Generals are notorious for
fighting the last war. They go into
battle assuming that they are pitted against an enemy just like the last one
and therefore that they must employ the same weapons and tactics as before. Only bitter experience forces them to alter
their plans.
I am not talking about the
war against ISIS or Radical Islam. While
we have been slow to adjust to their challenge, I am referring to a domestic
problem. The warriors looking backwards
nowadays are the Liberal/Progressives.
Over a hundred years ago,
the Progressives took aim at the abuses of laissez-faire capitalism. With the acceleration of the Industrial
Revolution, trusts were then growing at an alarming rate. These precursors to the modern corporation
had unexpectedly consolidated into monopolistic giants.
Thus, John D. Rockefeller
towered over the oil industry. For years,
he had been forcing his smaller competitors out of business. If this entailed underselling them or compelling
railroads to charge them higher rates, he did what was necessary. This included bribing politicians to protect
his interests.
Yet Rockefeller was not a
bad man. He was a power hungry person
who was determined to consolidate his success so that he would never have to
re-experience the insecurities of his youth.
In fact, his quest for efficiency reduced the price Americans spent on
kerosene.
Meanwhile J.P. Morgan
towered over the finance industry. Never
as wealthy as Rockefeller, his preeminence as a banker bestowed enormous power. Determined to rationalize commerce, he
brought steel companies together under the aegis of U.S. Steel—and soon tried
to do the same for railroads.
Morgan too was not a bad
man. It simply made no sense to him that
railroads should waste money building parallel tracks. If there was only one line, it could obviously
charge less. He also, virtually
singlehandedly, prevented two financial panics—because this too was good for
business.
The problem with the robber
barons was not that they were thieves. The
problem was that they could have been had they been less scrupulous. Their empires were so vast that no competitor
could challenge them—no matter how vile their behavior.
As a result, the
Progressives sought to use government as a counterweight. Only it had the power to break up these
monopolies. When backed by the demands
of an outraged public, it could reduce corruption and bring the tycoons to
heal.
Today the problem is big
government. Over the last hundred years,
its scope has so increased that its functionaries have their fingers in
everyone’s business. There is scarcely a
corner of life that escapes its oversight and regulation.
Big government, however, is
dominated, not by tycoons, but bureaucrats.
Not single individuals, but battalions of faceless officials, now exercise
unrestrained power. These too are not
bad people, yet collectively they are as arrogant as any capitalist mogul. They too have the power to ride roughshod
over opposition.
This then is today’s
battle. While big business still needs
to be regulated, so does big government.
Where once the muckrakers mobilized public opinion to reign in
overzealous corporations, ordinary Americans must now be mobilized to demand
that the federal government be curbed.
We do not have to rid ourselves
of big government any more than we had to rid ourselves of big business. The issue is control, not elimination. We must thus reduce its excesses, rather than
agitate for chaos. We still, for
instance, need a government-sponsored safety net.
But we do not need an iron
cage built by the government any more than we needed one built by Rockefeller
or Morgan. An unfettered marketplace
provided an invitation for abuse. So
does an unfettered government.
The current political wars
should therefore not be between Progressives and Nineteenth century
conservatives. It should be between
ordinary Americans who hope to retain control over their lives and Bureaucrats who
are as overbearing as any tin pot dictator.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment