The ‘Policybo’ effect

When I consider the placebo’s prescribed by physicians to patients and the physician’s representations about the pill’s effects, I often think of the representations politicians offer their constituents about the effects of proposed legislation and policy. Often, we hear about proposed policies that appeal to our convictions and sentiments at the surface. At the core, these policies have no real capacity to solve the problems they were supposed to address. They are policies with the effect of a placebo. National Review author and political strategist Reihan Salam has coined the following term for such policies: “policybos.”

Policybos have been in effect for centuries. Consider President Bill Clinton’s sweeping Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In reaction to the nation’s call for action to address rising crime, President Clinton assured the American public that the legislation would result in safer communities and better community-relations among police officers and neighborhoods plagued by crime. In retrospect, the law is blamed by many for unprecedented incarceration rates, recidivism, its controversial “three-strikes” provision and a spike in crime. In 2016, President Clinton personally took the blame in a speech to the NAACP, noting that he “signed a bill that made the problem worse.”

Likewise, many would argue that President Ronald Reagan’s Drug War policies exacerbated crime trends in a similar way in the 1970s.

More recently, we have witnessed proposed policies that similarly appeal to our convictions about how to address problems at the local and national level, but have little chance of actually addressing the problem.

Consider the administration’s proposal to “build a wall” to reform our nation’s broken immigration system. Many would agree that merely building a wall is not going to reform our nation’s immigration problem. It will actually take bipartisan efforts from Democrats and Republicans to achieve an effective resolution, rather than winning antics, campaigning or solutions that end in a concept.

Consider the housing reform proposals and state ballot measures aimed to address California’s housing shortage. Many politicians suggest that the underlying fundamental issue facing California’s housing crisis is that there are not enough affordable housing options for residents. According to a 2018 survey by the Los Angeles Times, more than 85 percent of California voters agree with that logic. To great surprise, state analysts, independent researchers and California’s gubernatorial candidates disagree. Reports from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the state Department of Housing and Community Development show that the problem is a lack of supply and demand. The data shows the underlying problem is the shortage of housing in general — the solution being to build more housing. Thus, there is a clear disconnect between logical data and conviction.

Unlike the placebo we discussed earlier, problems do not correct themselves with fake or ineffective public policy. These policies have real consequences for residents at all ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. As constituents, we must make a better effort to understand and be informed of the policies proposed by our legislators at the state and local level. We cannot continue to buy into the lip-service of politicians who will say anything they can to get re-elected. Together, we can put an end to policybos by demanding real and effective public policy.

A native of Pacifica, Jonathan Madison worked as professional policy staff for the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, from 2011 to 2013. Jonathan works as an attorney and can be reached via email at jonathanemadison@gmail.com.