The current American political debate has many threads, so many that it may seem impossible to discern the pattern on the cloth. I think that there is such a pattern and that perceiving it can be very illuminating.
It could be very easy to cast the debate as a simple conflict between “free enterprisers” and “centralized control statists.” There’s no doubt that representatives of both these views are contenders in the current political conflict, but I don’t believe that focusing on them reveals what is really going on.
The real issue, it seems to me, is in fact frequently mentioned, but 1) the arguments associated with it do not identify the reason it really is an issue and 2) it actually fuels both sides of the debate.
The frequently mentioned issue is size.
Conservatives complain constantly that government has grown too large and Unions have grown too large. Leftists complain constantly that corporations have grown too large. Yet others complain that media interests have grown too large. Interestingly, neither side has noticed the common element in their complaints, and each side’s visceral response to the giant institutions has come from another site of origin.
I once used an article entitled “There Are Two Sides to Every Question” in a tedious course on the media. The article argued in favour of this platitude, offering nothing interesting or new. What it should have done, is point out that in the sense that it is true, it is trivial, and in the sense that it is not trivial, it is false. On the one hand, yes, of course, any spin-doctor or shyster can formulate a case for any position. So what? On the other hand, after all the arguments pro and con have been stated, the individual’s vote will not have been caused by them, they will only have supplied him with verbal cover should he be challenged.
What should we take from the mass of arguments on each side? Do we actually wait with a kind of Cartesian suspension of belief until we have heard from all sides? And when we encounter one of the famous “undecideds” mentioned by every pollster and pundit these days, do we really think that his opinion will be better than those of the “decideds” for being “unbiased”?
For the most part, people come to these arguments with deeply rooted preferences and dispositions, and they shop among them for ones that will “support” what they already believe, the famous political “talking points.” So, rather than browsing and grazing among the arguments, it seems more fruitful to ask exactly what it is that is cranking people’s chains at this time.
Like always, there will be more than one thing that is agitating the public sub-conscious, but I do believe that there is one single thing that is dominating both sides of the spectrum, and in a different way on each side.
I’ve said that this thing is the enormous size of some key institutions. In my view, this has had an impact at a deep psychological level on people for most of modern times. Indeed, Chaplin’s movie of that name dealt precisely with the sense of the individual having become an insignificant fragment within the giant state machine, and that movie was made in 1936 (the middle of the depression decade!). Another example of this sensibility can be found in the writing of Franz Kafka, particularly his novel, The Trial (1925). These two examples can be multiplied, but the point I am making is not only that this has been an enduring theme in the West, but 1) that this impact of giant institutions has been steadily growing even as they have steadily grown, and 2) that this impact is characteristically greater when citizens feel more vulnerable.
Giant institutions make individual middle class people feel helpless to begin with. Think only of the frustrations people feel when dealing with endless telephone menus and unresponsive websites, both favoured by Big Government and Big Business. When those same people also begin to feel threatened by off-shore nuclear powers, by home-grown terrorists, by natural disasters, by unresponsive insurance companies, by their own giant unions, by unemployment, etc., they identify the enemy as THE LARGE INSTITUTION. And the reason that the large institution is the enemy is precisely because they experience that institution as inhuman, remote, uncaring, arrogant, not motivated by their interests, deceptive, untrustworthy, and, above all, unaccountable and unresponsive.
But one population expresses its fear and anger towards one set of giant institutions, while the other population chooses another set of institutions. The reason for this division may not be very subtle. It may be as simple as group identification. One population identifies with those who produce wealth, while the other identifies with those who consume wealth. But both of these populations make a mistake when they identify the other as their enemy.
The conservative and Leftist should be friends. They should recognize each other’s priorities and cut a deal. It is a general mistake, encouraged by the third player in this drama, to believe that they cannot reconcile their differences.
The third player, the eminence grise in this drama, the Iago in this soup, is the Big Institution, the amalgamation of Big Corporations, Media, Unions, and Government. This, the Big, has it in its interest to keep and maintain the citizenry preoccupied with a fantasy war: the War Between the Left and the Right.
