Without a healthy democracy, there can
be no liberty; nonetheless, democracy by itself does not produce a state of
liberty. Liberty needs to be gained and maintained daily by human action in the
form of civic diligence. Many have come to lament and bemoan the current state
of affairs in Western politics; many blame the influence of big business and
lobby groups for the problems faced by democratic societies and call for the
abolishment of these ties. While interest groups are a part of the problem,
they are not the cause of it; rather, they are an effect of the growing power
given to politicians. Unfortunate as it is, citizens are no longer the
conductors of democracy; politicians are. Since politicians are the masters of
democracy—and those who lend their ears to lobbying groups—it is wise to
examine their role in society.
Each new election year brings with
itself the hope of an ensuing change toward a better reality than the one
presently enjoyed; this feeling becoming ever more prevalent in more recent
times as a result of the decay of the economic system which has continually
bread prosperity for over three centuries. At the same time, both the United
States and Canada see dwindling voter turnouts, which suggest resignation on
behalf of the body politic. Mainstream pundits tell us that the public has grown
tired of the cynicism and bickering tone of politicians. I contend this not to
be the case, instead I believe that people have resigned themselves from
participating in democratic processes as a result of a protracted move toward
an abandonment of the liberal ideals upon which our society was founded and a
turn toward socialistic practices. There is an expectation of great change
toward unseen prosperity and equity that a great new leader—an Enlightened Despot—would
bring about; the only challenge being
finding this Enlightened Despot. Keynesian economists of Paul Krugman’s mold
write paper upon paper convincing the public that governments can solve any
problem, just as long as the voting public allows them to frivolously spend
enough fiat money. This civic attitude of serfdom comes as a result of decades
of indoctrination of the public by politicians and unionized educators alike
that liberal, pro-free market individualism is the cause of every single societal problem;
therefore, they claim, people ought to forfeit their liberty to their
representatives, who, with the tools of central planning can provide all that
the citizens’ hearts may ever desire.
A hint as to where the seed of our
current troubles indeed lay may be drawn from that seminal piece penned some
two hundred and fifty ago—the aptly titled “Common Sense”: “I draw my idea of
government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, that the
more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the
easier repaired when disordered (emphasis added).”[i]
Centuries after Mr. Paine’s call to simple government, the world finds itself
plagued by one big and complicated government regime after another. The
American republic that Alexis De Tocqueville wrote about has been forfeited in
exchange for something that the French aristocrat may have found closer to his
home:
There are countries in Europe,
where the natives consider themselves as a kind of settlers, indifferent to the
fate of the spot which they inhabit. The greatest changes are effected there
without their concurrence, and (unless chance may have apprised them of the
event) without their knowledge; nay, more, the condition of his village, the
police of his street, the repairs of the church or the parsonage, do not
concern him; for he looks upon all these things as unconnected with himself,
and as the property of a powerful stranger whom he calls the government. He
only has a life-interest in these possessions, without the spirit of ownership
or any ideas of improvement. This want of interest in his own affairs goes so
far, that if his own safety or that of his children is at last endangered,
instead of trying to avert the peril, he will fold his arms, and wait till the
whole nation comes to his aid. This man, who has so completely sacrificed his
own free will, does not, more than any other person, love obedience; he cowers,
it is true, before the pettiest officer; but he braves the law with the spirit
of a conquered foe, as soon as its superior force is withdrawn; he perpetually
oscillates between servitude and license.[ii]
It is no wonder then, that our world is
riddled with the various problems of ailing economies, lost youth, discontented
masses and the destruction of lives and the environment with no end in sight.
As a result of growing influence of
socialistic ideologies, governments have grown morbidly obese over the past
century; our so called free and democratic societies bear witness to citizens’
lives greatly more influenced by the authority of the state today than was the
case in the feudal societies of the Middle Ages. The cause of this gross
infringement on personal liberties has been the rise of the cult of the
omnipotent statesman-politician with his infinite wisdom and do-no-wrong
capacities: despite the deliveries of blunder upon blunder, politicians have
become the be-all-end-all deities of our times; believing that any sphere of
private and public life can be positively shaped by political decisions. This
is not to say that political figures have substituted pop-stars as the idols of
the populace; rather, it is to say that people—though, so uninvolved in the
political processes of their societies that they can probably name only the
head of their government and no one else—have come to see all problems as
solvable by political action.
