I studied the processes of government for three years in Washington, but I never imagined that one of the most insightful examples of the current state of affairs could be uncovered at a post office here in Birmingham. All those who purchase stamps likely heard news of the new proposed increase to 46 cents in early July. I always knew that the Postal Service could provide insight into the way government does 'business,' but I was surprised to learn that it also showed something about resilience and change within the American body politic.
It was a sweltering summer afternoon, and I waited in line almost half an hour to mail a simple manila envelope to an address only several miles from where I lived. Over a dozen other people were waiting in line for a single attendant, and minds were clearly growing increasingly frazzled. Walk into any private business today--a UPS or FedEx store, a bank, or even a Wal-Mart--and these lines would be non-existent. I have shipped packages across the country from a private carrier far more quickly than simply mailing a large envelope across town at the Post Office.
Thus, from the Post Office, we learn about how the government does business. Although there is technical accountability in terms of law, there is no 'real' accountability. Government agencies do not have to play by real rules of supply and demand. Regulations prevent the Postmaster from handling actual money, making it impossible for him to alleviate the line. The 'manager' is basically a machine, controlled so heavily by regulations that he cannot actually see a need and address it on his own. 'Customer service' has gone out the window in the new era of the bland, faceless government employee who has typically both a union and all sorts of regulations to protect his job, regardless of performance. There is a perverse structure which allows the Post Office to actually raise prices in times of diminished demand. Imagine the irrationality of that; for doing a bad job with customer service or the product they produce, the government can simply raise prices for the consumer. Anyone who thinks that government can do big things well should walk into a post office more often. Perhaps if President Obama had done so, he would have thought twice about healthcare.
On this particular afternoon, I also learned something about the American people. For once, the individuals in line did not take this situation sitting down. A man ultimately asked to speak with a manager, and the manager eventually surfaced from 'the back' (for us to learn that he couldn't handle money). A local business owner was clearly furious, describing how he knew his business from the ground up and would expect the government to know the same. It was at this point that I learned something about speaking up, and I also learned something about the benefits of local business leadership.
This business leader was proud of his craft and his ability to solve problems on his own. He noted that he knew his business from the ground up and could typically solve any problem himself. It was an air of independence which gave him the confidence and knowledge to speak on behalf of others. Local communities have long benefited from these pools of talents and suffer now that so much talent is clustered in the form of mid-level corporate executives in major cities. Unlike BP CEO Tony Hayward who seemed to never actually participate in the decisions of his company, this gentleman took pride in his craft and his ability to solve problems.
Of course, the most telling lesson was the end, when the business owner asked who he could call to make a complaint about the postal service itself. The Postmaster's response: "It won't do no good." As the Obama administration prepares to spend even more on elaborate government programs meant to provide services to taxpayers, that is all Americans really need to know when it comes to accountability. For the individual taxpayer, it 'don't make no difference' what we think.
Showing posts with label Reflections on Conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reflections on Conservatism. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Education and the Crisis of Local Government
Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the most famous early students of the American republic, once praised the small towns of early America as evidence that "the government really does emanate from the governed." Several decades later, English theorist John Stuart Mill extolled the benefits of local government, including an opportunity for large numbers of the citizenry to participate in the democratic process. Since the early days, America has placed a lot of faith in local governments, allowing local entities to control their own affairs. Democracy emanates in many ways in America, from local PTA meetings at schools across the nation to county commission and school board meetings.
In recent years, as society has become more urbanized, politics has become more centralized. The rise of cable media has given politics a national focus, and Americans have become far more interested in the 'horse race' approach to congressional and presidential politics. Additionally, as more top performers in small towns across the country have moved to larger cities, there have been crises of local leadership. A number of modern social theorists have traced the evolution of rampant political corruption in rural areas to declining population in the face of fewer opportunities in small towns and the exclusive opportunities of large cities. As social commentators debate the consequences of this centralization of American life, it appears to have been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Marie Leech of the Birmingham News reported yesterday that the Alabama Board of Education voted to take over the finances of Coosa and Sumter county schools, two rural Alabama systems. Five other systems in predominately rural counties also reported having to borrow money, and 25 additional systems reported anticipating a need to borrow money in the near future. Thus, of 103 responding school systems to a statewide financial survey, at least 32 or almost a third of respondents were experiencing some form of significant financial distress.
