Years ago, Ronald Reagan
warned us that over-sized government was a serious problem. The evidence that he was correct keeps
pouring in. The VA scandal is just the
latest example of how organizational gigantism can injure people.
Liberal Democrats, with
Barack Obama in the lead, keep telling us they must protect us from ourselves. They assure us that their programs are
intended to promote social justice and rational planning. Be this in energy or health, they argue that
they know best.
Then something like the
Veteran’s Administration cover-up of incompetent scheduling comes to light and
we learn—as we should have known all along—that bloated bureaucracies have a
way of getting things wrong. Especially
when part of the government, and therefore not subject to marketplace
discipline, they often go rogue.
At moments such as this, the
president’s apologists explain that the executive structure is simply too large
for anyone to administer effectively.
The president is, after all, just one man and he can’t be
everywhere. Nor can he know everything;
hence he must depend upon his subordinates.
But who are his
subordinates? Jack Kennedy depended upon
advisors that were regarded as “the best and the brightest.” FDR, of course, had his “brain trust.” And what does Obama have? A kiddy-corps! And a crony corps!
Let us start with Harry Reid
and Nancy Pelosi. They are not part of
his administration, but they have been delegated essential tasks such as writing
the stimulus legislation and designing ObamaCare. Thus, in many ways they are as responsible as
anyone for the recent additions to the Washington mess.
Question: Does anyone trust Harry or Nancy? Does anyone regard them as mental
giants? Who believes that they are incorruptible
public servants that deserve to be in charge of setting our communal agenda?
Remember Nancy told us that
we had to pass the ObamaCare legislation in order to find out what was in
it. This was not only an example of
abdicating legislative responsibility, but of engaging in a crapshoot with the
health of the nation. Some leadership
here!
As for Harry, when he is not
accusing the Koch brothers of global warming or asserting that Mitt Romney did
not pay his taxes, he is seeking a constitutional amendment to overturn the
Bill of Rights or staging an attack on senate procedure via the nuclear option. More brilliant leadership!
What about the executive
branch itself? Does anyone believe that
Jay Carney is an honest and penetrating analyst of administrative policy? Or is he more like Art Carney; that is, a
sideman in a comedy routine? Reporters
are tolerant of his badinage, but does he really deserve to be the voice of the
United States?
And what about those other
voices, such as the spokespersons for the State Department? Jen Psaki obviously has the experience and
gravitas to represent our country to the rest of the world.
And how about Obama’s
advisors? Tommy Veitor was a wonderful
example of their maturity with his, “Dude, that was two tears ago,” explanation
of the Benghazi cover-up. He gave us
confidence the nation is in good hands.
As for the political advise
Obama gets, which frequently seems decisive, David Plouffe and Daniel Pieffer
constantly impress with their deep thinking.
They may have the president’s interests at heart, yet do they have the
nation’s?
This list could be extended
indefinitely, but it gives an idea of what can happen when the management of an
already bloated government is delegated to a band of incompetents. When a gang of venal ideologues, supplemented
by juvenile ciphers, takes charge, we get the mess we are currently enduring.
This puts the lie to the
entire Liberal agenda, which asserts that centralizing decisions in Washington
promotes rationality. The truth is the
opposite. The larger the government
gets, the more unmanageable it becomes—a problem that is exacerbated when those
who naively think they know best take the helm.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment