http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/08/from-citizens-to-stakeholders
For a long time I’ve been comparing Obama to Mussolini in his nature, personality even his jaw jutting head tilt. I got the sense that BO wanted to be some kind of soft dictator, controlling everything in everyone’s life- for their own good. Angelo Codevilla from the American Spectator writes a striking article about how our form of government is morphing into something Mussolini would indeed recognize. Apparently, we aren’t alone, as many different nations throughout history tried similar forms of “shareholding” government. The government’s Codevilla mention aren’t exactly winners; Italy, Argentina, Mexico to name a few.
As I read and understand it, the stakeholder concept of government is not a new one by any means. In fact, Woodrow Wilson wrote a book in 1885 complaining about the failure of our Constitution to address some of the issues he saw preventing a more efficient government. Here is that passage;
“Woodrow Wilson’s 1885 book, Congressional Government, faulted the U.S. Constitution for not creating a power able to deal in detail with the reality of “modern industrial organization, including banks, corporations, joint-stock companies, financial devices, national debts, paper currency, national systems of taxation…so that the play of the civil institutions shall not alter the play of the economic forces, [and thus accurately to regulate] the complication and delicacy of the industrial system.” Wilson wrote that competent government must be like “a foreman [who] take[s] a hand in the work which he guides; and so I suppose our legislation must be likened to a poor foreman, because it stands altogether apart from that work which it is set to see well done.” A competent government must also have full power “to remedy the mistakes of the legislation of the past.” In short, according to Wilson, a new constitution that reaches over citizen-voters and their elected representatives should transcend the Constitution of 1789. This new constitution should run the nation’s vital organs directly, with full power over details. Planted by Wilson, this Progressive dream continued to grow in the minds of America’s ruling class.”
Yikes.
Here’s the problem. There aren’t enough people in government willing to back government off. They are way too comfortable with the power structure, as long as they are on top. And as long as they can identify the stakeholders in the new government (for a fee of course). Here is Codevilla’s description of what a “stakeholder” is;
Stakeholders Are Artificial
WHAT EXACTLY IS A “STAKEHOLDER”? How does anyone qualify as a stakeholder?
What is the difference between a society organized on the basis of stakeholders rather than of citizens, families, localities, states?
Because the Constitution of 1789 (and its imitators) is based neither on socioeconomic classes nor on socioeconomic functions, it takes no position on the relative value of medicine, mining, banking, or farming, or of the individuals and corporations who perform these functions. Much less is our Constitution about arranging and rearranging functions, making some in any given field into winners and others into losers. That is because our Constitution and its imitators presuppose that government exists by the consent of the individuals who live under it, all of whom are “created equal.” By sharp contrast, stakeholders are not equal individuals, but rather unequal collective entities.
In the 19th century the word “stake,” which had meant a bet, also came to mean a share, a claim, or an interest. A 1975 British management textbook defines “stakeholders” as “the persons and groups having a direct stake in our organization: the owners, employees… customers, suppliers, financiers, managers, the area in which the organization is established, etc.” But as used currently in the U.S., the term is hardly distinguishable from “interest groups” or “corporations.” Hence “stakeholder primacy” is close to what one might call in economics “producer primacy” and is diametrically opposed to “consumer primacy.” Under the new constitution, privileged access to power defines any corporation’s socioeconomic functions, its status as a stakeholder, and constantly readjusts that status vis-à-vis other stakeholders. Government rightly arranges and rearranges each group’s roles and functions, deciding who and what are to be on top or below, because modern stakeholders, interests, or corporations have no natural or customary right to exist as they do.
Remember the comment from one of the big medical corporations? When asked why they were at the table with Obama, they said the following (and I paraphrase)- Either you are at the table for lunch or you are the lunch! Okay, I get that. Of course, they are now realizing, they were only putting off the inevitable. They may not have been lunch, but they sure as hell were dessert.
