. Should’t motorists be free to choose which side of the road they want to drive on? Likewise, shouldn’t we all be free to go to movie theaters with unmarked (or otherwise inadequate) fire exits?
The second item is that my experience suggests that many people have a reservoir of undifferentiated anger, likely caused by personal disappointments. This is often the result of poor choices, but it can also arise from broader circumstances. Demagogues throughout history have been adept at tapping into this reservoir. Trump follows this pattern, although so far he has been smart enough not to start a war.
8
Too bad we can't establish a mega-state somewhere where the "ragers" can live free of environmental regulations, food safety, consumer product, building, and workplace safety rules, seatbelt and no-texting laws, speed limits, any and all gun restrictions, government oversight of health care providers, and every other manifestation of what normal people consider civilization. They would soon go extinct, then the rest of us could get on with the business of living healthy, productive, and enjoyable lives.
13
@Richard We don't need to establish a regulation-less state somewhere to send our ragers to. There are many countries out there today that lack not only regulations but also judges, police or taxes. I'm thinking ragers might like Somalia which has no government but plenty of guns.
16
Worse than the frontal assault on regulation is the undermining of it. We have farcical building certification system in New South Wales here in Oz. It is simply a box ticking exercise through the construction process. The certifiers are paid by the construction companies (cf The credit rating agencies and the financial institutions). Two egregious cases are in the press...it’s hard to keep an evacuation of a tower block quiet. But there are reports of owners’ corporations keeping major defects confidential so as not to reduce the value of their investment.
2
.
@Sgt Schulz,
.
I hope some parts of the Oz press have a strong reformist streak and will bring the publicity that will bring justice for the victims.
And in the US, Trump tries to weaken the press
.
.
3
Many people don't cotton to the whole idea - let alone the actual experience - of being told what to do.
2
@Don-E.
Nobody likes being told what to do, especially if they don't understand why (which often takes investigation, as in: what is the ozone hole and why does it matter?). So some of it is an education problem that has been politicized big time, and used for divide and conquer. If you are barely making it research is a no go.
2
@Don-E. People who are willing to cringe before their bosses in the private sector to keep their jobs brag about how brave they are for standing up to the government.
Excessive regulation will lead to regulation rage. So for example, seeing a swat team raid a Gibson guitar factory with guns drawn to seize Rosewood they claimed had not met environmental standards in India would be a good example. So every input a company buys now has to be vetted globally that it was in compliance in each country? Shouldn’t that be the responsibility of the country of origin that exporting companies operating in their territory be in compliance with their laws? Think of the impossibility of this task with hundreds or thousands of inputs from around the globe. Intelligent regulation is a good thing. Thoughtful regulation. However, instead we get a lot of politically motivated regulation with unintended consequences. For example, Sarbanes Oxley has driven companies into staying private and increased private equity pools. So now we have less visibility of what is going on. Fewer public companies for normal citizens to invest in.
3
@Ron Koby
Doing nothing can also have unintended consequences.
5
@Ron Koby
I remember the guitar factory raid. Wasn't it in Memphis? I also recall the explanation was that the unregulated wood gave them an unfair market advantage over the guitar makers who got the legal stuff and the avoiding of host country export taxes.
8
The outsize rage that some conservatives have relates to the perceived impact that regulations have on personal “freedoms”. These people view regulations akin to the “nanny state”, and think that people should take personal responsibility rather than have the government tell them what they can and can’t do.
These people fail to see the benefits that regulations provide to the greater good. It’s a shame. Regulations protect people and the environment, and they level the competitive playing field, which is very pro-business.
11
@Topaz Blue. Yet conservatives feel quite differently about regulating a woman’s body and what grows inside it. What could be less a matter of “regulation” than the inside of an individual’s body? There’s an offensive inconsistency there.
11
@LizJ
The constant factor is the conservative desire to be free to exploit other people.
Having for many years both worked in and observed government on the local level, my view would be that overregulation and inefficiency in the zoning and land use arena are a major cause of regulatory rage. Trying to get the building permits necessary to convert raw land to development has become a lengthy, expensive and exasperating process. And this is a primary realm in which many ordinary middle class Americans interact with government regulation.
Preserving rural areas and environmental values are noble goals. But when the entire burden devolves onto an individual small property owner, the result can be unfair. The problems can become intolerable when multiple governmental agencies are involved in regulating the same environmental issue from different angles. Rage results when simple, logical and affordable solutions become impossible to obtain.
6
Your ZBA must actually enforce the law/Spirit thereof than most.
Trump is doomed to fail at his attempt to roll back regulations on lighting, CAFE standards for automobiles, and energy production (i.e. coal), et cetera. Incandescent lights, gasoline powered automobiles, and coal powered electricity plants are old technology. The real money lies in developing the new technologies, and the intelligent corporations know this, which is why they are all heading in that direction. They'll simply ignore Trump if it's better for their business model, and it is.
For example, once the transistor was discovered the days for vacuum tubes were numbered. The semiconductor industry is a multibillion dollar juggernaut, largely still dominated by Intel, Nvidia, AMD, Qualcom, TI, and others. Same goes for landlines and smart phone technology, etc. The winnings are big if you innovate and any legacy technologies will eventually fade into obscurity or niche markets.
The result of Trump's deregulation efforts to keep our technology in the past will only keep lazy American companies from innovating. But I don't see Apple, Amazon, Uber, etc. abandoning the self-driving automobile, or large companies or cities dropping LED lights for incandescents.
The smart companies know that reasonable environmental regulations will make them winners (and money) in the long run.
6
@Eric,
.
No, those co's wont abandon cars, they'l just make them more cheaply by being subject to relaxed, or lax, pollution regs
.
.
My father once told me a story that a friend told him: She sent her teenage off to school with "Have nice day!" and he replied, "Don't tell me what to do!"
The conservative response to regulation sounds just as immature. I've seen it for a long time, and I think Krugman's analysis of it is spot on.
57
@Orthoducks
Defiance and oppositional behaviors are part of normative development for teenagers and two-year-olds, helping them become unique individuals. What we’re seeing in adults with “regulation rage” is maladaptive and potentially dangerous— some type of disorder that goes beyond simple immaturity.
13
@Donna M Nieckula
Dislike of regulation is normative, period - unless the reason for the regulation is understood. If money is involved the Merchants of Doubt get to work and regulations are politicized. It's OK to smoke, and here comes the vaping revolt until evidence piles up and up and up. Hopefully the killer additive or additives are found soon and ez to test for.
4
@Saint999 I think *dislike* of regulations is normative, but outright rebellion, pursued reflexively with little or no justification, is not normal adult behavior. I don't think it's a disorder of individuals, but it's certainly a disorder affecting the society we live in.
1
You might think it's all about the profits, because it is.
As Krugman well knows, major corporations favor bloated regulatory regimes because they're inherently anti-competitive.
1
Brilliant observations as usual, Prof. Krugman, but I feel we should acknowledge that regulators do sometimes overdo it. For a recent example, banning flavored vaping products. I don't vape, but I do care about truth in politics, and no flavor has been implicated in the recent spate of deaths. It seems to be a case of using one crisis to justify an unrelated response.
It should be possible to challenge a regulation. Can the regulators clearly state what problem it is intended to solve? Might a different regulation solve it better, or less onerously? Give the regulation ragers a feeling that they could, if so inclined, try to advance a better idea.
Incandescent light bans and phosphate bans would easily pass muster.
1
@M.
"Give the regulation ragers a feeling that they could, if so inclined, try to advance a better idea."
There are avenues to "try to advance a better idea." They include communicating with your Representatives in Congress and/or in your State Legislature. However, these people are not rational, and don't have a better idea. They just don't want to be inconvenienced, even if it prevents others' health and safety.
10
@M. vaping is killing my 19 yr old son! It is worse than cigarette addiction. Banning it is one of the only decent acts Trump has taken!
Don't underestimate the dangers of vaping!!!
1
Frederick Jackson Turner explained this with his "Frontier Thesis" back in the 1890's. With many iterations, the thesis basically says the frontier experience - vast open spaces - has shaped American democracy in an unique way including a horror of limits. Heavily criticized in the 1960's, it has new resonance today.
7
Do we really expect the auto companies are sincere when they state they want to comply with fuel economy standards?
I think there is strong incentive to APPEAR as though they want to adhere.
However, for many US auto manufacturers, their #1 sales model are large pickup trucks. Many of these companies over the years have been acquired or acquired small-vehicle brands just so their fleet fuel economy average is within the obama standards. That is, the small car brands were purchased as a loss leader so they can keep building high-margin trucks. I'm sure if push comes to shove, they'll build as many trucks as they can sell for high margin irrespective of what they say.
3
I’m personally in favor of most regulations, and I detest Trump. But I want to tell my fellow Democrats that many in my family have regulation rage, so much so that they will vote for Trump again. Most of their rage stems from a myriad of regulations governing their farming and ranching whose cost of compliance far exceeds a realistic assessment of the benefits.
