Posted by Stuart Benjamin:
GEORGE BUSH, MIKE NIFONG, AND INFORMATION ASYMMETRIES:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_07-2007_01_13.shtml#1168710825


   I�ve been thinking a bit about information asymmetries. I opposed the
   Iraq war from the start � it seemed to me that for the invasion to
   make sense, almost everything had to break our way, so the invasion
   was akin to making a bet with a 1:1 payoff that you would win only if
   you rolled snake eyes. The one thing that gave me pause was the
   confidence George Bush and his advisers had about Saddam Hussein
   having weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam had WMD, and there was
   an imminent danger of his using them, then it seemed to me that the
   cost/benefit ratio of the war was much closer. And Bush had access to
   information that I could not see. So a huge issue for me (and I�d bet
   for many others) was the magnitude and significance of the information
   asymmetry between me and Bush. I ended up concluding that the public
   case for Saddam�s WMD seemed sufficiently spotty that the information
   asymmetry was not huge, but of course that was just an educated guess.
   Only in retrospect does it seem clear that Bush may have thought that
   he had much more information than the rest of us did, but that
   information turned out to be unreliable (note to future Presidents: be
   wary about relying on sources [1]codenamed �[2]Curveball�).

   When Mike Nifong stated that �[3]there is no doubt a sexual assault
   took place� (and made more specific claims, like that the alleged
   victim �[4]was struggling just to be able to breathe� during the
   alleged attack), again the information asymmetry loomed large. My
   assumption (like that of most people I know) was that he must have had
   mounds of evidence to support his confidence. Like Bush with WMD,
   Nifong had access to information that I could not see, and that access
   seemed important. It now seems that the only evidence he had for his
   statements was the alleged victim�s multiple (and [5]contradictory)
   statements, and Nifong�s confidence (and the whole case) has become
   some combination of [6]tragedy and [7]farce.

   The question that interests me is whether we can articulate any useful
   metrics for when we should defer to self-serving statements by those
   with access to more information, and when we should not. In the two
   instances above, the doubters were vindicated. There are other
   examples in this vein. LBJ had access to greater information about the
   Gulf of Tonkin incident than did the doubters, but the latter were
   right, as the Pentagon and LBJ misrepresented what happened. Indeed,
   the Pentagon Papers revealed repeated such instances in the Vietnam
   War. Meanwhile, General DeWitt emphasized his access to information as
   justifying the government�s Japanese internment in World War II, but
   we now know that DeWitt simply fabricated and lied (see [8]Eric Muller
   and [9]Peter Irons on this).

   But there are counter-examples. Many people believed that Julius
   Rosenberg was innocent, but it is now clear the government really did
   have the goods on him, and that he was guilty. Same for Alger Hiss.
   Indeed, the airstrikes that President Clinton ordered at the height of
   the Lewinsky imbroglio � which were widely criticized as trumped up
   attempts at diverting attention, with little deference to the
   information asymmetry favoring the President � look quite different
   after September 11, 2001.

   So I return to my question: are there any useful guideposts for how
   much (if at all) we should defer to self-serving claims that rely on
   superior information? Or are we left to judge each instance on an ad
   hoc basis?

References

   1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1451167,00.html
   2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5412317/site/newsweek/
   3. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2006/1228062bar8.html
   4. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2006/1228062bar7.html
   5. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/us/12duke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
   6. http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/10/case-narrative.html
   7. http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/531580.html
   8. http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/japanese_american_internment/
   9. 
http://www.amazon.com/Justice-War-Story-Japanese-American-Internment/dp/0520083121/sr=8-7/qid=1168710545/ref=sr_1_7/104-8369095-1223951?ie=UTF8&s=books

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to