It seems that few care to notice that
this move toward the centralization of power in the hands of a minority elite
contradicts the original liberal ideas upon which modern Western societies were
founded, whereby the universality of human fallibility was in fact realized and
thereby the glorification of some over others abandoned. Alexis De Tocqueville
explains why this was so:
However enlightened and skillful a
central power may be, it cannot of itself embrace all the details of the life
of a great nation. Such vigilance exceeds the powers of man. And when it
attempts unaided to create and set in motion so many complicated springs, it
must submit to a very imperfect result, or exhaust itself in bootless efforts.
Centralization easily succeeds,
indeed, in subjecting the external actions of men to a certain uniformity,
which we come at last to love for its own sake, independently of the objects to
which it is applied, like those devotees who worship the statue and forget the
deity it represents. Centralization imparts without difficulty an admirable
regularity to the routine of business, provides skillfully for the details of
the social police; represses small disorders and petty misdemeanors; maintains
society in a status quo alike secure from improvement and decline; which the
heads of the administration are wont to call good order and public tranquility;
in short it excels in prevention, but not in action.[iii]
At best centralization brings about
stagnation, and at worst societal decline; while human nature desires perpetual
improvement.
The state funeral given to Canadian
socialist, leader of the New Democratic Party, Jack Layton, or a glance at
ceremonies thrown during G20 meetings tell stories of our elected leaders
assuming the roles of newfound royalty. Indeed, one cannot blame a person, in
this case the politician, for attempting to make the most of his life; however,
since by doing so the statesman-politician negatively influences the lives of
the common citizenry, the impetuous is on the citizenry itself to take a close
look at the institution which is claimed to be the embodiment of leadership on
the path to a brighter future. That is, the onus on the citizen is to make an
objective judgment of the institution of politician, as it stands today, in
order to make a decision of self-interest: whether or not to continue to give
up as much of its sovereignty to this institution. The statesman-politician in
essence risks nothing while reigning over the state, constitutes an extreme
case of unproductive labor and serves the interests of his party, rather than
those of his constituency, therefore it can be drawn the professional
politician represents an adverse entity for any society.
To be sure, every decision carries
within itself an underlying risk. All citizens risk something whenever making a
decision: to pay to attend university without the guarantee of graduating or
materializing that education into an adequate compensation; to invest
their monies into real estate or the stock exchange markets; or to choose one
career path over another, to list a few. If any or all of these decisions
result in failure or bad fortune, the common citizen is left with a rather
brief list of options, all of which ultimately see him reduce his discretionary
spending, while increasing the amount and
intensity of work he commits himself to, in order to make up the loss;
sometimes he even sees reductions in his spending on essentials such as food,
clothing and shelter. On the other hand, what does the statesman-politician
risk, or rather: what does he stand to lose from a poor policy decision or even
a catastrophic tenure in office? While history shows some statesmen ending
their careers in front of the firing squad, they are the few and far between—at
the same time, while the firing squad momentarily relieves public anger, it
does not reverse the policies undertaken by the deposed statesman. Further, in
modern Western societies, the most a statesman-politician stands to lose is an
election. We are told that ousting a politician from office causes injury to
his dignity, public standing and self respect. However, it can be observed that
the rules that apply to these feelings within the state of mind of the politician
vastly differ to those of the common citizen: once the statesman-politician
exposes himself to the public in such profane fashion as he does, he becomes
bound not by the social mores that govern the common voter, but by those that
command prostitutes.
In terms of poor fiscal decisions, it
is not the statesman’s discretionary spending that gets diminished: while his
policies may cost his constituents their homes, their life savings or their
children's education funds, the statesman’s personal wealth does not suffer at
all—in fact, it often happens that because of their involvement in the decision
making processes, that the personal wealth of politicians grows. More so,
whenever the politician runs the state into deficit or debt, he simply asks the
citizens to work longer, harder hours and to cut down on their spending in
order to make up for the politicians mistakes, all the while he keeps vote
purchasing welfare programs intact. Worst of all, however, is the fact that no
matter how well intentioned, the consequences of a statesman’s poor decision
can be felt for generations after his ultimate departure from the political
scene, as history bears witness to so many of the entitlement programs
introduced by the FD Roosevelt administrations. Then, it can be said that
granting the responsibility and power to run the lives of present and future
generations to people who in return put nothing at stake but their disputable
reputations is surely utter recklessness.
Equally important is to accordingly
allocate the statesman-politician’s place in society by virtue of his utility.
To achieve this, it is constructive to begin by locating the politician with
respect to Adam Smith’s basic discernment of contribution to society. “There is
one sort of labor which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is
bestowed : there is another which has no such effect. The former, as it
produces value, may be called productive; the latter, unproductive labor”[iv]
While some unproductive labor inarguably has its merits by which society
benefits, nonetheless, it is the overall
productivity of productive labor that feeds society as a whole.
Many a noble professions are classified
as unproductive labor: doctors and educators among which; the least noble of
this class of labor is surely that of politicians. Much like the bureaucrat who
is constantly aware of his lower relative worth to the undertaking which he is
a part of, so too is the politician perpetually aware of society’s absence of real
use for him. In response, the statesman-politician embarks on missions ad
infinitum by which he creates an artificial need of himself. Thus, problems
are never solved with solutions, but rather with further problems: that is,
problems never get solved. Entitlements do not get discontinued; rather the
government's debt grows larger. In lieu of producing an environment which would
generate the conditions for outsourced jobs to start returning to the country,
by voting in new regulations the statesman-politician pushes those jobs farther
away. Economist Philip Bagus gives a concise example of how politicians caused
the current economic crisis dubbed by some as “The Great Recession”:
When
fractional-reserve banks expand credit, malinvestments result. Entrepreneurs
induced by artificially low interest rates engage in new investment projects
that the lower interest rates suddenly make look profitable. Many of these
investments are not financed by real savings but just by money created out of
thin air by the banking system. The new investments absorb important resources
from other sectors that are not affected so much by the inflow of the new
money. There results a real distortion in the productive structure of the
economy. In the last cycle, malinvestments in the booming housing markets
contrasted with important bottlenecks such as in the commodity sector.[v]
He goes on to explain how politicians have gone on to perpetuate
the crisis that they caused:
All three
aforementioned adjustments (relative prices changes, increase in private
savings, and factor-market flexibility) were inhibited. Many bankruptcies that
should have happened were not allowed to occur. Both in the real economy and
the financial sector, governments intervened. They support struggling companies
via subsidized loans, programs such as cash for clunkers, or via public works.
Governments
also supported and rescued banks by buying problematic assets or injecting
capital into them. As bankruptcies are not allowed to happen, the liquidation
of malinvestments was slowed down.
Governments
also inhibited factor markets from being flexible and subsidized unemployment
by paying unemployment benefits. Bubble prices were not allowed to adjust
quickly but were to some extent propped up by government interventions.
Government sucked up private savings by taxes and squandered them maintaining
an obsolete structure of production. Banks financed the government spending by
buying government bonds. By putting money into the public sector, banks had
fewer funds available to lend to the private sector.
Factors of
production were not shifted quickly into new projects because the old ones were
not liquidated. They remained stuck in what essentially were malinvestments,
especially in an overblown financial sector. Factor mobility was slowed down by
unemployment benefits, union privileges, and other labor market regulations.[vi]
Three simple solutions lend themselves
to the ongoing problem of job loss in North America: cessation of unemployment
benefits, eradication of minimum wage legislation and the lowering of taxes.
High cost of doing business is the reason why so many companies have been
moving their production away from North America over the past twenty years.
With the termination of the distribution of further unemployment benefits and
the elimination of the artificial minimum wage standards, more people are
likely to start accepting jobs at wage levels they otherwise would not.
Similarly, by reducing business and employment related taxes–which amount to
nothing more than the penalizing of contributing to the real wellbeing of
society–the overall cost of entrepreneurship is bound to recede from the
inflated levels at which it currently resides. Lower taxes and fewer
entitlements would cause the ratio of productive to unproductive labor to
normalize. The combined effect of these steps would be that North American
economies become competitive once again with respect to our sweatshop fueled
rivals in the Far East, and thus be back on the path of prosperity.
Of course, as far as the politician is
concerned, such policy would constitute career suicide. By it, he is bound not
only to lose “special interest” votes, such as those of the labor unions; more
so, the statesman-politician is bound to be exposed for what he really is: the
unproductive labor of the worst kind. He therefore personifies a largely
useless sham of an institution which we are told was
at some distant point in time served only by the wisest and most
experienced of the citizenry. In a situation of a self regulating, free-market
driven societal life the statesman-politician’s own job is bound to become
obsolete and resultantly outsourced into to the annals of history.
In addition, one ought to remember the
cry of the American Revolution of “no taxation without representation”,
specifically, as we are living under a system of delegate-democracy whereby the
common citizen relinquishes a growing amount of his own sovereignty to that of
his elected representative. Jean-Jacques Rousseau likens the political system
which we enjoy today more with that of feudalism than with the Roman republic[vii].