3
@Robert Ross Yeah, but a "realistic assessment of the benefits" is only accepted by the regulation ragers when it supports their view that the regulations are too expensive. This results in the spectacle of Trump Administration leaders muzzling EPA scientists and deep-sixing credible analytical evidence about regulations because these scientists are effectively demonstrating that the regulations are needed, DO work and aren't onerous. And don't get me started about industry heads that fight rules which seek to prevent them from making dangerous products.
16
@Robert Ross
“myriad of regulations governing their farming and ranching whose cost of compliance far exceeds a realistic assessment of the benefits.”
How important is clean water to you? What about to that city 20 miles down stream? How important do you think it is to them? Next time ask them that when they complain about the burden.
3
Mr. Krugman, the root of the regulation backlash has to do with ever-increasing number of rules and regulations that every American, in daily life, encounters - whether is the nail salon worker who needs state certification to the bank employee who completes ever-increasing numbers of forms to the local school district that has keep up with an avalanche of new rules and policies.
These rules may individually be well-intentioned and beneficial, some of them may have made sense once upon a time, but increasingly life is being swallowed by rules which the vast majority of people and organizations can't keep up with or possibly follow. This leads to cynicism towards government and a feeling of anger towards regulations generally, which creates fertile ground for those opposed to regulating things like guns and pollution. Unfortunately, progressives are unwilling to discuss this problem and come up with solutions to address it.
7
@SR If an industry is putting a poisonous substance in the air, why do we have to get the ok from that industry before we can tell them to stop poisoning our air? Why do we have to concede to the concept that you can't sue me over it, so I can keep putting it in the air because my lawyers say so?
9
@SR
“Unfortunately, progressives are unwilling to discuss this problem and come up with solutions to address it.”
All of the problems you mention can be improved/solved simply by using the internet or a computer-based form.
There. Much like Al Gore did for everyone else, I invented the internet for you. You’re welcome.
Regulation rage has many sources. It all comes down to regulation hindering the flow of money in the marketplace.
The middle class and lower no longer have the foundation of factory jobs in an industrial economy. They are just hanging on. They do not want impediments to the stream of commerce which eventually flows to their bank balance.
Of course, the stream of commerce can be diverted and channeled into a different economy with new and better jobs than they had in the industrial era. But many former industrial workers react in an emotional, non-thinking way to regulation. They want to throw a punch at any system that shackles the free hand of the marketplace, and stops the flow of money if only temporarily.
Investment bankers, corporate raiders and the like hate regulation because it trammels on not only cash flow, but debt service, and the libertarian idea that anything goes.
That would be not so bad if there were no such thing as externalities, the costs of business not paid but imposed on the public; things like pollution, for example.
Contemporaneous globalism and climate change make things exponentially worse . Even communist countries now realize the superiority of an economy based on higher value-added goods produced by industry.
The global market and environment are exacerbated by industrial overcapacity and too many people putting too many resources into the black hole of commerce. We need not only regulation, but a paradigm shift for life.
7
"Everyone hates regulations" except when the regulation, personally protects them. In my opinion, the modern era of regulation rage was substantially moved forward by Reagan's famous quote. While the quote target the government, regulations are seen as an extension. Let's get rid of building codes, water standards entirely, air standards entirely, do away with the FDA and the USDA, restaurant inspections, medical licenses, legal licenses. Let's have a true free market and let the consumer decide; afterall, the consume always makes the best choice, particularly in a momvent of crisis, when one has plenty of time to peruse the literature, oh, right can not do that, as no informaiton would be made public, as it would all be proprietary.
11
Every two years I get a notification to get a smog check along w a bill to renew w DMV. I get so mad at having to get a smog check bc it costs at least $40 and bc I am one of the few, who have to go to a small, special garage instead of just a normal garage like Costco, Firestone, etc. These targeted customers like me help small business stay afloat compared to the big companies which can discount sharply. Small companies don't discount and are hard to find, but I use them begrudgingly.
As much as I've resented having to get these special smog checks, I will *never* complain about them again. Instead, I will delight that I live in one of the cleanest, most beautiful parts of the country and keeping it this way is a privilege.
VOTE 2020! Let's get rid of Trump!
34
A large part of the problem is that conservatives need to understand on an emotional and intellectual level, that selfish personal behavior has consequences that affect all living things. Facts and science may be part of the liberal conspiracy, but unfortunately each persons greed, recklessness, selfishness DOES have impact on the whole planet.
39
@Son Of Liberty,
.
That's tru BUT most cons will knee-jerk, vehemently deny it
.
Funny, I was pondering this very issue today when I came across this article. I guess it’s the light bulb thing that brought it to my mind.
The line of thought that comes to mind that might have merit goes something like: why is the government meddling with my choices? The free market will handle it just fine. That’s not what government is for.
Unfortunately, this logic just doesn’t fly for me. In our complex modern society it’s impossible for the individual to have the detailed knowledge and power to act in their own best interest or the best interest of their community.
So the government has to step in to protect us.
Sorry, Mr. Trump. Wrong again.
62
@Granny Franny Not to mention that with the resources corporations have, it is easy for them to shield themselves from negative info being released into the marketplace. Additionally, it's not a "free" market when companies collude to change the rules and protect themselves from the consequences of consumers making informed purchases.
10
@Granny Franny
Don't you see the irony in your comment though? Mr. Trump is the head and highest authority within the US government.
The government is not some superior entity able to rise above the myopia of us plebs, in reality it's little more than collection of us biased heavily towards those with money and charisma. And, like us, the players within government are also entirely driven by their own, often petty, self interests.
You're idealizing your appeal to some post-human entity capable of impartial and objective analysis with actions determined with little to no weight given to self interest. In reality, you're talking about Mr. Trump and our increasingly dysfunctional congress, all alongside the corporations and special interests funneling never ending millions of dollars to them in "donations." Surely they do so only out of benevolence though.
Please remember that the first effort of the regulation of light bulbs was to require CFCs, which contain highly toxic mercury and must be disposed of specially and expensively.
Which was the greater threat? A bit more CO2, or poisoned landfills.
Beware the twin threats of a narrow-minded focus and unintended consequences! The narrow mind is the bureaucrat's means of advancement.
Dr. K, Nailed It. I'll never forgive Ronald Reagan for his anti-government quip because it somehow stoked the limited imagination of the, what do I call them? Deplorable isn't good. Extremists? Pro-pollution corner-dwellers? Earth haters? I don't know.
Companies, like the car companies realize that to stay competitive, they cannot stifle innovation, even if it was driven by regulation. If they go back to the olden days while the auto industry drives inexorably toward electric cars, they will cease to exist.
All industries should be striving to limit pollutants, and if science proves something is polluting our air and water, it should be dealt with appropriately. Industry has to drive innovation. We lament the fact that other countries the government protect industries and include them in their economic planning. Making American companies stupid is not the answer. Impeach trump.
50
@R A Go bucks
Remember Ronnie Raygun trying to do school lunches on the cheap by arguing that “ Catsup is a vegetable” ?
1
As they say, “Don’t tread on me”, and especially, Keep you hand off my Medicare. Cognitive dissonance at work here.
27
Yes, regulation-rage stems from the fact the right-wing mentality hates being told what to do, especially by an authority figure, i.e. the government. This is worse than an adolescent trait--it is, in fact, quite infantile. It's starts with the terrible two's, when toddlers protest with temper tantrums against the parental authority that wants to begin toilet training and other forms of socialization. A pronounced self-centeredness accompanies this mentality, along with attitudes associated with narcissism, entitlement, and indifference to the sensibilities of others. Even sensible government regulation arouses the feeling, "How dare you tell me what to do!" So sad that much of humanity is so unevolved.
45
Once again we see what motivates the MAGA-heads. It is not self-interest, it is spite.
72
The core psychological problem is egocentrism -- the self-centered belief that if I think something is directly good or bad for me, then that's the way things should or shouldn't be. If it's right for me, it's also what everyone else should think and do, no matter how it affects anyone else.
Egocentrism also underlies what are often called "common sense" ideas. Of course my idea is right -- it's my idea, after all. How could it possibly be wrong? How could anyone who disagrees with me possibly be right? How could any regulation that limits me in any way possibly make sense?
We're human. We tend to believe in lots of stupid ideas. And we're often very sure that we're right about them.
10
It could also be that people are being paid to act crazy so they will be imitated.
2
Republican voters voting against their own self interest? Say it ain't so, Joe...er, Paul!
5
The fact that most of the population, though grown into adults, are really immature, aged teens, many of whom are in a state of constant rebellion against their ubiquitous parent, the State, should be considered. I don't know any test which will reveal this kind of immaturity, but it is on constant display just about everywhere, including the Congress of the United States and the O-void Office.
12
There's a reason all Trumpies remind me of smokers in the 90s, outraged at the increasing resistance to smoking in public places and determined to blow smoke in the faces of anyone who told them to stop it.
Many of them are probably the exact same people.
42
@Maria Actually they’re probably all dead now. I remember when they banned smoking in bars. No longer did I have to come home after a night out, strip off all my clothes and take a shower before I went to bed.
Well Krugman, as always yes and no. Regulation imposed by a technocratic bureaucracy is never going to be popular with regular people. You trust technocrats, because sometimes you are one. Nobody else trusts them, with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren and her minions, and the singular appeal of Warren is that she promises to end the revolving door that has led to capture of the bureaucracy by corporate America and Finance.