What is the result? The result will be more state control, and ultimately, more federal control, at the expense of local control. Some are quick to say that local control is a thing of the past, and we should embrace this new era of centralization. However, America's republic is based on the idea that each geographic region of the country needs strong local leaders. The next generation of governors, congressmen, and senators will most likely cut their teeth on local school boards, county commissions, and city halls. Additionally, citizens benefit when they have a direct say in local affairs. There are fewer bureaucratic channels and fewer stakeholders to take into consideration. For generations, small towns have served as a buffer against the aggressive federal government set up against our constitution. Now, as citizens leave for the cities and the economic crisis threatens the country, this system of local government will be called even more into question.
Conservatives should consider stepping up to defend this way of life. The best way to reduce spending in Washington is to empower local communities to take charge of more of their own affairs. Additionally, America's system of representation depends on cultivating strong talent locally. Over decades, local control has begun to evaporate, something Tocqueville also anticipated. However, with that goes a piece of our history and tradition which should not be lost entirely without a fight.
In recent years, as society has become more urbanized, politics has become more centralized. The rise of cable media has given politics a national focus, and Americans have become far more interested in the 'horse race' approach to congressional and presidential politics. Additionally, as more top performers in small towns across the country have moved to larger cities, there have been crises of local leadership. A number of modern social theorists have traced the evolution of rampant political corruption in rural areas to declining population in the face of fewer opportunities in small towns and the exclusive opportunities of large cities. As social commentators debate the consequences of this centralization of American life, it appears to have been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Marie Leech of the Birmingham News reported yesterday that the Alabama Board of Education voted to take over the finances of Coosa and Sumter county schools, two rural Alabama systems. Five other systems in predominately rural counties also reported having to borrow money, and 25 additional systems reported anticipating a need to borrow money in the near future. Thus, of 103 responding school systems to a statewide financial survey, at least 32 or almost a third of respondents were experiencing some form of significant financial distress.
What is the result? The result will be more state control, and ultimately, more federal control, at the expense of local control. Some are quick to say that local control is a thing of the past, and we should embrace this new era of centralization. However, America's republic is based on the idea that each geographic region of the country needs strong local leaders. The next generation of governors, congressmen, and senators will most likely cut their teeth on local school boards, county commissions, and city halls. Additionally, citizens benefit when they have a direct say in local affairs. There are fewer bureaucratic channels and fewer stakeholders to take into consideration. For generations, small towns have served as a buffer against the aggressive federal government set up against our constitution. Now, as citizens leave for the cities and the economic crisis threatens the country, this system of local government will be called even more into question.
Conservatives should consider stepping up to defend this way of life. The best way to reduce spending in Washington is to empower local communities to take charge of more of their own affairs. Additionally, America's system of representation depends on cultivating strong talent locally. Over decades, local control has begun to evaporate, something Tocqueville also anticipated. However, with that goes a piece of our history and tradition which should not be lost entirely without a fight.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
What We Won't Hear at the BP Hearings
Watching today's oil spill hearings in Washington with Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, raises some questions for me which members of Congress are frankly not willing to ask themselves. Two come to mind between Hayward's answers that he "cannot recall" or decisions he "was not privy to." In the rush to score political points with anxious constituents back home, I tend to wonder if Congressmen will possess the courage to inquire as to the effects of the spill far beyond the coastline and, more importantly, about how corporate size has led to a lack of accountability. Can capitalism as we know it survive in an age of global corporations?
Although the scenes here in Alabama largely focus on the oil collecting on the Gulf, the effects of the spill will be far-reaching in the state. State Superintendent Joe Morton stated back on June 10 that the declines in tourism revenue will impact the Education Trust Fund of Alabama. As tourism has declined by as much as 50% at places like orange beach, some of the taxes which are collected to pay for the fund will also decline. This means that local governments and state governments will be strapped for cash as restaurants, tour boat businesses, hotels, fishermen, and other locally owned enterprises either temporarily close or go out of business. For these individuals, the loss is a travesty, but it is also a travesty for the entire state.
