During my graduate studies at George Mason University, I was blessed with outstanding faculty, especially in the field of Public Choice economics (the study of the public sector using economic methodology).  Nobel Laureate James Buchanan led the intellectual tradition, but there were many other fine minds, including a brash young economist from Princeton, Bryan Caplan.  I enjoyed his classes, as well as his quick and rigorous thinking on most subjects. His own contribution to Public Choice was being formed during my time period at Mason (98-01); he called it Rational Irrationality.  The basics of his theory was that when the costs of irrational behavior are very low, a person will indulge preferences for irrationality.  While the individual costs of irrationality are low, they could collectively impose quite high costs.   He applied this to politics, religion and many other things.  My initial reaction was not very supportive to Bryan’s theory, but the Trump phenomenon is increasingly proving him right.

Tonight Mr. Cruz dropped out and Mr. Trump will be the Republican nominee.  There will be many theories and explanations, but at the end of the day, there were a large number of people that pulled a lever for Trump.  What was it that motivated them?  Anger? Hopelessness?  Hopefulness?  I’ll have to add Bryan’s theory to the mix:  maybe voters are just rationally irrational.  They are rational to vote for Mr. Trump because the costs of their individual vote are basically zero–its not like any one vote can affect the outcome of the election.  In other words, no matter how carefully or foolishly a voter behaves in the election booth–their individual vote doesn’t matter.  When that is the case, they can express themselves in any way they please.  Maybe its because they want to “take America back,” or “make America great again.”  It really doesn’t matter–when the cost of their irrational vote is low, they can indulge their preferences in any way they want.  The overwhelming economic case for free trade?  Fuhgetaboutit! The national debt is a problem? Yes, but we won’t touch the entitlements that are scheduled to bankrupt us.  The problem, of course, is that while the individual cost is low, there is a large social cost imposed by an electorate that does not do the hard work of being an informed citizen.  As H. L. Mencken said, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

It’s not just the Republican primary where rational irrationality is in full force.  Despite the vast failures of socialism, and the ongoing misery in Venezuela and Cuba (where socialism has been taken to the inevitable end of the road), there are large numbers of people “feelin’ the Bern.”  Tonight Mr. Sanders is giving Mrs. Clinton another scare, and will force the Democrats to privately wonder:  can she beat Mr. Trump?

Is there any good news in this post?  Well, if correct, at least we don’t have to think that this outcome is the result of careful, rationale reasoning–that might cause us to lose all hope in humanity!  I can feel better with irrationality.   This Berean thinks that both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton are the most unelectable candidates ever.  What happens when the movable object meets the stoppable force?  November will tell the tale.  No matter which way it goes, as Mencken said, we’re likely to “get it good and hard.”  It’s a really good thing that this current world is not our home.  Seriously.