I don't know how much appeal that is going to have to regular people but maybe we'll get to see. For now, regulation rage may not be productive but it is not irrational, nor is hatred of the elites, who in the real world simply can't be trusted, no matter how blameless they individually might, or might not, be.
4
@International Herb: I trust technocrats quite a bit. I also like clean air and clean water. And food that doesn't come from the farm with poisons. And automobiles that aren't unsafe at any speed. Who else are you going to trust to take care of those things? I wouldn't trust someone who can't imagine trusting a technocrat. I want people in charge of those things who know what they're doing and will work diligently for the greater good.
7
@International Herb Last month my sister and her husband were in a serious auto accident on a two lane blacktop in rural Maine. A car crossed the center line and surely was going to hit them head on. My brother in law instinctively jerked their car right, it was still hit, careened down an embankment and rolled over not once, but twice. The car was totaled of course but they walked away with nothing but a few scratches and some aches and pains. And why? Because the federal government years back had required auto manufacturers to install airbags, front and side impact. My sister and brother in law are alive because of those government regulations.
10
I was a medical practitioner, a hospital medical director and saw both sides of regulation. I was struck how doctors hated administrators until non-cardiologist who took care of people with heart attacks got into trouble, "conscious sedation" for endoscopy led to anesthesiologists cracking down on gastroenterologists, who went a little too far, or if a general surgeon operated on the carotid artery, rather than a vascular surgeon. Then, it went from "administration needs to stop practicing medicine," to "administration needs to do something."
Most of the issues in medicine would have been better regulated by doctors, because we were the experts. But enough people didn't do the right thing, patients died or were injured, and few wanted to be the bad guy (it was a guy back then, usually.)
One need only to look at vaping, no assault weapon ban, the water in Flint and Newark, chlorpyrifos, and many more examples to see where this policy is going to lead.
27
The problem is that the media, including Dr. Krugman and the NYT, insist on focusing on the policy-wonk "regulation" side of the movement while failing to emphasize the rollback in "protections" for our health, our environment, our pocketbooks, our education, and so on. The point about "Regulation Rage" is well-taken, but it could more pointedly have been headlined "Protection Panic," which captures the feelings of those outside the far-right, rage-driven minority.
10
I think another cause of this rage is (willful?) ignorance of the way regulations are enacted. At both the federal and state levels, there’s a very complex process in which the public (both corporate and non-corporate interests) has multiple opportunities to provide feedback on the proposed regulations. I worked in my state’s government for 20 years and can think of numerous times that regulations proposed by my agency were revised based on this feedback.
It’s also worth noting that regulations by definition cannot go beyond the scope of any statute. So, the idea that “bureaucrats” have the power to create new laws without a legislature’s input is not true.
24
It would be interesting to know how many of the Regulation Ragers call themselves Christians. On the one hand, Christians believe that man is fallible and that greed is a sin - good arguments for regulation. On the other, Christians believe in charity, and the damage de-regulation can cause is far, far from charitable.
2
@Nathaniel Brown
I would wager that most of the predatory lenders in the US call themselves Christians.
I believe "regulation rage" is real and is a long-established tradition in the U.S., e.g., the original backlash against seat belts and the continuing opposition by motorcyclists to helmet laws. At the same time, I believe it is important to recognize Trump's obsession with undoing Obama's legacy. It plays a major role.
52
It’s an older tradition than that; consider the Colonists’ reactions to British regulations on transatlantic trade, culminating in the Boston Tea Party and the Revolution.
I remember an otherwise intelligent accomplished person saying that he loved Trump for getting rid of 90 regulations.
Asked to name any one of the 90, he couldn't and got mad at the question.
Rationality is not the answer here. It should be, but it isn't.
210
Sometimes isn't it as simple as people do not like others (i.e., government) restricting their options in any way whatsoever?
4
@JBC The key word in your statement is "their". Indeed. government is free to restrict other people's options, say, in significant areas like reproductive rights, or less significant ones, like restricting the noise other people might make on their street while they are trying to sleep, but not their own right to make noise when they think it is justified. Dr. Krugman hits the nail on the head, though. Isn't it about people feeling, fairly or unfairly, disrespected by those who are more educated and have taken advantage of that education to become wealthier and convince the nation as a whole that they deserve to lead a more comfortable life because their skills are more valuable than those of people with fewer degrees? Not having lots of contact with those elites (or vice versa) they have turned to another member of the elite class who, however, can claim to have succeeded without using the elite education he received. Trump may well have attended a bunch of exclusive educational institutions, and he reminds the traditional elites that he did, but he uses nothing that he might have learned at those places to succeed either in his business dealings or in politics. He uses the same kinds of skills that his rally attendees feel they possess and encourages them to hone those skills rather than the ones that the other group of elites promote, resulting from a formal, broad, liberal education.
3
@JBC Yes, it’s a psychological defect. The angry and resentful (Trump being a prime example) are examples of arrested development and bad parenting. These spoiled tittie babies never learned the meaning of “no” and are stuck in a perpetual state of juvenile rebellion.
Krugman has taken the bait.
The roots of what he is calling "regulation rage" are ideological & economic, initially found articulated in the Powell Memo.
The ideology from the Right is known as "Public Choice Theory" (see Nancy MacLean's book "Democracy In Chains" from the history of that pseudo-academic ideological movement).
Prior to that, they began in right wing business attacks on the New Deal - Google the EPIC campaign for California Governor for where the ideology got translated into politics).
The current right wing authoritarian populist "rage" is the result of manipulation & attacks on government ever since then.
There is another source as well - Neoliberalism, supported by the compote Democrats.
Krugman surely knows all this, so don't know why he took the "culture" bait.
2
G. K Chesterton had this one pegged years ago: "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
198
@Steve Lusk
The Military Industrial Complex is happy to bribe politicians on both sides of the aisle so that citizens of the world have no protection from our seemingly endless wars. Fewer than ten Democratic senators voted against our most recent trillion dollar war budget last go round. Check out who they are? The amount of tax dollars going to bombs assures we have no money for such things as infrastructure. When will we finally say enough is enough?
2
Most “regulations” are actually measures to protect people from harm. I feel we need to shift our language and start calling all these measures the right wing wants to get rid of “protections” rather than “regulations.”
The right wing wants to get rid of safety protections for workers. They want to eliminate safety protections for things added to our water supply. The aim to get rid of protective measures which help keep our air clean. They want to dismantle protections for student borrowers. They want to get ride of protections which help insure that people who use banks don’t lose their money.
By shifting the terminology in favor of greater accuracy, we can help make clear that the right wing hates government protections, because they aim for a world in which the powerful control those with less power. Because this is their goal, the right wing loves regulations that benefit the powerful. They love regulations which keep women in their place and deny them the right to abortion. They love government regulations which deny voting rights to people of color. They are ecstatic supporters of government regulations which deny rights to the LGBTQ community. They love regulations which benefit the coal and oil industries.
The issue is not really are they for or against regulations. The issue is that they want to dismantle measures which protect the ordinary everyday Americans.
271
@Richard Fleming
Good point about terminology. The GOP has run circles around Democrats in the messaging game: "death tax," "death panels," "gun rights," "pro-life," "open borders" and so on.
We should also substitute FIREARMS SAFETY for "gun control."
73
@Richard Fleming- hey it is called the Environmental Protection Agency and that is not making a bit of difference as trump uses this to promote the planet killing interests of the fossil fuel industry.
12
@Richard Fleming
How about we just get rid of the right wing propaganda organs propagating these false narratives, on the grounds that they no longer serve the public interest? Their "news" certainly isn't.
A good start would be voting the Republicans out of office at every level.
2
I think you sum up all of these attitudes as “toxic masculinity”. That’s oversimplified but I do think a lot of this anger is about some men who feel like the power and respect they’re entitled to has been snatched away from them. I don’t think they are really aware of what they are so angry about so they displace their anger onto a variety of symbolic targets.
22
@K. Anderson
As is indicated by the term "the nanny state."
@K. Anderson I've come to believe the same thing--witness the way the ragers came out in force to pillory Secty Clinton. We're watching what may be the final stand of abusive, coercive patriarchy.
This same mentality also applies to many ranchers who hate the Endangered Species Act and animals like wolves. There are other factors at play of course, like the occasional loss of cattle to a predator, but to them the wolf represents the federal government made flesh, a "foe" they killed off long ago coming back because the government says so.
10
There is a powerful class of elites which is almost always doggedly opposed to regulations - the financial and banking class, or at least many people in that class currently. This is because regulations cut down on the opportunity to make large short-term profits. Such profits are best made by massive leverage and fostering of asset bubbles, and these are the things which cause massive crashes such as 1929 and 2008. Of course various kinds of outright fraud can also contribute to bubbles and usually do. It is in the interests of this class to pick out seemingly unimportant regulations, such as those against plastic straws, etc. which increase the general resistance to regulation. The general indiscriminate opposition to regulation by conservatives may not be as trivial as it seems, although in the case of Trump one never knows.