To his credit, the parliamentary democracy scheme is drawn by the template of
British constitutional monarchy rather than the ancient republics. In fact, Monsieur
Rousseau refers to anyone who forfeits his sovereignty to a delegate a
“slave”. While this idea may at first seem extreme, it deserves some
consideration: the citizen himself grows more and more distant to his
representation, as each new law and regulation take away his right to act
accordingly to his own free will, and as each new government sponsored
institution adds more administration by which the voter is kept farther from, not
closer to, his representative. At the same time his delegate, the member of the
various assemblies, once elected, does not steward the platform of the citizen
who voted for him, nor of the one who did not: the elected representative finds
himself subservient to the platform, or rather the interests of the political party
to whose caucus he belongs; the political party’s sole interest being gaining
power.
Since the early days of the American
republic, political parties have over time morphed into enterprises, no
different from profit oriented organizations with a view only on the short term.
Rather than serving the purpose of maintaining the republic, present-day
politics gives its practitioners a more expedient purpose: that of winning
power and holding on to it, simply as a means of gainful employment. Alexis De
Tocqueville tells us that as recently as the 1830’s a career in politics in
America meant something drastically different to what is the case today:
Even the State is only a
second-rate community whose tranquil and obscure administration offers no
inducement sufficient to draw men away from the home of their interests into
the turmoil of public affairs. The Federal Government confers power and honor
on the men who conduct it; but these individuals can never be very numerous.
The high station of the Presidency can only be reached at an advanced period in
life; and the other Federal functionaries of high class are generally men who
have been favored by good luck, or have been distinguished in some other
career.[viii]
The politician of our day is not some
wise old head who keeps watch over the state of his posterity; rather, he
enters politics a beardless young buck and dies a politician—politics is his
chosen career. The professional politician goes from the classroom straight
into an office in the Capitol, failing in the meanwhile to observe and practice
the mechanics of society for a single day. Yet, in a gesture of pure madness,
he is given the ultimate decision making authority over that same society. It
is of little wonder then, to see the ascent of the idea of the welfare state:
the idea that the statesman-politician is a parent, a demigod, an irreplaceable
hand that gives life to life everlasting. By means of socialistic programs,
entitlements, healthcare and innumerable other get-something-for-“nothing”
arrangements, politicians of the various indistinguishable parties lure the
masses to keep propping them up to the current status of nobility they have
come accustomed to luxuriate in. The statesman-politician cares not how he
comes to maintain himself in power: he defers the solution of a problem further
down the road; he pits the “working class” against “big business”; he blames
and penalizes job generating enterprises for pollution, while maintaining
legislature that prevents financially viable means to the discovery and use of
pollution solutions; he pits neighbors of different ethnicity, race or religion
against each other, all for the sake of keeping himself relevant.
Reason must take precedence: how is the statesman-politician to be trusted to make useful policies for his constituency when his preeminent goal is to further his own employment. This he cannot accomplish by means of peace, prosperity and harmony; for, the statesman-politician’s interest is his own welfare, rather than ensuring that he creates the conditions for a fair and free competition among his constituents and thus leaving it to them to produce the best arrangements for themselves as they see them fit. After all, when each citizen is given an opportunity to seek out his own best interest, it is foolish to expect some opinion-poll driven, career politician who never in his life held a real job, living in a bubble with his comrades, to know what is really best for every single member of body politic.
Reason must take precedence: how is the statesman-politician to be trusted to make useful policies for his constituency when his preeminent goal is to further his own employment. This he cannot accomplish by means of peace, prosperity and harmony; for, the statesman-politician’s interest is his own welfare, rather than ensuring that he creates the conditions for a fair and free competition among his constituents and thus leaving it to them to produce the best arrangements for themselves as they see them fit. After all, when each citizen is given an opportunity to seek out his own best interest, it is foolish to expect some opinion-poll driven, career politician who never in his life held a real job, living in a bubble with his comrades, to know what is really best for every single member of body politic.
On the other hand it can be argued that laws are needed for a society to function justly and therefore the statesman-politician is a necessary evil. The institution of the state itself is a product of the desire for justice among men; that is, the state is present for the purpose of protecting men from the harm of other men—however, it is missed that the state does not have the purpose of preventing people from harming themselves. This necessity, however, does not stipulate a mandate for the state to do harm onto one in order to establish what it arbitrarily considers just; or to impose the wishes of some on to others: cautious treading is called for, as in the pursuit of his own best interest–that of winning votes–the statesman-politician does harm to the state itself, as well as his fellow citizens. Furthermore the phrase “necessary evil” brings to the fore the reality of what the politician truly is. Therefore, much like a vaccine ought to be administered in tolerable dosages only, so must be the case with the statesman-politician’s role in the life of the state; for if left to rummage unchecked, history and presence show how harmful his consequences to society indeed are.