Clearly, what both sides of the political dispute should realize is that they have a common enemy in giant institutions and that even the giant institutions they favour are not their friends.
For the conservatives, please note that Big Business is not your friend. For one thing, Big Business is always in bed with your bête noir, Big Government. For another, whenever your interests will come into conflict with Big Business, your interests will be ignored and you will not be able to afford the kind of litigation that your opponent can.
For those on the Left, please note that Big Government is not your friend. For one thing, Big Government is always dependent on Big Business. In fact, the two are so intimate, it would probably kill them both if they were to be surgically separated. Please note, further, that the same is true of Big Unions and Big Government.
Let me end with a salutary tale I once told to my faculty, which did not find it nearly as wryly amusing as I did.
******************************************************
Once upon a time in Victorian England, late in a very cold fall, a little bird succumbed to the chill and fell unconscious to the cobble stone street.
A dignified, well dressed gentleman of middle age noticed the bird in passing and, moved by an unfamiliar impulse of compassion, picked it up, hoping to revive it. He quickly realized that the little bird, while still alive, would not come back to consciousness unless it was warmed. Since he was on his way to a serious nooner he had been looking forward to all week, he was not inclined to tarry for the sake of a little bird, so he did the best he could and went upon his way.
The best he could was to insert the little bird up to its neck in a steaming pile of recently deposited hot horse manure. The manure soon did its job, and the little bird recovered its awareness. The moment it was fully conscious, it realized where it was, imprisoned up to its neck in horse manure. It struggled and struggled, but could not free itself. In outrage, it began to peep and peep, ever more loudly.
A nearby prowling tomcat heard the peeping, investigated, and shortly there was no more little bird.
Now here are the morals of this story.
If you’re in shit up to your neck, the one who put you there isn’t necessarily your enemy.
If you’re in shit up to your neck, the one who gets you out isn’t necessarily your friend.
And, finally, if you’re in shit up to your neck, for God’s sake, don’t squawk!
Simplicius,
ReplyDeleteThat is indeed a great story, and I think it perfectly illustrates the Law of Unintended Consequences. I'm going to repeat it to others!
I must, however, take issue with the way in which you have classified some of the issues. I agree with you that no institution is going to uphold the interests of the "average person". However, I believe it is incorrect to identify Big Business with conservatives and Big Government with liberals.
In the 19th century, you could have argued that conservatives were friends of Big Business and that it was the Progressives who were pushing through anti-monopoly legislation. But in the last hundred years, liberals have become far greater champions of big business than conservatives. One need not look any further than Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac - the epitome of the intimate relationship you describe that exists between Big Business and Big Government. It was not the GOP that pushed for these institutions - it was liberal Democrats, just as it was liberal Democrats who championed the Community Reinvestment Act - the legal foundation for the subprime mortgage crisis.
Nor is Big Business a friend of conservatism. Big Business is generally very much in favour of regulations. Why? Because they can absorb regulations easily, while their small business competition falls by the wayside. Progressives have fought against monopolies with their right hand, while promoting them with their left. Every industry that has been heavily regulated has also been institutionalized. Small business cannot survive in a regulated environment, and Big Business can therefore thrive in it. Moreover, the relationship is symbiotic - thus in return for accepting regulations, Big Government will often grant large subsidies. It is a marriage made in heaven!
Now this is not to say that conservatism is anti- Big Business. Conservatives want to end the intimate relationship Big Business has with government; but in general, conservatives are generally happy to allow Big Business to prosper. One needs only to look at the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United to demonstrate that the Right is comfortable with giving Big Business a free hand. The difference, however, between the Left and the Right, is that more conservatives (I hope) are under no illusions about the intentions of Big Business. They know Big Business is out to screw them; but just the same, they are out to screw Big Business (and a shrewd consumer will do just that). Whereas the Left counts on Big Government to fix its problems, the Right recognizes Big Business as an undesirable but ultimately necessary byproduct of capitalism. We recognize that the "Huge" is inevitable and that, in choosing between a world where Big Business is in bed with Big Government and a world in which Big Business has to contend with more competition from the market, we will always choose the latter.