7
Regulation rage is hardly confined to Republicans. I'm a not untypical California liberal, but when the building department told me my deck railings had to be 42" instead of 36" for my low deck, I was enraged. I don't need to be protected from drunks falling off - the purported cause of the new requirement.
What does my anger have in common with that of conservatives - hmm, maybe we don't want to be compelled to do what's "good for us" by people who don't know our situations. And even if the regulators are RIGHT about the regulation, failing to educate the us about the necessity for it robs us of our own agency. It's easy enough to see why pollution laws make sense - but harder to see why all houses need to be "net zero" on energy.
Bureaucrats and politicians have done a lousy job of informing the public and recognizing the trade-offs often involved in regulatory decisions. Better communication with key stakeholders (and the public at large) before, during and after regulatory decisions makes a lot more sense than blaming "rage" against those decisions on one's place on a "conservative/liberal" scale.
10
@Ned You said it. EDUCATION. Governments have to explain in a down to earth way, why they want these regulations. Everyone needs to understand why.
5
@Ned
People can also make the mistake of confusing local ordinances with federal regulations. Not all government is the same. Not all regulations come from the same place. Being held to certain standards by different factions can feel like an assault. But most federal regulations aren't going to require direct action of the average person.
7
@Ned Got news for you. Your insurance company doesn’t like those 36” railings either. If you don’t raise them they won’t insure you. And no diving boards, no vicious dogs or trampolines either. And that’s not the government talking.
It just sounds like many of the "regulation-rage" folks have the emotional maturity of an adolescent. Always carrying a chip on a shoulder. Always looking to be confrontational. For a few it seems to works (ref: Mr Trump), so far. But for most people, it just makes them very tiring for other to engage with them and they erroneously take that disengagement as having "won".
35
@William Fang I agree! Folks who have "regulation rage" over the Trump administration's immigration policy do have the emotional maturity of an adolescent. Unfortunately that encompasses a large portion of the Democratic party.
1
@Scott
I respectfully disengage.
@William Fang
And not all adolescents are that immature.
In 1964 (I'm dating myself), a very popular history teacher said that Goldwater had the mentality of a 14-year-old. Someone should have challenged him on that, because we were barely past 14 and we were almost all for Johnson.
Senator Ted Stevens' infamous "series of tubes" speech was caused by an incident where an email that was sent to him on Friday didn't arrive until Tuesday, which he blamed on net neutrality.
4
I’d point out that even a cursory reading of Adam Smith tells you that regulation is essential to make capitalism work.
And I’d ask why Dr. Krugman skipped the obvious: these clowns get paid for this stuff.
20
If you want to know the origins of conservative reactionary's rage at regulation, read Nancy MacClean's book "Democracy in Chains". It goes all the way back to Brown v. Board, and the Civil Rights Amendment and Voting Rights Act. Reactionaries because apoplectic that the Federal government would use its power to insure that non-whites and other minorities would be able to assert their right to equal protection, which includes access to other essential public goods such as public education and voting. But it's no longer culturally acceptable to say out loud that you want to segregate black children in substandard housing and schools so that your own children will never have to share power or compete with them in the marketplace. So they adopt their "right" to use phosphates, plastic, restrict access to abortion, etc. as pet proxies in their struggle to undo the sweeping civil rights legislation of the 60's and 70's. Don't be fooled. They care as much about other people's unborn fetuses as they care about their dishwashers.
110
@Larry Also Arlie Russell Hochschild's "Strangers in their own Land" describes the paradox of otherwise reasonable Louisianans' outrage at environmental protection.
6
@BruceK I'll add that to my reading list. Thank you and G-d bless!
As Mr. Krugman's examples illustrates, America's stupidity is both a virtue and vice that wrote America's financialization-multinational-hostile-takeover playbook. Could we honestly ever expect anything different than Trump?
10
The last line is dead on. Right-wingers deny science and knowledge because such things belong to the liberal elite.
18
@Anthony- as has been pointed out here, this is about the original "regulations" concerning the civil rights of black people and as such, regulations are now the great infringement on the rights of bigots (of all kinds) to be make their hatred manifest in our society.
They're all about regulation when it comes to women's wombs though.
580
@rachel
Correct. And the attack on California's environmental regulations is itself a regulation of the free market -- and a coercive one at that. Trump is counting on the courts (as he stacks them) to uphold all his diabolical schemes -- including rolling back women's reproductive rights.
14
@rachel yes, they only love regulations that harm the “others”.
9
@Rachel Or medical marijuana or voting. The only absolute unfettered right is to tote around a firearm. (I especially enjoy taking it with me to church)
41
This is all reminiscent of our Red Light Camera episode in my home town of Houston; while red light cameras clearly limited intersection accidents (some of the most common and dangerous - side hits called T-Bones affect the softest part of a vehicle, and, hence, created some of the most grisly injuries).
Never the less, the regulation ragers managed to get the issue on a municipal ballot and, lo and behold, it passed with flying colors.
The same cultural manipulation has given the world Donald Trump, Brexit and anti vaccine movements.
105
@Gary
I dislike trump and republican approaches to deregulation,
but the red light cameras are abusive to the driver.
You stop 3 feet in front of the limit line, it takes your picture and sends you a ticket. That is WAY DIFFERENT than running the light, but apparently not to the folks who implement red light cameras. This includes making a right turn on a red by rolling stop at 5 MPH at 3AM when the road is completely deserted. The red light camera sends you a ticket. Sorry, the voters may have had a good point.
1
The problem is that red light cameras are too tempting to bureaucrats looking for revenue. They shorten yellow lights so that motorists must stand on the brakes to avoid a violation, which many do not, thus increasing municipal income, and the ability of those bureaucrats to keep their jobs sending one another a daily blizzard of emails.
The public is legitimately suspicious of their motives.
@D I Shaw
The Red-light cameras are not so much regulatory as they are a scam to generate funds for fiscally irresponsible local governments.
1
Let's ask the citizens of Flint, Michigan or Newark, New Jersey if they think we should have regulations about water quality. Or the citizens of Libby, Montana or Woburn, Massachusetts if WR Grace had any responsibility for contamination of air and water from asbestos and industrial chemicals. Or the citizens of Grand Junction, Colorado about how they feel about their homes sitting atop uranium mine tailings adding radon to their homes.
Or best of all, let's offer Republicans help for them to move to any of these sites they might wish.
Unless you want your home or town to be a designated Superfund site (presuming the EPA still maintains any level of vigilance), we all need to support regulation. Ending regulation and putting our collective heads in the sand will not make problems go away.
23
@Douglas McNeill
Douglas, I'm not sure this is the best example.
Many of the institutions you listed are some of the most heavily regulated in existence. Delivering lead tainted water to homes not only broke an immense number of regulations, but also criminal laws. Several felony charges were filed against actors at the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality.
In other words these regulations, which can often prove burdensome to 'good actors', did not even manage to stop the 'bad actors' from doing their thing.
@Jaymes
Effect regulations require enforcement and not just enactment. Tough regulations which are ignored are no different from no regulations.
2
@Douglas McNeill
Better yet, let's ask them how they feel about carcinogins in their high blood pressure medication and antacids made in China, because of lax manufacturing processes. Or would they feed their children baby formula from China- the Chinese won't. Or closer to home, the Chinese-made drywall with sulfuric acid fumes- only now are the homeowners receiving some compensation.
I prefer to have my medications, food, and building material regulated. And I like to have those regulations enforced.
3
Putting aside the obvious financial interests, it's seen as expectorating on liberals. Or for it's entertainment value: radio hosts have to rage about something and the more seemingly trivial the regulation, like phosphate bans, the more arbitrary and absurd the regulation can be made to look.
Policy, particularly in this administration, can't be divorced from what plays well. And what incites liberals.
17
Yes, some people don't appreciate being told what to do with their land or their guns or their bodies, they don't wish to be instructed in minute detail about how to run their businesses, how to hire and fire workers, construct their homes, how to drive their cars, raise and educate their children, dispose of their estates, or do any other activity that at one time they were relatively more free to pursue as they please. Such is one of the central tensions in modern life. We react to these encroachments, beneficial or not, in different ways; and the attitudes one sees can vary greatly based on age and, particularly, geography. The psychology of self-reliance, good fences make good neighbors, and the individual over the collective still has a strong hold on the American mindset.
6
Re: “good fences make good neighbors”, the poem is about the isolating role that fences play, and the fact that if we would get to know our neighbors, we wouldn’t need fences separating us.
10
@Frunobulax,
The sad truth is that most people need to be instructed, sometimes in minute detail, how to run their businesses, how to hire and fire workers, how to construct their homes, how to drive their cars, raise and educate their children, dispose of their estates, and many other activities that at one time they were relatively free to pursue in ignorance and without any consideration at all for the effect of their actions on other people and the environment we all share. The psychology of selfishness, isolation, and anarchy still has a strong hold on the American mindset.
6
@Tyler Lerner Well, no, the point is that it explores precisely the contradictions under discussion and allows for separation as well as community.
The only time I see laws that don't make sense is when they've been designed by either the religious or corrupt (or both). Otherwise the laws and regulations that go into effect generally have some rationale, like the phosphates that Dr. Krugman uses as an example.
