RALEIGH — Here’s a little political turn of phrase I saw many years ago that continues to stick in my mind: “pin-prick libertarian.”
Unfortunately, I can’t remember who first used the term, and somewhat surprisingly I haven’t been able to locate it via web search. But I do remember the context. The discussion was about parental choice in education, and the author was making the point that many self-proclaimed champions of “choice” — by which they meant specifically and entirely the right to abortion — were “pin-prick libertarians” in the small-L sense of the term. While employing the word “choice” and related concepts in their argumentation, these political activists weren’t at all interested in maximizing individual choice as a general principle, or else they’d support educational choice (via tax breaks or vouchers), health care choice (via savings accounts and neutral taxation of health benefits), retirement choice (via personal Social Security accounts), and so on.
Last week, North Carolina’s gubernatorial candidates all weighed in on the issue of a proposed state lottery, which promises to be yet again a key issue in the upcoming statewide campaign. Gov. Mike Easley, the leading advocate of the idea, restated his support at a Fayetteville meeting of the state’s main teacher union, the NC Association of Educators. Meanwhile, over at a joint appearance of the Republican gubernatorial candidates in front of a gathering of the state’s editorial writers in Chapel Hill, all but Richard Vinroot and George Little promised not only to oppose the concept of a state-run lottery but also to oppose any attempt to hold a voter referendum on the question. Vinroot seemed reluctantly, Little less so, to say that such a statewide referendum should not be blocked.
My purpose here is not to refight the lottery issue itself, though my opposition to its use as a device for state government to create a gambling monopoly, expand its power, and squander more of the public’s money remains strong. Rather, I want merely to urge North Carolinians not to fall for that old “let the people vote” line.
Over the years, I have observed that it is usually the very people most hostile to public opinion on a host of policy issues who suddenly wax poetic about popular sovereignty whenever a state-run lottery comes up. Easley makes this inconsistency list, as do NC Senate leader Marc Basnight and NC House Speaker Jim Black. They do not favor the public’s right to vote on such important matters as whether to limit legislative and gubernatorial terms (the public would likely approve these overwhelmingly) or whether to impose a constitutional cap on annual state spending growth (again, most voters support it).
Lottery proponents are, to coin a phrase, pin-prick majoritarians. They use the language of the citizen initiative but they actually oppose it as a general principle. They believe that elected officials should make these kinds of decisions, not voters on ballot questions. They bring up the spectre of a California-like panoply of confusing and contradictory initiatives, if passed constituting a serious constraint on the ability of state and local governments to carry out their important missions.
This is an argument with an impressive pedigree. There is supporting evidence for it in some initiative states, particularly those where it is too easy to get questions of dubious merit on the ballot. There is a philosophical case for preferring representative government over direct democracy.
But these same individuals forget the pedigree, forget the practicality, forget the philosophy — all at the point where they glimpse the prospect of hundreds of millions in gambling receipts for the state treasury.
If I were advising candidates running for office this year against lottery-referendum proponents, I’d encourage them not to let the debate sink deep into the arcane lore of revenue earmarking, gambling addictions, deceptive advertising, cross-border ticket sales, or the other issues that surrounding the lottery question itself. Remember, virtually none of these lottery advocates say they like the lottery. What they say is that North Carolina has no choice and that, after all, the people should decide.
This is a bluff. Call their bluff. Say you might consider a statewide vote on creating a state lottery — after the passage of legislation authorizing a public vote on term limits, spending limits, government reorganization, redistricting reform, and other ideas that matter more to the future of North Carolina, for which a more persuasive case can be made on the merits, and about which state voters are likely to be at least as enthusiastic.
Don’t worry. These pin-prick majoritarians will simply change the subject.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.