ウィリアム・イースタリーがフォーリン・ポリシー誌に表題の論説を寄稿している(原題は「Democracy Is Dying as Technocrats Watch」)。以下はそこからの引用。

Technocrats have always shown little interest in fights over fundamental values. Their work proceeds from the assumption that everyone — or at least all the people who truly matter — already share the same enlightened commitment to democratic values. The only debate they are concerned about is over evidence on “what works” among policy inputs to produce the desired measurable outputs, like higher wages and GDP, less poverty, less crime and terrorism, or less war.
The problem occurs when some people turn out not to share those enlightened values and insist on challenging them. Technocrats, in these situations, don’t know what to say because they can’t rely on evidence to make their case. So when technocrats are all we have to defend democracy, fights over fundamental values become embarrassingly one-sided.
Hillary Clinton was the perfect case in point, a politician so technocratic that she even embarrassed other technocrats. Her campaign website listed bullet-point plans to solve 41 different measurable problems, each one containing multiple sub-plans to solve multiple sub-problems. ...
Experts often cannot agree on “what works” or even what already happened. Some experts could still credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert themselves. Which is why the principal defense of democratic values must be that they are desirable in themselves as values — something technocrats are not trained to do.
Which is not to suggest they don’t have any resources at their disposal. My own field of economics can be so technical that whenever I give a talk mentioning values, I feel like I have to apologize. Yet economics is better equipped to defend values than usually believed. At the core of models of economic behavior is individual choice. ...
...as Harvard University economist Edward Glaeser argued along the same lines in 2011, economics still has a “moral spine” beneath all the technocracy: “That spine is a fundamental belief in freedom.” As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150 years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care about “the rights of others.”
But can economics provide a conception of democracy that truly protects the “rights of others”? The field does indeed offer a potential defense against one of the core democratic dangers — the possibility that a tyrannical majority might vote to violate the rights of some minority group. Economists teach that it’s in a majority party’s interest to conduct a simple thought experiment before making political decisions: Since it’s impossible to know for sure that they will always be in the majority, and they could always wind up as part of some minority that some future majority decides to tyrannize, they should make political decisions behind a so-called “veil of ignorance” that sets aside their personal status and group affiliations. And anyone running that thought experiment faithfully would join a coalition to protect all future minority and individual rights.
...Our technocratic age often sees such appeals as sentimentalism — more suitable for refrigerator magnets than serious debates. But Trump’s attack on core values required a response of such universal moral appeals — to white people as well as to minorities — instead of Clinton’s coalition of minorities and the 41-point plan of measurable outcomes on her website.
Grand sentiments can’t sustain politics by themselves; technical expertise has its place. But the long reign of technocracy has deprived us of the moral weapons needed to defend the core values that are the foundation of democracy. We are sadly lacking in any figures remotely resembling King or Wiesel today. But we will not be able to fight back against Trump unless we can find once again a capacity for moral advocacy for democratic values.
・・・ハーバード大の経済学者エドワード・グレイザーが同様の趣旨で2011年に述べたように、経済学はテクノクラシー満載な中で「倫理的な背骨」を依然として保持している。「その背骨とは、自由への基本的な信奉である。」 150年近く前に経済学者のジョン・スチュアート・ミルが述べたように、自由の真のテストは、我々が自分自身の権利について気に掛けるか、ではなく、「他者の権利」を気に掛けるか、にある。
しかし経済学は、「他者の権利」を本当に守るような民主主義の概念を提供できるのだろうか? 実は経済学は、専制的な多数派がある少数派の集団の権利を侵害するような投票をする、という民主主義の主たる危険に対する防護策となり得るものを提供している。経済学者は、政治的決定をする前に単純な思考実験をすることが多数派の利益になる、ということを教えているのだ。その思考実験とは、自分たちが常に多数派の側にいることを確実に知る術はなく、将来の多数派が専制的に抑圧することを決定する少数派の一員になってしまう可能性も常に存在するのだから、自分の個人的な地位や所属集団を脇に置いた「無知のヴェール」と呼ばれるものの中で政治的決定をすべきである、というものである。その思考実験をするものは皆、将来のすべての少数派と個人の権利を守る連合に誠心誠意参加するはずである。