Double plus ungood

There has lately been added to the lexicon a phrase which defies justification: “too big to fail”. The claim is that there exist companies whose impact is so broad and thoroughly integrated into the fabric of our economy that failure of such a magnitude would be unsustainable. The argument is no less specious than those which defend government itself. Not that I am an anarchist by nature, but I do think that government is overrated and, were ours to collapse, people would find a way to survive without it.

As for these companies that supposedly must be saved I say: follow the money. Sure the politicians will tell us that the loss of jobs, the collapse of financial markets and the gap in services will be too great, but what they mean by these things are the loss of government jobs, the collapse of financial support for their next campaign and the gap of services they will be unable to parade before the electorate. Creating the illusion that certain companies are so critical that government intervention is necessary to keep them afloat is akin to claiming that the collapse of McDonald’s will bring starvation.

While many people would be suffering had GM gone into bankruptcy protection, those people would be the unionists forced to renegotiate contracts that would make GM more competitive rather than the taxpayers who have yet to gain a dime from being forced into an unneeded rescue. The bailout of companies like AIG speaks more to the origin of political fund raising than it does to the need to persist financial institutions which practice flawed policies. Compounding these actions is the fact that it is the self-same elected officials who, having passed ill-conceived legislation, created many of the risk pitfalls into which these companies fell.

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, creating a culture in which companies believe that they will be saved from demise should they fail means creating one where the natural influence of risk is removed and decisions are made with less regard for their downside. The government already enjoys such a cushion from failure and now, thanks to the misguided actions of our politicians, so does big business.

Where there's smoke...

I considered myself, at least for a short time, a tea party activist. This is largely because my very first overtly political act was to attend an anti-tax rally in the spring of 2009. Since then I've attended one organized tea party event as well as protested, with a loosely organized band of activists, the passage of the health care reform abortion.

I say that this was for a short time mostly because I don't join any group or cause as a rule. I've been a Libertarian for nearly thirty years yet have never been a member of the Libertarian party. It's just not in my nature to join things. I couldn't tell you if my four year stint in the Marine Corps was merely anomaly or catalyst for this aversion.

From what I can tell, this is the case for most of the early participants in the tea party movement. These were people awakening to political activism because they had simply had enough of the lies and drunken spending sprees that are a staple of Washington politics. These were libertarians, independents and moderates who felt that the eight years spend fest of "compassionate conservatism" under Bush the younger, combined with the thinly veiled socialism of the current administration, warranted a call to action. While this remains the case in general, the movement has steadily been co-opted by disaffected conservatives who share, at least in part, the disgust of these other political neophytes.

While my acceptance of the movement is tepid at best, specifically because of the moralizing and selective application of liberty championed by some of the speakers at these rallies, my support of the movement grows with each attempt by the administration and its mouthpiece, the mainstream media, to demonize its participants. Clearly the movement is having an affect on directing the discussion. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have the ministry of truth and other agents of big brother so aggressively attempting to silence this growing voice of the people.

This has never happened before

Recently, while listening to my iPod, I heard a song from an early nineties band called Consolidated that made me think. The band was a collection of brazenly socialist vegetarians who challenged their audience to question all aspects of society. While I always admired their ability to question and challenge, I certainly found little to agree with in their political viewpoint.

The song that piqued my interest was called "Music Has No Meaning". This particular piece descried the corporate influence on the music industry. The song, like many of their works, incorporated audio clips from such sources as an MTV music award presentation and news analysis of the industry. In short, their argument was that corporate culture had transformed music into a commodity that had little social, artistic or historical value. While I don't completely disagree with this, I did find its analysis to falter like most do when challenging the status quo.

We too often fall into the trap of romanticizing the past when arguing our point. Much like this song, we have a tendency to assert that present conditions are directly attributable to some recent evil. Of course, the benefit of this is having a concrete enemy behind which to rally our opposition. However, I find little value in attempting to transform things which, in essence, are elements of human nature. History's most famous artists are notorious for dying destitute, yet this is somehow new to the music industry. As Paul Fussell once said: "...prole America is about sweet." Of course, while he seemed surprised by this, the fact is that the masses throughout history have been about the most basic fluff and diversion. Music, art and entertainment in general has always been most successful when it caters to the masses in very superficial and titillating terms. It is human nature to seek out the path of least resistance and no where is this more evident than in the masses.

Politically, this analytical shortcoming most often manifests itself in the conservative pining for the good old days. I'm sure the pedophiles and child abusers of the past would also like us to return to a time when their activities where discussed in mere hushed tones. Conversely, and just as inept, is the liberal belief that creating an identifiable current evil, most recently the younger Bush, will help us force humans to behave in ways completely contrary to their nature. Neither of these approaches holds any lasting potential. Only through accepting and understanding human nature do we have any hope of improving our lot socially or politically.