Interesting commentary about Americans and politics. The notion is that the people think of themselves as a consumer shopping for someone to run the country as if it were a business. At first blush that seems to square with what has been going on for the last few years. The infatuation with business as if it defined the state of nirvana for humankind maybe the underlying issue.
A well run business presumably brings prosperity to many - the employees, suppliers, vendors, partners and the community where it operates. Those are all good things until the optimization to squeeze the most value comes into play. Value means very different things based on who you are in the system and definition will be at odds between different groups of stakeholders. So naturally in the race for maximizing value there will be winners and losers. The business even its best run state can't be everyone's nirvana at the same time. The premise of the consumer citizen does not make sense:
A consumer citizen approaches government the way he or she approaches a provider of consumer goods. Now, you and I both know government is not an ordinary economic firm, but nonetheless that’s how consumer citizens see government. And that means they’re wondering, what are they getting out of it? They’re wondering if they’re getting a fair return on their investment. Are the benefits worth the costs?
It is not possible to invest in a politician who is running for office in the manner described. The office and indeed the machinery of government itself is not a firm that these officers of the company can run. It is more likely people imagine they see some alignment of values between themselves and who they vote for. That person is meant act their proxy and channel their hopes and dreams into reality. When the basis of this perceived alignment is skewed then we have a situation where nothing works. The consumer citizen theory is buzzy but the froth of the argument dies out quick.
Comments