I cannot help but wonder if BP will be committed to truly cleaning up this spill in terms of the financial damage caused throughout the Gulf Coast. Perhaps BP will honor it's commitment of $20 billion to the Gulf Coast, and perhaps BP will manage to stay in business and avoid bankruptcy long enough to honor those commitments. However, I wonder if BP is aware of the local and state governments which will be suffering to provide services during these difficult times on the coast.
However, the bigger question here is the question of regulation and the size of the corporation. Many in Congress may not be aware, but the age of multinational conglomerates who provide many essential goods and services to a worldwide consumer base has created corporations which in 2008 we called 'too big to fail.' The BP crisis demonstrates that they are also, in many senses, 'too big to regulate.'
Capitalism in the traditional conservative sense is based on consumer choice. A business can offer products, and a consumer can decide whether or not to purchase said product based on a series of criteria. When capitalism was smaller, government regulation was far less needed because individuals held corporations accountable. As David Brooks once noted in a column, half a century ago the leading banker in a Tennessee town would have lived in that city instead of far off, in New York, Charlotte, or Atlanta. The same is true of Alabama towns--residents knew the store owners and the producers of products. By contrast, the owners and manufacturers knew their consumers personally--their children went to school with them, and they went to church together. They knew then that in the face of crisis the residents would hold them accountable because they, too, were parts of the community.
Those days are long gone. Today's corporate leaders live far away from the communities they utilize to produce resources, and the size of these corporations makes it virtually impossible for consumers to hold them accountable themselves. Consider the people currently boycotting BP gas. Although this boycott hurts the local franchisees who are only tangentially connected to BP, it does little to undermine BP as a company which owns a vast array of networks such as CASTROL, ARCO Alumnium, and many other companies which produce a wide array of products. As corporations have grown bigger, it has become impossible for consumers to keep corporations accountable. Additionally, corporate leaders only maintain accountability to shareholders who are far removed from communities like the Gulf Coast.
What is the answer? Increasingly the answer has been obtrusive amounts of federal regulation which have been rather ineffective at actually solving problems. Yes, there is a massive federal bureaucracy which we have come to know as the Minerals and Mining Service, but I seriously doubt that even under new leadership this regulatory agency can manage to oversee such massive corporations. Even if they can, the answer seems to be in a government structure so large and so obtrusive that smaller, innovative firms would be crushed by the size of the federal rulebook. It's a sad and unfortunate state of affairs which bears little resemblance to the America we once enjoyed, based on freedom and consumer choice.
Thus, the BP oil spill teaches us two lessons about Federalism, that oldest of American principles. Today when a disaster occurs, it crushes state and local governments which are already struggling for their survival. As conservatives, we should care about local governments because they provide citizens the most direct control over their own lives, instead of exporting that control to a distant place like Washington. It also demonstrates that the size of modern corporations has created a conundrum. Consumers can no longer hold the corporations accountable, and the task now lies with federal regulators. This, too, has consequences. Congressmen may not ask these questions, but Americans should consider them, because in many ways, the future of the nation hangs in the balance.
Although the scenes here in Alabama largely focus on the oil collecting on the Gulf, the effects of the spill will be far-reaching in the state. State Superintendent Joe Morton stated back on June 10 that the declines in tourism revenue will impact the Education Trust Fund of Alabama. As tourism has declined by as much as 50% at places like orange beach, some of the taxes which are collected to pay for the fund will also decline. This means that local governments and state governments will be strapped for cash as restaurants, tour boat businesses, hotels, fishermen, and other locally owned enterprises either temporarily close or go out of business. For these individuals, the loss is a travesty, but it is also a travesty for the entire state.
I cannot help but wonder if BP will be committed to truly cleaning up this spill in terms of the financial damage caused throughout the Gulf Coast. Perhaps BP will honor it's commitment of $20 billion to the Gulf Coast, and perhaps BP will manage to stay in business and avoid bankruptcy long enough to honor those commitments. However, I wonder if BP is aware of the local and state governments which will be suffering to provide services during these difficult times on the coast.