I cannot imagine the absolute orgasmic feeling of power Obama and his crew of young Turks must be feeling about now. They are in charge of the largest economy and the most powerful military power in the history of the world! And most of the members of that economy are at their feet asking for admittance to the new way of governing. Mussolini is rolling over in his grave with envy. When you see AARP, PHarma, GM, Chrysler, and a number of the banks and financial institutions scrambling for Obama’s attention, you now know why. It isn’t his intelligence, or his charm or his “vision.” It is all about survival. Those that a deemed “stakeholders” get access to money, favors and protection. Those who aren’t- well, like the hundreds of millions of people in America just trying to live their lives in peace and freedom- are screwed.
Codevilla goes into how historically this type of government also lends itself to a false religion. Gee, like we haven’t seen signs of that recently! People are willing to serve what takes care of them. If that is the state, then so be it. He also points out that the rest of government also falls in line, so if you are waiting for some huge ruling from the Supreme Court to save us, or Lindsey Graham to suddenly get a clue- forget it. Not happening, not at least in the last dozen or so attempts at this type of government. There is way too much power and privilege to go along with this type of governing for people like McCain, Graham, Snowe, Reid, Pelosi, Dodd or Frank to give it up.
As crazy as Glenn Beck can get, in this case he is right. The “progressive” movement has been working towards this goal for a hundred years, and they are winning.
Codeville references another writer’s opinion from the Nation magazine;
“Greider continued, “If the largest bank holding companies are given privileged proximity to the source of government protection, then everyone in finance and commerce will want to become a bank holding company, too. We are already seeing this happening as former investment houses like Goldman Sachs and non-bank financial firms decide to join the system. Why not General Electric and Microsoft? Where does this end? What does it mean for smaller enterprises that lack the scale and influence?” He concluded, “Government and politics would become even more responsive to big money, but also able to tamper intimately with private enterprise, picking winners and losers based on political loyalties, not on performance.”
Why should Greider or anyone else have expected that government, especially one made up of bankers and bank regulators, would not have plenty of money for them? Why should anyone expect that a government that has the United Auto Workers as a constituency, or that wants to harness the auto industry or the energy industry to its plans, would not pay to support and shape them according to its vision? Why should anyone expect that persons who watch government dispense privilege to its supporters and enablers would not want to pay the price to join their ranks? Why be surprised that the bigger the government, the bigger a friend it is to those connected with it, and the more indifferent to the unconnected? It would be just as unreasonable to expect water to flow uphill.”"
Codeville concludes that this is the new way. Even Republicans like William Kristol see government as agressive and influential, here is a part of their 1997 WSJ article;
“Thus in an influential 1997 Wall Street Journal article, prominent neoconservatives William Kristol and David Brooks regretted that so many Americans had chosen to elect Republicans who pledged to get government off their backs. “Wishing to be left alone is not a government doctrine,” they wrote. They argued for government that would lead America to “a grand destiny,” to “national greatness.” What would that look like? Candidly, Brooks explained elsewhere, “It almost doesn’t matter what task government sets for itself as long as it does some tangible thing with energy and effectiveness…. Energetic government is good for its own sake. It raises the sight of the individual. It strengthens common bonds. It boosts national pride. It continues the great national project.” Italians, Argentineans, Mexicans, and others are familiar with such pseudospiritual summonses to what the French intellectual bureaucrat Jean-Marie Guéhenno calls “religions without God.”"
This is madness. But it is the madness of kings, or those who want to be king. My kids are working through Ancient Civilizations in a homeschool class. We are just finishing an overview of Sumeria. In the class we learned that this kind of favoritism in exchange for power sharing isn’t new. As a matter of fact, this type of government is more likely to happen than to not happen. It is human nature to want to rule, and to want to be ruled. The American experiment created by our founding fathers was the revolution against a government of power, privilege and access. Of course, it isn’t taught that way anymore (not an accident) and the young people just don’t understand what they have lost.
Can we overcome it? As my friend said, “What you are telling me is there is no hope!” Yep, that’s about it. You tell me how you can convince those in power to voluntarily give it up. It is against human nature. I know one way, but that would be bloody, vengeful and I’m not sure would leave much of a functioning system behind. However, there is another trait that humans have- when cornered and given no other options- they will fight back. I’ll bet less than ten percent of the founding colonies actively participated in the Revolution and we still won.
That is a message people like Graham and McCain, Reid and Pelosi need to take to heart.