This rage is part of the Right's larger rebellion against expertise and intelligence. They resent being told what to do, especially when it is something that they really should be doing.
26
I blame Reagan. Regulation rage existed before Reagan, but he legitimatized it because everybody knows the government can't do anything right, and private enterprise fixes everything.
Well, everybody knows since Reagan said it was true.
36
Look at health plans too. Coming out every day: new stories about people buying low-cost, non-Obamacare compliant plans that end up covering nothing.
Trump just wants companies to be able to scam Americans and get away with it.
49
Wow, Mr. Krugman. That’s incredibly illuminating! Sounds logical.
3
I know you and Nassim Taleb do not like or respect each other. You profess to be an objective intellectual. If you are, then read the section of his book, Skin in the Game, on the minority rule and you will no longer wonder why vocal minorities have so much power in many social situations.
@James Ricciardi
One does not need a book to understand that some people care about any given topic far more than most others do. One consequence of this is issue polling is often wildly misleading.
@Alan That is not the minority rule. It has nothing to do with polling. If the rest of the US were like Columbus we would not need to understand the minority rule. Columbus is a great city. I got my BS in computer science at OSU in 1972.
But progressives don't go into Regulation Rage, and as Erickson suggests, go to their politician and beat him to a pulp because he (and they are always he) passed an anti-abortion law; passed a bathroom ID test law: passed a universal gun carry law; rescinded environmental protection laws; gave away public land to oil drillers; approved offshore drilling near our pristine beaches..the list is endless.
And why is that? On the whole, progressives/liberals are too polite, too attuned to civil discourse, too passive and are easily shouted down by screaming right wingers when they do make a fuss.
We must not be too timid to make much noise over Trump's lawlessness, and get out and vote. There may not be a next time, as Dr. Krugman suggests, if the poor picked-on white males take out their AR15s and start shooting.
22
Can’t we just admit the incandescent bulbs provide superior colored light.
4
No, because I object to agreeing with nonsense. Among other things, candles give prettier light, and so do burning buildings.
20
And leaded fuel in high compression car engines perform better, hydroflorocarbon propellants make for better hair spray, uncontrolled coal plant emissions are more profitable, chemical plant effluent is easier to dump into rivers and lakes. The list goes on and on...
15
@Patrick
No. Because I object to the tripling of prices for these items when the originals were perfectly fine, gave off good light and cost a whole lot less!
1
The reality is that everyone loves government regulation - the regulations that protect power, wealth and property and those that protect you and your children from being carted off into slavery.
8
Of course Trump is against regulations. Trump is a con man, lifelong. The last thing Trump wants is informed, empowered, or even equal customers. If Trump can’t cheat, he can’t win, and “winning” is what Trump cares about. Even when it is at the cost of the environment, public safety, world peace, or hurts his voters. To Trump, once you’ve fleeced someone, you just move on, never look back, and don’t care about the damages. And sue if they complain.
30
When you consider that many of the ragers take things that they like (ACA, Soc. Sec.) but tell the gummint to get out of their lives, it says to me that we need better schools that teach science, logic & math.
25
I think regulation rage is rooted in parent issues. Lots of kids grew up with parents who imposed all kinds of petty, pointless restrictions on them, and when they grew up they were finally able to throw those stupid rules off and make their own decisions. When the government demands that they change their behavior - even for good reason - they feel like they're being treated like a child.
5
I often disagree with Dr. K, but not this time.
I recently saw a rerun of a short interview with Governor Reagan of California. He noted that while many people had come to California, many were leaving for other Western states. He suggested this was inevitable because California's growth had cost it its sense of having a large supply of undeveloped territory.
The Wild West weighs heavily on our psyche.
4
A great column. I had always attributed Trump's zeal for deregulation as just another manifestation of his desire to undo everything Obama did. The degree to which this regulation rage has a history in Republican "thought" was a new idea to me. But Libertarianism always has been the province of men who at heart are essentially still stuck in adolescence who find any limits on their behavior abominable.
26
Or people who say they should have the right to do anything they have power to for, whether that’s dump lead in the water supply or rape a 13-year old whose single mother doesn’t own a gun.
Rightwing "regulation rage" arises from simply this: a dread of being part of the "collective." Here's another example of it: cigarette smoking. I see more and more people doing it, and doing it ostentatiously, so I conclude it's a statement. The only reason for such willful self-harm would be an ideological stance against doing something that would lower health insurance costs for everyone.
4
obviously a very complex topic that defies quick and simple answers, but I believe many (me being one of them) actually have "complexity rage"; our rage is not just directed at governmental and quasi governmental agencies but all variety of agencies, items, and processes. Simply put, and we can only blame ourselves, life is too complicated.
2
What's wrong with this country? The younger generations possess the wisdom and common sense to think ahead and not behind while the older generations are so stuck in their ways of fear and anger that anything and everything that resists the inevitability of positive change must never be allowed to occur.
Vote.
17
My first job observation of regulation rage was in the 70’s when people were terrified of adopting the metric system. Oh how terrible businesses would have to change their labels. Of course, they always update their labels. And they soon began listing weights and volumes both in English and metric measurements. It seems they also wanted to sell product in other countries too! But, we were scared out of it.
25
Let’s also get serious about the difference between the Trump voter and those who really work with the regulations noted in this article. The auto emissions are not the stuff of talk show hosts, nor of plumbers. The people who work with these are engineers who deal with inputs and outputs in a system. These people are largely ok with the regs. But a different class of people hate regulation – these are the small business owners, farmers and so on who see regulations as a pain in the neck – and liken them to the many petty annoyances encountered in running a small business – so the need to get permission for a new sign or to put a shed in the back of a parking lot need the edge of the property.
The rage is transference – it has little to do with the effort to develop more fuel efficient cars or light bulbs.
But a class of people – politicians, have learned to stir up an entire class of people over what is really nonsense. The lightbulb thing is even crazier. The new bulbs are far better and cheaper in the long run.
30
We need regulation because the markets will not self regulate and that can lead to serious economic damages.
At the beginning of the sub prime mortgage crisis, which led to the Great Recession, Alan Greenspan expressed his surprise that the mortgage market did not self regulate. Here is his exchange with Henry Waxman, then chair of the House Committee of Oversight and Government Reform.
“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”
13
@Not GonnaSay - and he didn't realize that the flaw was in himself.
Further, there is no such thing as manufacturing for only America anymore. It's more efficient to have a single line of products that can be sold both in the US and Europe (which has stricter environmental requirements) than one set of products for the US and one for Europe.
8
"polling tells us that an overwhelming majority of Americans, including a majority of self-identified Republicans, want to see pollution regulation strengthened, not weakened."
So, why do Americans keep electing people who are so intent on wrecking the environment and denying climate change? Is that protecting the environment isn't a high enough priority compared with, say owning assault weapons or inflicting cruelty on immigrants.
7
@dreamer94 They don't. We just have a political system engineered to prevent popular ideas from becoming policy.
13
@jeevmon
You saved me the trouble of saying it.
2
@dreamer94
They have multiple masters. For votes, they promise things like pro-life regulations. For money, they promise to deregulate everything else. Both are dogmatic self-interest.
Spot on column, Paul. I would also posit that regulation rage has its roots in the fact that the GOP's main (only?) argument to voters essentially is that government is bad. It's the only thing they can say that also dovetails with their pro-wealth, pro-corporate agenda, which would be spurned by voters if presented on its own merits. So they have to condemn anything government does, They have to mislead people and convince them that government can't work for them, even when it does. They have to equate the existence of government programs with "letting liberals win". It's arguably the only arrow they have in their quiver.
80
While law-abiding used to be a characteristic of the religious, as a quality it is now actively diminished by a religious right that is pushing for all of us to live under the umbrella of its beliefs. Respect for the law of the land is being actively undermined by religious power networks and structures. Federal, state, and local laws include many provisions that directly conflict with religious dictates. Nothing new here -- there has been a tug-of-war for the devotion of US citizens between these two power structures since the founding of our country.
11
I think you figured this out years ago: people who wanted to be able to pollute at will figured out that their best bet at defeating environmental regulation was to brand government as incapable of doing anything right. their target demographic wasn't college-educated people so much as blue-collar, since those people were more easily convinced. their strategy worked; a subset of Trump supporters believes that any regulation coming from the government is suspect at best, even insidious.
18
"Regulation rage" is a manifestation of social identity theory. Conservative ideologues have a predisposition against government intervention of any kind, regardless of cost or benefit, and have incorporated that into the GOP canon.
Rank and file conservatives accept that dogma because its part of being a member of "their team" and gives them a tangible way to "own the Libs."
12
The justification for regulation, aside from common sense, is that, in economics terms, externalities need to be factored in. People and companies need to pay the true cost of their activities, and profit from them once the true cost is understood. Pollution is an externality that needs to be factored in. Traffic deaths from seatbelt-less cars in an externality, paid not only by individuals and families buy society as a whole. As to the question "why can't we regulate ourselves?", well, government is we—we the people. Complicated stuff needs to be done at the government level.
32
This "regulation rage" goes back to the founding of our country, and to the debate between the needs of the community and state and the rights of the individual.