However, the bigger question here is the question of regulation and the size of the corporation. Many in Congress may not be aware, but the age of multinational conglomerates who provide many essential goods and services to a worldwide consumer base has created corporations which in 2008 we called 'too big to fail.' The BP crisis demonstrates that they are also, in many senses, 'too big to regulate.'
Capitalism in the traditional conservative sense is based on consumer choice. A business can offer products, and a consumer can decide whether or not to purchase said product based on a series of criteria. When capitalism was smaller, government regulation was far less needed because individuals held corporations accountable. As David Brooks once noted in a column, half a century ago the leading banker in a Tennessee town would have lived in that city instead of far off, in New York, Charlotte, or Atlanta. The same is true of Alabama towns--residents knew the store owners and the producers of products. By contrast, the owners and manufacturers knew their consumers personally--their children went to school with them, and they went to church together. They knew then that in the face of crisis the residents would hold them accountable because they, too, were parts of the community.
Those days are long gone. Today's corporate leaders live far away from the communities they utilize to produce resources, and the size of these corporations makes it virtually impossible for consumers to hold them accountable themselves. Consider the people currently boycotting BP gas. Although this boycott hurts the local franchisees who are only tangentially connected to BP, it does little to undermine BP as a company which owns a vast array of networks such as CASTROL, ARCO Alumnium, and many other companies which produce a wide array of products. As corporations have grown bigger, it has become impossible for consumers to keep corporations accountable. Additionally, corporate leaders only maintain accountability to shareholders who are far removed from communities like the Gulf Coast.
What is the answer? Increasingly the answer has been obtrusive amounts of federal regulation which have been rather ineffective at actually solving problems. Yes, there is a massive federal bureaucracy which we have come to know as the Minerals and Mining Service, but I seriously doubt that even under new leadership this regulatory agency can manage to oversee such massive corporations. Even if they can, the answer seems to be in a government structure so large and so obtrusive that smaller, innovative firms would be crushed by the size of the federal rulebook. It's a sad and unfortunate state of affairs which bears little resemblance to the America we once enjoyed, based on freedom and consumer choice.
Thus, the BP oil spill teaches us two lessons about Federalism, that oldest of American principles. Today when a disaster occurs, it crushes state and local governments which are already struggling for their survival. As conservatives, we should care about local governments because they provide citizens the most direct control over their own lives, instead of exporting that control to a distant place like Washington. It also demonstrates that the size of modern corporations has created a conundrum. Consumers can no longer hold the corporations accountable, and the task now lies with federal regulators. This, too, has consequences. Congressmen may not ask these questions, but Americans should consider them, because in many ways, the future of the nation hangs in the balance.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
A Message to Alabama Voters: Selecting Statesmen
Like many, I have been inundated with the ads for different political candidates in recent days. With all the mudslinging which occurs on both sides of the aisle, it is easy to lose focus on what is important. Although many Alabamians see only these ads, those who attend the local Republican meetings which candidates frequently attend and offer 2-3 minute speeches on their candidacy witness a different perspective on politics. Having attended a number of these meetings, I have been struck several times by candidates or representatives who use the word 'statesmen' to describe themselves or the candidates they represent. This lends itself to the question, what is a statesman, and how does such a person differ from a mere politician?
Recently, I came across a great definition of statesmanship in the works of Edmund Burke, one of the earliest conservative thinkers. Writing in England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Burke worried about liberal revolutions such as that in France which uprooted communities and destroyed traditional ways of doing things. It was in this vein that he said: "A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman." These words ought to have strong meaning for Alabama voters going to the polls in the July run-offs and the November general elections.
Richard Weaver, one of the great Southern historians and theorists of the 20th century noted that Southerners were the American Burkeans because they valued traditional ways of doing things. They valued small towns which provided help to individuals without the need of massive federal 'welfare' programs. They valued social relationships such as churches and the friendships they had made in their communities. Conservatives should also respect Burke as one of their earliest thinkers, a man who understood very early on the dangers of liberalism. Burke indicated like no others in his time the dangers of a government which continues to centralize and increase its power, growing bigger and bigger as it grows less responsive to the people.
