For years I have been watching partisan political struggles at every level of government. Most of the time, I have sat on the sidelines. It's not that I have no opinion in the issues debated, it's that my viewpoint is usually not represented by anyone publicly involved.
That's probably the bad side of being independent of any party. Your voice is seldom, if ever, heard on the national soundstage. Each party has their proclaimed agenda, usually designed to capture maximum voter support without totally alienating their power base. Do I have to explain how the vast majority of voters are a de facto swing vote? That while most Americans like to believe they have a firm commitment to principle, they are more likely a jumble of half-notions and general good wishes?
That makes the media very happy. They could not possibly herd the average voter into their preferred "progressive" (socialist) policies, so they settle for keeping them confused enough to be partially pliable on specific issues. Most importantly, the media keep things stirred up enough for folks to feel obliged to keep buying their product. Not really a conspiracy, it's just conditioning the market.
So there are really very few partisans who fully support the party's agenda. They work very hard to control the terms of the public debate. The words are carefully chosen to appeal to gut reactions. One side's compassion is the other side's tyranny. One side's liberty is the other side's chaos. Sometimes this propagandizing works. A particular issue on a party's agenda appeals to the masses, and their mass reaction can be measured by polling data. If the reaction is strong enough, opposing politicians will find some way to coat their support with sugar so the bad medicine goes down.
There are really way too many issues, and too complicated, for anyone in a legislative or executive role to give them all any serious attention. Most of the time, a politician will let someone else control those issues that they have no time for, and stick to what they know or can understand, or maybe what they know will keep their constituents off their backs. So the whole ungainly mess of government careens like a badly worn, overloaded and top-heavy pickup truck down the pot-holed track of the future. It lurches one way or the other, and no one really knows quite what to expect next.
God forbid any result should include common sense with any consistency. Sure, a flash of genius here and there, but mostly things are overdone, half-done, not done, or undone. That's not to say it's a waste of time. It is the nature of the human race that there will inevitably be some kind of government, and it will seldom be for long anything better than the lesser of evils. Being harmless to those governed is really too much to expect most of the time, but government will always be there.
Moreover, it's not quite realistic to hope that we can simply minimize government by any particular set of rules. Sometimes what government inflicts on us is frankly better than nothing. Let's take an example here in the US: the infamous ADA -- Americans with Disabilities Act.
There was a time when businesses, and even government agencies, were wholly unconcerned with whether someone in a wheelchair got in the building. My favorite nightmare vision is the college student studying architecture who had to master hopping his wheelchair backward up a long flight of narrow wooden steps to access his senior level classes. Anyone who thinks businesses naturally do what's right out of market forces never saw the sign: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Not every economic decision is made for economic reasons. People -- including business owners -- are a lot of things, but "logical" isn't one of those things that wise observers would much expect.
So why not make it a law that these businesses and agencies do the right thing and make some reasonable accommodation for wheelchairs and such? Actually, that was a pretty good idea. That is, until Congress got hold of it. When they were finished with mangling it, bureaucrats only made it worse. The little old man selling model trains out of a second floor renovated house was forced to close down if he or the building owner couldn't afford an elevator, and wider doors, and wider halls, etc. Yet, the bookstore across the street from campus -- sole supplier of certain class materials -- got off with a ramp wholly unusable because it was too steep, too narrow and the bottom lay in a busy driveway with broken concrete. And let's not even talk about the idiotic inclusion of those abusing illegal substances as "disabled." Now, every year some new pressure group sounds the alarm of exclusion for their pet "disability."
Now, most structure modifications were quite satisfactory, and many were simply extravagant and unnecessary. How many countless billions of dollars were wasted? And how often were the simplest things overlooked because the designer was an "expert" who had never used any mobility aids in his whole life? How many times did I run into bathroom privacy dividers near the door because the designer never saw a wheelchair with elevated leg-rests? Well, when I was using such a wheelchair, I left a lot of scratches and skid marks, and plenty of dings in my chair, but I can't recall ever being completely blocked out. Anyone nearby was always so helpful -- usually too helpful. Did I expect the responsible parties to make changes? No. It would have been nice if they had made allowances in the first place, but only an inflated ego would demand a complete redesign of the whole building for that.
The off-campus bookstore was another matter. The employees of the store watched with amusement as I failed repeatedly to negotiate their useless ramp. I went around to the far end of the building, and found that the sidewalk had sunk, leaving a mere 2" curb. I reached out to grab a soda vending machine and pulled my wheelchair up on the sidewalk, then rolled down the walkway to the door. When I mentioned I had trouble getting in, they told me it was the manager's area of responsibility, and he was too busy.
So I bought my materials, and went back to promptly inform the college department head of my experience. He made a phone call, spoke briefly with the bookstore manager, then canceled all the printing contracts they had with them. I heard they had to let some staff go as word spread around the various campus departments over the next few weeks. No picketing, no demonstrations and signs, no stirring up the student body, or even a part of it. I simply wanted reasonable access, or release from having to use that business.
That act of punishment was carried out by liberal folks, good reliable Democrats. Most college staff and faculty are such. On the other hand, even the worst curmudgeon Republican wouldn't argue with what happened. How much would the store owner have had to pay for a usable ramp? Near as I can figure, about $100, if not less. How much did it cost him to argue that he met the ADA minimum standards? A whole lot more than $100, I'm sure.
Oddly, I don't blame the store manager all that much. Business owners have been backed into a corner so often over senseless regulation, they have to fight back somehow. It's all too easy to be shut down over something some bureaucrat didn't think to tell you until after you've spent all your venture capital getting set up. For far too long, the system has been adversarial at best, and usually closer to rapacious. It's been estimated that if we could account for all the stupid program costs mandated by laws like the ADA, we could reasonably claim it amounts to a national tax rate higher than 50% of our national output. That's a conservative estimate.
One more example of government stupidity. On the one hand, socialists are working overtime to lock in the notion that juries dare not exercise their full power to pass judgment on the law itself. That so many don't know juries have that right under our Constitution testifies to their success. They are joined heartily by the law-and-order conservatives. On the other hand, these same socialists are fighting tooth and nail to let juries continue giving astronomical awards in lawsuits. The same legal principle of jury supremacy is at work in both situations. In case you don't see the obvious, this mess is promoted mostly by lawyers.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander: since juries aren't allowed to free folks they judge ought not to be punished, let them also be prevented from granting high-dollar settlements in medical malpractice suits, as well as other tort actions. No one is ever going to reform insurance for these things, so stop barking up that tree. It'll never happen. Let's just cap the awards, unless you want all your physicians to move to a saner country. Already, too many states are losing doctors because the insurance companies demand more in fees than any doctor makes in a year. Don't try to give birth in Nevada.
Letting the average Joe or Jane make a rational decision based on their gut instincts is pretty safe. Put all the Joes and Janes together under the influence of television and movies, and they exhibit the combined intelligence of the rocks in my driveway. Maybe less. They call this "democracy" -- I'm ready to risk having an absolute monarch. At least then the target is a whole lot easier to identify if things go wrong.
And they will.
As it is written, "There is none righteous, no not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none how does good, no, not one." (Romans 3:10-12)
Ed Hurst
25 July 2003, revised 06 October 2003
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)