"Stupidest policy ever" contest results

Hundreds of entries later, the results are clear. An absolute majority of contestants spoke in favor of ... mandates and subsidies for ethanol use as the stupidest manifestation of bipartisan public policy in the last 50 years.

There could have been a recent-events bias in this choice. (We all think that today's athletes are "the best ever," and so too with stupid policy decisions.) Still, the sentiment was strong, and so was the reasoning. I quote from the lucky subscription-to-the-Atlantic winner, Justin Cohen, who himself begins by quoting his father Reuben Cohen on the stupid aspects of this policy. The Cohen-Cohen team is chosen winner because they entered early, and because I have decided to show a bias in favor of collaborative family efforts:

"I think bi-partisan support for ethanol is more stupid [than the McCain-Clinton 'gas tax holiday' plan], because it's actually harmful and because it not only panders to the public ... worse it panders to a special interest group (Midwest farmers and their regional politicians).

It's harmful because: 1) it helped to catalyze higher levels of food inflation, 2) it consumes as much energy to make and distribute as it provides, 3) it deflects attention from developing trying sound policies to enhance our energy security, 4) it didn't allow for removal of taxes on the import of truly energy efficient ethanol produced in Brazil from sugar, and 5) it's a such an extreme example of government disfuntionality it causes people like me to become truly disillusioned with the political process."

I would add on my own that, to my limited understanding, most of the money for ethanol goes to large corporate farms and trickles down and around through agro-business, with only minimal impact on small family farmers (the ones our politicians claim to support), making the whole venture politically disingenuous in addition to economically-unsound and environmentally dubious.

After the jump, a list of some other popular nominees. Where I can think of some reason why a particular suggestion didn't end up the winner, I include that in parentheses. Thanks to all! And God help our country.

--------

Other strong contenders:

- Recent farm bill and farm subsidies in general, not just for ethanol (good point, but lacks the depressing crispness of the ethanol choice);

- Furor over Dubai Ports acquisition (this one was really stupid, I agree);

- Buckley v. ValeoVallejo, the Supreme Court ruling that made it in effect impossible to take big money out of politics (technically disqualified as a court decision rather than a concerted political "policy," but plenty damaging);

- Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which declared Iran's standing army a terrorist group (one of my favorites on the harmfulness scale; but not fully bipartisan -- despite Hillary Clinton's vote for it; many other Dems opposed it bitterly, and Republicans Lugar and Hagel actually voted against it);

- Every single law furthering the War on Drugs (it's a fine line, but I consider these more "doomed and pointless" than outright stupid; also, they gave rise to The Wire, so not all bad);

- Similarly, 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse act, which set up the harmful sentencing distinction between crack and cocaine violations;

- Letting assault-weapon ban expire;

- Renewal of Patriot Act (don't get me started);

- Abolishing the draft (complicated, because this had some benefits, in raising morale and so on, though the civic drawbacks are grievous and obvious);

- Airline deregulation (consequences not fully foreseeable at the time);

- Related: Airline bailout bill of 2001 and formation of TSA (they seemed plausible at the time...);

- Prohibition (disqualified: too long ago); similarly, Smoot-Hawley;

- Adding "Under God" to Pledge of Allegiance (too long ago -- 1954);

- Bipartisan vote confirming Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. (Right up there in harmful effect; I would call this more "cynical" than "stupid," though, starting with GHW Bush's assertion that Thomas was the best-qualified person in the country.);

- No Child Left Behind (harmful effects easy to imagine but less hardwired-in than some of the others);

- Changing French Fries to "freedom fries" (in sheer stupidity, this is unbeatable; not as harmful as some others, though);

- All aspects of the Terry Schiavo case (too depressing to reflect upon);

- Unlawful Internet Gaming Act (I don't know enough about it to say);

- National Minimum Drinking Age act of 1984,which set the age for alcohol consumption at 21 even while 18-year-olds were serving in the military.

- Byrd-Hagel resolution, essentially ruling out consideration of the Kyoto Protocol;

- Copyright Term Extension act (don't know enough);

- Anti-flag-burning amendments (agree); also, though out of the date range, the Sedition Act of 1918, which outlawed "'contempt, scorn, contumely or disrepute' toward the army, navy, flag, or government" (I have a soft spot for any law that gets in the word "contumely");

- Replacement of Lotus Notes with Microsoft Outlook/Exchange as in-house mail system for White House in 2002 (not really bipartisan, and not really a "policy," but a sentimental favorite nonetheless);

And there were more.

In a sense, we're all winners!