His words would also have meaning, even if the source were unknown, because they reflect a basic principle of thoughtful good government, something the ancient Greeks called eunomia. Burke's definition defends conservatives against the charge from the Left that they are mere 'reactionaries.' Weaver himself in the mid-20th centuries attempted to develop a justification for Southern values which did not justify racism and discrimination. Burke's definition welcomes the need for change and reform while cautioning against throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Certain traditions are bad and must be rectified, but tradition itself can also be a good thing which benefits society. A tradition of reciprocity, for instance, or helping one's neighbor, is good and should be maintained for society to function without big government.
What does this mean for Alabamians? I recommend asking the following questions of candidates:
(1) Will you start with the bare minimum of what government must do, focusing on passing a budget instead of passing new spending?
(2) Will you always be attentive to small ways to change problems, particularly ways which rely on the people themselves, instead of the government?
(3) Will you acknowledge a distinction between party and principle, and choose your principles over your party?
(4) Will you be committed to having the government do only what it can do instead of supporting spending where the government may not be able to do what it sets out to do (like healthcare)?
(5) Will you be committed to looking toward long-term solutions to problems instead of merely focusing on your short-term interests for re-election?
These are good questions to ask of any question on a ballot. It's clear that in Alabama today, we need statesmen and politicians. Politicians always focus on polls and short-term fixes for their own aggrandizement. Statesmen are willing to solve problems for generations, possibly resolving them eternally. They may be considered slow to act, but they act appropriately and decisively to solve problems which they know they can solve. They realize that society is complex and cannot be changed easily, and if they act badly, they may make a problem worse.
Recently, I came across a great definition of statesmanship in the works of Edmund Burke, one of the earliest conservative thinkers. Writing in England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Burke worried about liberal revolutions such as that in France which uprooted communities and destroyed traditional ways of doing things. It was in this vein that he said: "A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman." These words ought to have strong meaning for Alabama voters going to the polls in the July run-offs and the November general elections.
Richard Weaver, one of the great Southern historians and theorists of the 20th century noted that Southerners were the American Burkeans because they valued traditional ways of doing things. They valued small towns which provided help to individuals without the need of massive federal 'welfare' programs. They valued social relationships such as churches and the friendships they had made in their communities. Conservatives should also respect Burke as one of their earliest thinkers, a man who understood very early on the dangers of liberalism. Burke indicated like no others in his time the dangers of a government which continues to centralize and increase its power, growing bigger and bigger as it grows less responsive to the people.
His words would also have meaning, even if the source were unknown, because they reflect a basic principle of thoughtful good government, something the ancient Greeks called eunomia. Burke's definition defends conservatives against the charge from the Left that they are mere 'reactionaries.' Weaver himself in the mid-20th centuries attempted to develop a justification for Southern values which did not justify racism and discrimination. Burke's definition welcomes the need for change and reform while cautioning against throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Certain traditions are bad and must be rectified, but tradition itself can also be a good thing which benefits society. A tradition of reciprocity, for instance, or helping one's neighbor, is good and should be maintained for society to function without big government.
What does this mean for Alabamians? I recommend asking the following questions of candidates:
(1) Will you start with the bare minimum of what government must do, focusing on passing a budget instead of passing new spending?
(2) Will you always be attentive to small ways to change problems, particularly ways which rely on the people themselves, instead of the government?
(3) Will you acknowledge a distinction between party and principle, and choose your principles over your party?
(4) Will you be committed to having the government do only what it can do instead of supporting spending where the government may not be able to do what it sets out to do (like healthcare)?
(5) Will you be committed to looking toward long-term solutions to problems instead of merely focusing on your short-term interests for re-election?
These are good questions to ask of any question on a ballot. It's clear that in Alabama today, we need statesmen and politicians. Politicians always focus on polls and short-term fixes for their own aggrandizement. Statesmen are willing to solve problems for generations, possibly resolving them eternally. They may be considered slow to act, but they act appropriately and decisively to solve problems which they know they can solve. They realize that society is complex and cannot be changed easily, and if they act badly, they may make a problem worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