Where we've gone wrong in recent years is the solipsistic nature of our consumer society, which is then reflected in our politics. Too many individuals think only of MY needs, MY wants, MY concerns, MY liberty, MY tribe, and MY rights. We live in a political manifestation of neoliberal economics: a political party of one person, perfectly embodied by our narcissist President. It's a society Ayn Rand and her myopic followers never envisioned.
Yes, deregulation benefits corporations, and because many members of government are corrupted by corporate money, they vote in their interests. But many Americans see all regulations as impinging on their personal rights, no longer believing that each of us has a duty to continually perfect our collective democracy.
21
@jrinsc I love that you correctly aligned MY needs, MY concerns, MY rights with MY tribe. I'd add MY race, MY gender, and most of all MY feelings. The contemporary Left is more guilty of MYism that the contemporary Right though the right wing version of MYism is way more extreme and irrational than the left wing version.
When I see “the contemporary Left,” marching down the street with torches chanting, “The Jews will not replace us,” or skipping the blowout preventers on Deepwater Horizon and the methane alarms at Peabody Coal or dumping hog effluent into the nearest stream, I’ll take this claim serious.
10
@Eric
Selfishness is not bounded by political affiliation, but I do think that most of the "MY'ism" we see comes from neoliberals, corporatists, and Republicans. The left advocates for things like universal healthcare, solutions to climate change, etc., which are entirely about community and our duties to our fellow citizens (and to the world). I hear next to nothing of this coming from Republicans.
6
So it is just regulation rage that is fighting against addressing climate change?
It does seem like denying climate change and science in general is a staple of the pro-business Republicans and the Evangelical Republicans.
11
@David Bible this is an excellent insight.
At this point it is readily apparent that the costs of NOT regulating against climate change promoting activities and agents is exponentially larger than any benefit to the corporations.
Shipping is disrupted, raw materials and plants impacted, buying power reduced, insurance costs increased, supply chains impacted - I can't imagine that deregulation could be a positive thing for most companies (except for coal, of course)
6
We are twisted.
The BBC documentary “Century of the Self” lays out in detail the history of a highly effective well funded professionally managed psychological campaign waged against our sense of civic collective conscience. The documentary show how initially the US Chamber of Commerce worked with Edward Bernais, a progenitor of modern mass media marketing, to foment resistance against any kind of collective notion of success. Only a smart FOIA project would show how it went from there. Project Mockingbird docs gave us some hint.
There’s not yet been any balancing kind of initiative on the public level, but on the private level we see the seeding of the evangelical movement by wealthy reactionary players.
8
@Stephan Kuttner The complete lack of civics education in this country played a role as well. I don't think anyone born after 1965 has even the vaguest notion of how civil society functions.
6
How sad that we even need any regulations at all. Why can't we regulate ourselves? What is wrong with us as human beings that we cannot discern, let alone implement, the right thing for the health of the planet and all the species that share it? We can go to the moon but we cannot stop spoiling everything for ourselves and others.
6
@Christopher Ross
The world is a complicated place. An individual can't possibly know directly how every action he/she takes affects more than a limited number of people and locations. One has to depend on governments and voluntary associations to develop regulations and guidelines that benefit as many people as possible. And of course even with the best of intentions any organziation will make some mistakes.
2
@Christopher Ross
That's how things were back before people started eating unregulated apples.
1
Great piece. For me it was encapsulated by the Tea Partiers rage at the Dodd-Frank Act. For some reason, White working people from the TP were angry about limits on banks' swaps trading and the Volcker rule. Never mind that no one could explain it. It was Government and that's BAD.
75
I thought grass roots anti-regulatory fervor started with opposition to revenuers!
4
I think @hoffmanje, Wyomissing, PA has the right idea. "Framing" is the problem. News-people sometimes unwittingly contribute to 'bad framing'.
Example: Medicare-For-All is having trouble coping with the simplistic Republican talking point of 'Will taxes go up?' Ditto for 'Will I be able to keep my doctor?' Ditto for 'What about all the wages I gave up to get our great employee healthcare plan?' (a 'sunk costs' fallacy!) News-people pick-up and use these 'frames'.
I'd like to see them pick-up the bankruptcies issue.
Bernie Sanders mentioned half million or so personal bankruptcies caused by catastrophic healthcare costs. But there wasn't time to say how ironic medical bankruptcies are. Catastrophic loss is the main reason why we buy insurance for anything! And yet the available private health insurance still didn't protect almost half a million or more people from the loss of everything they own. News-people might ask (in the first or second paragraph of their news text) what should a person be more worried about: 1) keeping their current doctor, or 2) keeping their taxes a little bit lower, or 3) being protected from losing everything they and their family own?
And neither Warren nor Sanders has used the words 'net cost' when trying to answer the "taxes up" question. The 'net cost' of zero premiums, deductibles, and co-pays and a tax-increase should be a lot lower.
Now I'm an incrementalist. But only because the 'framing' of M-F-A isn't yet good enough to go the distance!
57
@Ben Andrews I omitted the word 'annual' when citing the number of bankruptcies!
"A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found."
This quote from a Feb 11 2019 story by Lorie Konish on the CNBC.com website, "This is the real reason most Americans file for bankruptcy". I'm sure there is a NYT news article about this, but I didn't have time to search for it.
6
The right's obsession with deregulation is primarily a combo of 3 things:
1. Part of their continuous effort to break down institutions to prove that government doesn't work. I.e. "Look at how ineffective gun control is in Chicago in preventing crime!"
2. Rebellion on anything that could be construed as an infringement on their "freedom" to continue to be awful people.
3. Simply trying to "own the libs", because they know we do care about things other than personal greed.
70
@Republi-con - of course, these same people are huge fans of regulating the activities of black people, people of any color, women and the LGBTQ community.
It's first a matter of understanding the hard-wiring of h sapiens: innately, people don't like t be told what to do. Yet we're also born with the capacity to organize, and to collectivize our efforts to achieve together what we otherwise can't as individuals.
This, I suppose, is the true, bivalent yingyang as to who we are...
So for the last 5000 plus years, it's been a constant polemic between stubborn individualism and various genres of collectivism. These latter include religion, altruism, nationalism, local custom and the brand of empirical common-sense propagated by Economists.
I would also add that any Social Psychology of The Great Hysteria must necessarily be based upon History. Europeans came over to America either to own stuff or to find a Peaceful City on the Hill. So these ideas, of course, became embedded as Philosophy
Therefore, behind every rant against anti-pollution you find the grinning idiocy of John Locke and his prop-tee. Gone amok, this is called 'fascism'.
Conversely, the rational urge to organize and to control impulsive behavior is found with the Puritans. They were the avatars of the European Enlightenment of Kant and Rousseau.
And, of course, Spinoza: What van the collective body do?
3
I think the last two sentences summarize GOP attitudes and libertarian attitudes perfectly. In both cases they view themselves as the ones who will not get sick or die and not elitist because they want regulations rolled back. These are the same people who want to regulate other, far more personal aspects of our lives. These are people who object to the ADA until it affects them and they need the accommodations. They are against Social Security but never offer to not take it when it's their time. And these are the same people who. if they are injured as a result of ignoring the regulations, expect us to pick up the pieces.
Of course there are silly regulations out there. But if we want to understand why there are silly regulations we need to look at what preceded them. There's a rule at a local amusement park that in order to go on certain rides every patron must have a partner. It's a blanket rule put into effect because at least one parent let her child go on a ride alone rather than going with him when he was afraid or saying no to him. The rule makes sense if one is a child under a certain age or developmentally disabled. It's annoying to me as an adult but it's there because an adult didn't act like an adult and a child died.
I am far more outraged when I see people willfully disobeying safety rules. That's my regulation rage. It's a shame the GOP doesn't feel the same way about our safety.
9/18/2019 12:03pm first submit
8
It is a myth that these republicans don't support regulation. They just want to use the government as a tool for their goals. Even rank and file republicans wants government to help them when big business ruins their personal environment or personal business. They also had no problem when Chris Christie isolated that sick nurse.
10
@hoffmanje I don't think that nurse was even sick. He was just afraid she might be.
2
Regulation rage is just another product
Anger and moral outrage can be monetized. Talk radio and cable news are experts. And what can be monetized can often be politicized and what can be politicized can almost always be monetized.
If you can get people angry enough, you can not only more easily separate them from their money, you can can separate them from voting in their own self-interest.
Get people angry enough, and they will let you rob them blind. And then line up for more, getting angrier and more outraged with every cycle.
It's a great business plan for dishonest businessmen and demagogues. It's one of Trump's few competencies.
It doesn't really matter if it's directed at the horror of a bakery being "forced" to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or the monstrosity of a government dictating the use of less environmentally destructive dishwasher detergent. Trivial issues work too. It's the anger that counts.
Anger and outrage, well directed, makes it a lot easier to allow the worst of our corporations to destroy the environment, run thinly disguised financial scams, and profit from products that they know are deadly.
And it makes it a lot easier for our politicians to take their share of the profits in money and power.
100
@LT
Agreed. Anger, in addition to being a great business and power model, is often the way these folks feel. It's often the only real thing that happens in their lives.
