The Specter of Cronyism

Virtually everyone, no matter their political persuasion, denounces cronyism–dispensing political favors for political support. Yet, cronyism continues to dominate political issues in Texas and across America. As a few examples, we see evidence in attacks on Uber, ordinances to protect trees, and attempts to regulate, restrict, or ban short-term rentals (STRs).

In each of these instances, politicians are responding to demands made by constituents. In the case of Uber, the constituents are incumbent taxi companies who don’t want competition. They use their political connections to lobby local legislators to impose restrictions on an upstart company. Tree ordinances are a response to noisy voters who mistakenly believe that our heritage consists of old oak trees. And the restrictions on STRs are a response to neighborhood activists who don’t like how some people use their property.

In each of these examples, local legislators react to political pressure from some constituent group–such as taxi companies, neighborhood associations, or hotel chains. And they respond by enacting restrictions that benefit their constituents. They are trading political favors–laws–for political support.

Unfortunately, this is politics as usual. And politics as usual means dispensing political favors for political support. Most people accept that as the norm, and then only complain when the political favors don’t go their way.

The proper solution is to reject the entire notion of political favors. The proper solution is to demand that government protect the freedom of individuals and businesses to act as they choose, so long as they respect the freedom of others to do the same.

If we want to end cronyism, then we must limit the powers of government. So long as politicians and bureaucrats can dispense political favors, individuals and businesses will line up to be the recipients.