At the same time, some will bring forth the issue of, as it is euphemistically termed, social justice. If the mandate of the state and henceforth the mandate of the statesman-politician is to ensure that no one does harm onto another’s liberty, consequently then, the notion of social justice through the redistribution of wealth for the purpose of bringing financial equality to the citizenry, not only does not fit this mandate, rather it constitutes a blatant foul against it: for the redistribution of wealth deals only with a finite amount of wealth and therefore stunts the creation of more of it, and by taking away from those who have more in order to those who have less, violates the liberties of those who are plundered. Subsequently, as actions with the aim of creating equity in wealth curtail the citizenry’s ability to reach its greatest happiness, these dubious policies do more harm to those whom its propagators claim that they are instituted to benefit. Then, since the statesman-politician is an evil, the less of this evil is present in the life of society; the better off society would seem to be.
Common sense would suggest that it is most unwise for the citizenry to go on forfeiting its destiny to a class–the politicians–that stands to lose nothing by its poor work and only to gain by keeping the living conditions of said citizenry below what they potentially can be. Unfortunately, the present “Occupy” movement testifies for a complete abandonment of reason. Democracy can lead to tyranny, just as soon as it can lead to liberty. The fact that in the early days of America, democracy flourished into liberty was no accident: it was a result of civic diligence, as every individual wisely looked out for himself, instead of depending on some enlightened despot to do it for him, as De Tocqueville documented:
The native of New England is attached to his township because it is independent and free: this co-operation in its affairs insures his attachment to its interest; the well-being it affords him secures his affection; and its welfare is the aim of his ambition and of his future exertions. He takes part in every occurrence in the place; he practices the art of government in the small sphere within his reach; he accustoms himself to those forms without which liberty can only advance by revolutions; he imbibes their spirit; he acquires a taste for order; comprehends the balance of powers, and collects clear practical notions on the nature of his duties and the extent of his rights.[ix]
The occurrence of the “Occupiers” demonstrates an embracing of serfdom as a prevailing civic attitude and speaks volumes of how desperately Western societies need to turn toward pure republicanism. The movement brings to light a painful reality: the fact that citizens have not got the slightest clue as to how democracy works. Protests are only a manifestation of the subservience of the masses toward the ruling elites: indeed, protesters bring forth their grievances and ask politicians to remedy them, rather than take responsibility for their own lives in their own hands.
Presently, the subservient masses are asking for politicians to wave their magic wands and improve their condition; they also ask for the abolishment of lobbying activities. However, lobbying of special interest groups and corporate donations that control politicians will linger and menace democracy for as long as it exists, and politicians, as they are only human will seek their own best interests—which as proven here, often conflict with the best interests of the common citizen. Simply abolishing the institution of lobbyist will not make the practice go away; what will make lobbying go away is a curtailment of the powers granted to political office and the abandonment of centralization. Claude Frédéric Bastiat recognized the danger which politicians pose to liberty when he wrote:
Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest effort toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?
But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements—legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?[x]
While defining legal plunder thusly:
See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.[xi]
If logic were to be followed, rather than rhetoric, there would be no problem to speak of; this not being the case, the challenge, it is obvious, is to bring awareness to the body politic. Logic suggests that the cumulative brain powers of the multitudes vastly transcend those of the few in the Capitol and therefore more adequately handle any given challenge. Then, the masses are truly only slaves to themselves in believing that the politician, their delegate, as some modern day fable knight in shining armor, would ride into the Capitol and bring them the justice they ought to earn for themselves. The identity of the cause of our problem lies with not necessarily with any politician in particular, but with the habitation of the professional politician as a quasi-celestial presence in the lives of common citizens. Rather than turning to the politician as a bringer of solutions to Society, it is clear that Society would be the wiser for accepting the politician-statesman as the cause to its problems, and consequently to seek out ways to keep professional politicians at bay, while encouraging each member to take an active role in the democratic processes of his jurisdiction.
[i] Paine,
Tomas. Common Sense. New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1997. p 5
[ii] De
Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. New York: Penguin Group,
1956. p 68
[iii] De
Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. New York: Penguin Group,
1956. p 66
[iv] Smith,
Adam. The Wealth of Nations Books I-III. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.,
1970. p 429
[v]
Baugus, Philip. “Why
Is There a Euro Crisis”.
[vi]
Baugus, Philip. “Why
Is There a Euro Crisis”.
[vii] Rousseau,
Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1968.
p 141
[viii]
De Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. New York: Penguin Group,
1956. p 60
[ix] De
Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. New York: Penguin Group,
1956. p 61
[x]
Bastiat, Claude Frédéric. The
Law. New York: Cosmo, 2006. p 24
[xi]
Bastiat, Claude Frédéric. The
Law. New York: Cosmo, 2006. p 17
No comments:
Post a Comment