7
There's another group of people who really hate regulations: business leaders who are used to being the dictators of their businesses, and who absolutely hate that there's anyone anywhere who can tell them what to do about anything.
6
Regulation rage is real and harmful, but I am even more distressed by the fact that regulation itself has become so partisan. Not all regulations are penned with noble intent by knowledgeable legislators for the purpose of protecting the environment or consumers; a great many regulations are dictated by big business to solidify their market position and smother would-be competitors in the crib.
3
You hit the nail on the head. And like you said, most US voters will support such common sense regulation - with the caveat that those don't have an outsized influence and are willing to invest lots of time, energy, and money into political strategy and publicity.
To counter that influence it would make sense to leverage the common sense that most US voters on these issues. Therein lies the danger of election platform bold plans without public support - which can be exactly the leverage the "anti-regulators" use to push their agenda.
The coming push to kill private insurance comes to mind. Other advanced nations all have mixes of public and private insurance, and all offer universal coverage with per capita costs about 60% of what the US has. Polling shows the US public supports a mixed system but not abolishing private insurance. I think it's because they want to go directly to regulating medical price gouging, and not take an expensive detour.
There are obviously some issues - civil voting rights and fair representation comes to mind - that we must persue even with weak voter support. As always it comes down to judgement, and enough humility to constantly listen and re-evaluate priorities.
3
@Craig H. Just one clarification - those other countries allow private insurance, but for the most part those companies are non-profit. It is the profit agenda of our private insurance companies that cause the greatest harm in our system.
1
You might be overthinking this, particularly if you want to start the analysis by correlating regulation rage with other attitudes and then start trying to figure stuff out based on those correlations.
The following seems like a more promising starting point to me.
My wife went to policy school in the 70s when policy schools were a new thing. Apparently they taught then that many businesses welcomed some kinds of regulation because they wanted to do the decent thing, but they needed a level playing field to do so and still prosper. Sometimes that required making the decent thing a rule that applied to all competitors.
So maybe you should adjust your antennae to be on the lookout for people who prefer ordered liberty achieved by transparently designing and fairly enforcing fair practical rules; people who prefer the law of the jungle (or think they do until reality intervenes); and people who prefer something that purports to be ordered liberty but allows them to adjust the rules or to influence the enforcement of the rules in ways that give them an advantage.
4
I first noticed this when I had a three-year-old and observed a lot of his peers. It reminded me of that: "You can't make me!"
It wasn't clear to me how you could run a country of three-year-olds. It still isn't.
11
In three year old children, we call the rage reaction a “melt down”. In adults, infantile melt downs must be constrained by adult rationality and societal controls to make civil society possible.
When a perceived sense of chronic social humiliation is added to an unachievable desire for absolute personal autonomy and a sense that government constraint on one’s autonomy is oppressive, then understanding childish rants against “regulation rage” becomes understandable. Perhaps the first step in dealing with fear and contempt of government and the irrational rage it generates is to understand the personal psychology that triggers it.
7
@Thomas...yes, we all understand immaturity
3
This is part of a larger pattern in which everything Obama touched or improved upon must be undone. Trying to kill Obamacare, withdrawing from Iranian nuclear agreement and the Paris climate accord are all obvious examples. In the case of repealing the ACA, the GOP never had a replacement plan because what they disliked about it was that it was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by president Obama. That's all that mattered to them. And we know that California is on Trump's enemies list and needs to be attacked in every way possible. Don't underestimate the pettiness and power lust of Trump or the modern GOP. They want one party rule in this country, which is why they are working very hard on remaking the Supreme Court into an arm of the GOP.
33
I think the last two sentences summarize GOP attitudes and libertarian attitudes perfectly. In both cases they view themselves as the ones who will not get sick or die and not elitist because they want regulations rolled back. These are the same people who want to regulate other, far more personal aspects of our lives. These are people who object to the ADA until it affects them and they need the accommodations. They are against Social Security but never offer to not take it when it's their time. And these are the same people who. if they are injured as a result of ignoring the regulations, expect us to pick up the pieces.
Of course there are silly regulations out there. But if we want to understand why there are silly regulations we need to look at what preceded them. There's a rule at a local amusement park that in order to go on certain rides every patron must have a partner. It's a blanket rule put into effect because at least one parent let her child go on a ride alone rather than going with him when he was afraid or saying no to him. The rule makes sense if one is a child under a certain age or developmentally disabled. It's annoying to me as an adult but it's there because an adult didn't act like an adult and a child died.
I am far more outraged when I see people willfully disobeying safety rules. That's my regulation rage. It's a shame the GOP doesn't feel the same way about our safety.
9/18/2019 1:18pm second submit
15
Dear Professor Krugman,
When trying to persuade people about progressive values it is important to remember the importance of framing. For example, when the media or republicans use regulation and deregulation it is important to reframe deregulation as loss of protections And regulations as a form of protections, like seat belts or getting drunk drivers off the road. It is a psychological issue to believe that weakening protections that will protect your own kids is harmful to you and your kids future. It isn't about money, it is about power and control. Also external costs of lack of protections is passed down like you know what that rolls down hill.
7
Good observation, Dr Krugman. I hope some researchers pickup on your suggestion. Your comment "correlations between regulation rage and other attitudes, like support for unregulated gun sales and racial hostility" hints at some strings to pull disparate attitudes together.
Complaining about the guv-mint is so prevalent and present in all cultures that it's tempting to see it as human nature. As you observe, it has nothing to do with results -- the classic case is the senior complaining how the guv-mint never does anything, while he/she is living on Social Security and Medicare.
Regulation rage is a sub-category that right-wing focus group researchers have zero'd in on to make those seniors feel like the GOP is their kind of people. However the joke's on them, when the GOP turns Social Security into 401k's and Medicare into coupons and vouchers.
People are funny. :(((
7
I couldn't find good numbers on how many small business there are, and what % of GDP they are
but
if you are a small biz owner, a regulation is an immediate loss
so much easier and cheaper to throw toxic waste in the river, then send it for disposal
so much cheaper and easier to pollute the air, and not buy a new piece of equipment
so there is that
11
@ezra abrams There's a good book called "Why Nations Fail" that talks a lot about that. It's a good read for sure.
3
@ezra Adams
But if the regulation is fair and is applied to all with respect it doesn’t really hurt them. Especially if we support competition reporting their lack of compliance and enforcing it.
A great example would be medical for all. If small businesses could provide the same medical that a big business provides to their workers it would even the playing field for them. People can work for them without fear of being bound to work for a big business. It would allow small businesses to be more competitive and drive innovation.
Not all regulation and community first over profits hurt businesses.
5
@ezra abrams
If you believe our Deal Maker and leader of most of the regulation rage nation, business is doing great. That immediate loss you mention is just part of doing business, no?
The cost would be passed on to consumers.
ANOTHER cost passed on to consumers which you dont mention is the down-stream effect (no pun intended) of said business throwing toxic waste in the river, or pollute the air. Increased taxes, paid by us all and not necessarily the business polluter, goes to cleaning the polluted river and air. Lets also mention the cost to society of the cancer (and who pays for it as well as productivity loss when that worker is taken out of work due to illness) and other health consequences of that business just "doing business".
Those regulations are in place because we as a society cant seem to do what is in our COLLECTIVE best interest.
When people complain of *oppressive/excessive/intrusive/unnecessary* government regulations they need to consider why they are there in the first place.
It isnt to protect the bottom line of businesses - who otherwise dont seem to give a damn about the harm they do.
My City, Dallas, sparks more regulation rage than the federal government. Their regs are infuriating and guaranteed to escalate your home building costs and attempt to think and do outside the box. Dallas still wants everyone's homes and blocks to look the same. Ticky tacky boxes and sparkling water-guzzling green lawns.
None of the rules make much sense except to generate fees for the city. OK until you see how much money some of the "diverse" council members walk away with or downright steal. South Dallas needs to really look at their reps and ask why so many of them think they are entitled to skim off the top.
3
@Mary Rivka
Happen in red states where "taxes" are low.
6
Part of the reason for "regulation rage" may be the disconnect between the people affected by the rules and the officials implementing the rules. Citizens often feel the impact of rules without either understanding or having input into those rules.
Americans hate being dictated to. It is an emotional reaction with deep seed roots in our founding and our culture.
Government must work extra hard and constantly to educated and to involve citizens in decisions. Otherwise you get rage, rebellion, and distrust.
19
@M. Pippin And also, corporate responsibilities are being offloaded onto individuals. People pay for food and other commodities, take them home and then have to dismantle the packaging and pay to have it recycled, while being lectured to about climate change, pollution of the oceans, what to eat, what not to eat. They didn't design the packaging but they are paying for it -- twice. At least twice. While being lectured at. There could well be an impulse to gather up all the garbage and throw it at someone.
14
U.S. car companies remember what happened when they fell behind global standards: foreign companies ate their lunch in the 1970s. They don't want to follow Pres. Trump back to the 1960s and fall behind again
513
@Joe Ryan
Exactly. Nothing says they have to abide by the “standards” he wants. Make the vehicles more efficient. What’s he going to do then? Not allow them to be sold? Everyone needs to ignore him and do what’s right. And boycott those companies that go along with him. Very simple.
