People - Not Pieces in a Politician's Plan

What is the ideal government? This tantalizing question offers a way to think about the sort of political life we want to see as spectators and be a part of as participants. The Founding Fathers faced this question when drafting the Constitution and in their defense of that Constitution in the Federalist Papers. They came to a rather unsatisfactory answer: The best government takes people as they are. 

This is very Smithian answer and one worth exploring further. It is well known that the Founding Fathers read Adam Smith, although tracing the influence of Smith into the Constitution is a more difficult endeavor (for those interested, Glory Liu is exploring the legacy of Smith in America in her forthcoming book). What resonates to the readers of Smith in this answer offered by James Madison, is that politicians must accept that people are messy and unpredictable. 

Smith agrees. Human imperfection is one of the themes throughout the Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations. In a quote much-loved by scholars in the early chapters of TMS, Smith writes: 

There is an ideal person who Smith thinks people should strive to be more like, which he develops in Part VI of TMS. Yet, it is a perfection impossible to achieve. As Smith notes, even a child who practices virtue and improvement from a young age is unlikely to achieve that perfection which is so worthy of the approval of the impartial spectator. Benevolence is a beautiful ideal, which Smith does not expect most people to be capable of wholly achieving. This is why Smith thinks we should applaud those who strive to be virtuous and good, even if they do not even get close to being the ideal version of the perfect member of society. 

Smith does not only think it’s necessary to accept individuals as imperfect, but he also warns against the desire to try to perfect humankind. A view of people as chess pieces on a board, acting by rules which are known and easy to understand takes away individual autonomy and liberty. It is to expect them to act according to one’s own desires rather than accepting that they follow their own interests and passions. 

Since people are imperfect, it must be accepted that a government comprised of people and representing people is imperfect as well. Certainly, politicians are prone to their own unique set of abuses and perverse incentives. Smith goes so far as to call them “insidious” and “crafty” with a concern only for “the momentary fluctuations of affairs.” This is why Smith is careful to distinguish the politician from the legislator. A legislator is guided by general principles which direct their vision for political life. The ideal of the legislator, much like the ideal of the person who is benevolent in all of their actions, is not achievable. That would be thinking of individuals as capable of being more than they really are. Rather, Smith hopes for the aspiration towards improvement and a desire for people to be a better version of themselves tomorrow than they are today. Even though that task is so difficult to achieve in practice.

As William Glod recently noted, one of the values of Smith is the pluralism which he allows for. People can live a variety of different lives in their own way. What all people hold in common is that they make mistakes when figuring out what a good life is. Any government which involves the voices of hundreds of people will inevitably make mistakes. 

Just like we cannot expect for people to act as we think they ought to, so we cannot expect the same from our political system. The temptation is even greater because the stakes as so high. Even a cynic would agree that’s it’s beneficial to have politicians who exemplify goodness and benevolence creating a virtuous government which stands up for our cherished values and ideas.  It’s just not practical in a world filled with imperfect and flawed people. 

Nor should perfection be the goal of living in a political community. As Smith notes, those who live in a country should aspire to improve the lives of their fellow citizen. It ultimately doesn’t matter where that improvement ends, or the people which they become. Just like we cannot know who we will be in a decade, we cannot know who our friends or family members or other citizens will be. What matters for Smith is an acceptance of individuals for who they are, and a belief that they can always improve, if they want to.

What that means is that there is no way of knowing what the ideal government is going to look like, according to Smith. One can hold the values of justice and equality and benevolence, but to predict what those values will look like in practice is to imagine a world where we know what every person and every legislator will do. That is not the reality of any political community. Yet, we should not despair at this thought that there is not a perfect government to be achieved one day. A government that respects the fallibility of individuals is a worthwhile goal in its own right. If there is one lesson to be taken from Smith here, it is that imperfection is something that we have to live with, both for ourselves and for our government. It does not mean that politics is a hopeless endeavor, but rather that to genuinely improve political life means an honest assessment of who people are, not merely the daydreams of who we want them to be.


Want to Read More?
Sarah Morgan Smith's Adam Smith and the American Founding: The Theory of Moral Sentiments as a Field Guide to the Pursuit of Happiness | Adam Smith Works
Hans L. Eicholz's 1776 and All That: Thomas Jefferson on Adam Smith [1] | Adam Smith Works
Sarah Skwire's Moral Sentiments are Insufficient | Adam Smith Works
1776 and the American Founding | Adam Smith Works

For Teachers:
Reading List: Adam Smith and the Political Economy of the Early American Republic | Adam Smith Works