There is a common conceit out there that business people are in possession of some kind of skill set that makes them uniquely suited to occupy congressional and executive seats in government. While business folk have organizational experience in general, it is hard to reconcile why the citizens of the USA would want the autocratic style of business lorded over them. Business serves the interest of shareholders primarily and stakeholders a distant second. Government serves at the interest and pleasure of citizens.
The imperative of business is to grow for the profit of the shareholders. Given this basic reality, I fail to see why a businesslike template should be applied to governance. We do not want government to grow for it’s own sake.
Business, in principle at least, has better command and control feedback. Or so goes the thinking. Have you ever tried to get an answer or some kind of satisfactory resolution to a problem from a very large company? As an individual with average cash resources, your singular pull is usually not very large. If we are going to let market forces have control of national and state governance in the manner conceived by hard-right political candidates, what of the individual?
The marketplace is a kind of 24/7 professional wrestling match. It is a Darwinistic contest of the strong vs the weak. Do we really want to be governed by this kind of system? Do we really want every single aspect of our lives to be a dog-eat-dog competition? I thought the purpose of civilization was to buffer some the harshness out of our lives. Do the proponents of 100 % laissez-faire really want the system to snuff out the weak and those of lesser means? That would be those who occupy the opposite side of the bell curve from those of means.
The notion that we should let market forces freely influence governance is popular among those of means. The privatization of government services will immediately benefit those who are already flush with resources. Because only those with current resources will be able to step into such a position. It would represent a transfer of power to those who already hold commercial power. Power is in the ability to allocate resources.
Why low and medium income republicans favor privatization of government services is a complete mystery. The loss of control over the influences in their lives to unrestrained market forces is contrary to the common self-perception of rugged individualism. Money and power tend to accumulate into the hands of a few. Examples are all over the place. This is the lesson from the age of monarchy and of robber barons.
Privatization in and of itself is not the answer. It is just another type of concentration of power that favors corporations and individuals who already have the resources to buy a seat at the table. Why would citizens of ordinary means want this?
Well, they wouldn’t want this ordinarily. But if you create a stampede of frightened citizens, it is possible for a small group of highly motivated demagogues to steer a frightened herd in whatever direction they want. This is precisely what is happening today. The overthrow of the prevalent system by such means has many examples on history. Just look around. The manufacture of consent is a thriving business.