Edsels and ulcers

And wars and gridlock

Designed at great expense, introduced with tremendous fanfare, the Ford Edsel was the most highly anticipated new car of the late 1950s. And the most widely ignored. The car was an utter flop. After an ignominious 3-year run, Ford pulled the model from its lineup. The very name Edsel became a watchword for corporate folly.

In the 1970s, commentators of a leftish bent liked to say of the American misadventure in Southeast Asia, "Vietnam ain't no Edsel." Their point was that although the decade-long war against communism proved to be a military and political blunder, it wasn't a mistake from the perspective of American capitalism. The defense sector in particular made large profits during that time; the regret of the arms mongers was not that the war ended badly, but that it ended. 

There was something to this argument, if perhaps not as much as the lefties imagined. And regardless of whether this line of thinking applied to the American war in Vietnam, it's a useful device when trying to explain things that appear counterproductive or otherwise nonsensical. An action might be a failure for an entity at large while still benefiting certain groups within that entity.

To switch gears, sort of: For decades, stomach ulcers were thought to be caused by excess acid. Conventional treatment involved neutralizing the acid or protecting the stomach lining from it. Only in the second half of the 20th century was the true cause of ulcers discovered: a bacterium called Helicobacter pylori. A bacterial explanation had been proposed but rejected on the belief that bacteria cannot survive the harshly acidic environment of the stomach. Tests had failed to find any bacteria in the location of the ulcers. But the test had been faulty, and H. pylori was hardier against acid than anyone had known. Antibiotics largely solved the ulcer problem.

The lesson for students of public affairs was similar to that of the Vietnam war. Someone, or in this case something, was benefiting amid the larger distress. Even in the Edsel case itself, plenty of people, starting with the Madison Avenue firms that advertised the new car, made money from the fiasco.

These days we hear that Congress has become dysfunctional. It can't fix immigration; it can't fix the budget; it can't fix the tax code. Each negative assertion is true. But the implication that this is a sign of dysfunction might not be.

Who benefits from a stalemate on immigration? Employers, for one. Construction companies, landscapers, car washes, households with nannies—all pay lower wages than they would if there were fewer immigrants or immigration were fully legalized. In the former case there would be a smaller labor pool; in the latter case workers would be better able to organize. The political parties benefit in their efforts to raise funds and turn out the vote. Republicans rail against too many immigrants and promise to clamp down; Democrats decry the inhuman treatment of immigrants by Republican administrations and promise a more humane policy. For all these groups the status quo on immigration ain't no Edsel.

Likewise with the existing budget process. Republicans, the ones most responsible lately for pushing the government close to default, could demonstrate their devotion to fiscal prudence by voting to cut popular programs. But they don't, because that would make them unpopular. Instead, they vote for the programs and then refuse to raise the debt ceiling, thereby clawing back some of what they have already voted for but spreading the blame to others.

The tax code is a mess overall. Yet whole armies of tax lawyers, tax accountants and tax advisers make a nice living precisely because the tax code is such a mess. If it were ever cleaned up, many of them would be out of jobs.

So what is to be done? The first thing is to recognize the nature of the problem. The system isn't broken; it just works differently than most people think. The problem isn't constitutional checks and balances run amok anymore than ulcers are caused by out-of-control acid. Before you can cure the ulcers, you have to identify the H. pylori.

This doesn't make the job easy. The groups that benefit from the seeming dysfunction are clever and resourceful. But so was H. pylori. We still have to find the right antibiotic, but at least we know what we’re looking for.