21
@JKile
JKile, Yes, we saw this attitude to ignore Trump back when he bailed from the Paris climate agreement: Lots of local governments and industry leaders said they would simply refuse to loosen their regulations.
10
@JKile
Trump will find some new tariffs to slap on them so he can kill their sales. Or create a regulation that they all need to run on beautiful coal for now on.
1
Most regulation rage is simply unresolved adolescent rebellion. There are a lot of crazy kids running around out there.
143
@Djery
I disagree. I don't mind regs that will keep our environment clean etc. I do mind regs that treat us like toddlers. So much of what is "harmful" cannot be fixed by the government. If people have no common sense and act like idiots, it should be on them, not the rest of us.
7
@Djery Right, and it's based on ignorance. They have no idea how damaging the effects will be. They think there is no legitimate basis for the regulations.
8
@Mary Rivka But it does fall on the rest of us, don't you see? Motorcycle helmets help prevent traumatic brain injury, the cost of which drives up insurance and health care costs. Pollutants in products you may like to use may be toxic to the water supply resulting in huge clean up costs that you would be happy to have me shoulder. Seat belts, see item one above. You claim to value common sense, but you disagree with community.
42
This is the attitude projected by many in the GOP: condescending, self-absorbed, entitled, disrespectful, smug, superior, and devoid of empathy, humility, and humanity. I hate it. It is symptomatic of a philosophy that thinks the terms “government” and “selfish” are synonymous.
173
@Rue That is an absolutely perfect description. Corey Lewandowski, in his "testimony" the other day, displayed each and every one of those. It's maddening and infuriating and is designed to elicit exactly that response. I hate it too.
1
Something that may contribute to this sort of rage is what I might call the 'empowerment scam'. In which the public is being taught to become couch potatoes with no personal power, while being offered various services and objects that promise personal control over various parts of life -- personal appearance, social entertainment, meaningful relationships, health, wealth, the ideal home, etc. But the wonderful service turns out to steal one's information, the wonderful fridge may be sending information to hackers, Alexa may be telling your secrets, your ex may be posting revenge porn -- and to top it off, the dern dishwasher doesn't work right.
10
Perhaps E Plurbus Union should be replaced with the real American motto: You Can’t Tell Me What To Do!
77
@Scott excellent idea! I remember a home owner screaming those exact words at a police officer at 3am when he was told not to use his power tools outside because others were trying to sleep. There was no emergency. The man couldn't accept the idea that he had to be considerate of others.
42
@Scott Yes, or perhaps the phrase traditionally associated with a sinking ship: Sauve qui peut..... roughly, everyone for themselves!
9
@Scott
I think it’s “You’re not the boss of me!”
17
It is also helpful to remember that many of the 'regulation ragers' would identify themselves politically with the moniker 'libertarian', as we see with the dishwasher rage group funded by Koch Bros. entities.
Dr. K. is correct that these groups hide their motives behind 'less government' chants, but what they really really really detest is any time government works.
The prospect of government actually working is most fearsome to these folks; they cheer political gridlock as progress, and thus anyone of their ilk who is ever caught working with Dems legislatively, becomes an outcast - an outcast they will primary if they possibly can.
Through this process, anything this very select crowd does not want becomes demonized, including government itself.
After the Roberts SCOTUS's Citizens United decision, it has become impossible to keep the corrupt influence of these people's donations from putting us on the downhill roller coaster to feudalism, which is the inevitable end point of their hatred of 'regulation'.
Feudalism wasn't so great for most people.
411
@R. Law - And it shouldn't be forgotten that 'lower corporate taxes' pushed by this crowd has always been just about cutting off the life-blood which funds government regulators.
Corporations are merely the economic conduits which collect taxes from consumers, then pass revenues on to government; this crowd aims to de-fund government. Remember the recent $1.5 Trillion$ tax cut ? As a result, what prices did consumers see corporations cut, anywhere, on anything ?
Conversely, think how many times corporations raise prices, claiming taxes are too high ?
Anytime this crowd wants to de-fund government, they are de-funding we hoi polloi, since government is 'we the people'.
140
@R. Law
Indeed, it's all about power. There are a lot of people who want to set up their own little world where they have all the power. Whether it's a household, company, or cult, they want to establish absolute power over other people.
And they know that once the government gets wind of it, it'll swoop in, put an end to their petty tyranny and rescue their victims. Which is why they hate government.
And this is also why most of us should want a strong government. All of us are safer and freer when pockets of tyranny are hunted down and destroyed.
47
@R. Law
I really think you nailed it--Republicans and let's be clear, it really is a Republican phenomenon, and regulation ragers, cannot stand the idea of a government that functions well. And if when Californians manage to make it work well, they get enraged. We raise the minimum wage, and the economy takes off; they rage. Climate change causes horrible fires in California (no sharpie needed) and they cheer.
I think a lot of this regulation rage is really about anger at a state, controlled by Democrats where government clearly works, state has the LARGEST economy in the country, fifth largest in the world.
We have problems sure, but we are trying humane solutions.
117
Twice, when purchasing a new appliance, I have been told by the salesmen (yes, both men) that the reason appliances no longer last as long nor perform as well as in the past is due to government regulations. The most recent "explained" that freon replacement with ( air quotes) a more "environmentally friendly" alternative, is why refrigerators don't last as long now! I am still shocked by these attitudes!
122
@Cat.A It couldn't possibly be planned obsolescence, could it? Nobody ever planned that, did they? No, it's regulations.
55
@Cat.A
I'd ignore what a sales-droid tells me, especially if the remarks steer me towards a different product or a different manufacturer than the one I'm interested in.
"Works on commission" may well explain an awful lot of those shocking attitudes.
20
@SFR Daniel Of course not ... corporations are perfect and always have the consumers best interests at heart. Only government is corrupt. Fascinating how people on the right are able to hold both these opinions and see no inherent contradictions or flaws in their thinking.
30
Another aspect of Trumpignoramce shows itself. While the compact florescent bulbs do have a color balance similar to larger florescent lights, the energy efficient halogen bulbs have no such problem. Now, if they anti-regulation crowd wanted to do something useful with light bulbs, they'd agitate to make them last longer or to make long-life CF bulbs that can be put into a closed fixture.
2
@Don
LEDs have taken over from CFs; they are more efficient and can give you any color temperature. Even the long fluorescent bulbs are being replaced by LEDs.
10
@catlover My brother became an efficiency supporter when I bought him a programmable LED lamp. He loves it even if he's not all that concerned about saving energy, though he admits it's a nice addition.
The problem with Republican ”ragers” is that they have forgotten that the overwhelming number of regulations have been put in, in response to a real life problem that hurts either people or the economy or the environment. These rules don’t come out of the air or by whim.
Those who object to regulations want to make the most money they can (regardless of damage others) or they simply assume that all rules are bad for the so-called “free market” which they believe self-adjusts. This is an emotional response to having to live in a world where what you do negatively affects others and they don’t like it. These people operate by force and will do whatever they can to get their way. We see them all the time on playgrounds and now in the WH.
209
@B. Rothman
These regulation haters are largely the same ones who are still angry that the government once upon a time decreed that it was no longer legal to own other people.
62
I think you comments are mostly true. As an Architect and Builder tho’ I have seen regulatory capture by industry that have not made buildings safer or healthier. We call it the second government because industry can afford to send representatives to every committee meeting of the writers of codes and the lowly citizen cannot afford this. In the 80’s this lead to “United We Stand” a bunch of back to landers who just wanted to build their own homes. I could give you one example: An outlet every 2’ in kitchens. This allowed appliance makers to shorten cords - possibly a safety issue but certainly a money maker. Or in California mandating fire sprinklers in homes with no exceptions. They do no good in a forest fire. While I agree with your assumptions, the second government is still strong.
Love your thoughts and columns. Please make a deep dive into regulations that affect the bottom of the pyramid
11
I think you comments are mostly true. As an Architect and Builder tho’ I have seen regulatory capture by industry that have not made buildings safer or healthier. We call it the second government because industry can afford to send representatives to every committee meeting of the writers of codes and the lowly citizen cannot afford this. In the 80’s this lead to “United We Stand” a bunch of back to landers who just wanted to build their own homes. I could give you one example: An outlet every 2’ in kitchens. This allowed appliance makers to shorten cords - possibly a safety issue but certainly a money maker. Or in California mandating fire sprinklers in homes with no exceptions. They do no good in a forest fire. Anyway, while I agree with your assumptions, the second government is still strong.
Love your thoughts and columns
12
@Bruce Boyd True. A local homebuilder wants to require less flammable homebuilding materials in rebuilding communities lost in recent wildfires, but industry fights even incremental higher building materials costs. Few people, builders and buyers, prioritize distant loss avoidance over immediate cost savings. As you say, sprinklers won’t help in a forest fire, but your neighbor’s fire-resistant structure won’t send embers that burn yours. These encroachments into drier wild lands, and “my independence” in structures put many lives in peril.
85
@Bruce Boyd Both examples you give seem to have a sound basis in safety. So more points to Mr. Krugman here.
2
@Bruce Boyd nice try but NEC says 4 feet between outlets so that the two foot cord can reach.
1