Sunday, December 20, 2009

Sheep, Wolves and Would-be Shepherds

The title is not original. I've taken it from political pundit Michael Barone. His theme is one that I have thought about often through the years. It's basic thrust is that most people are stupid, or at least unable to manage their own affairs, and thus are like sheep. Wolves prey on sheep, wolves being greedy landowners, rapacious robber barons, sharp bankers, unethical industrialists and others who profit from the weakness of sheep. For them protection from the predation of wolves come from those bright and good souls who appoint themselves "shepherds" and who take the measures necessary to keep the wolves in check.

At the turn of the 20th century Theodore Roosevelt and his progressive allies assumed this role and were instrumental in the passage of legislation that reined in unethical financiers, industrialists and their ilk and provided protection to the general population. During Franklin Roosevelt's presidency he could still speak of the mass of Americans who were ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed (and who could thus be classified as sheep to be protected by New Deal shepherds.

Barone's point made recently is that things have changed. The great strides in education and material wealth have made it increasingly difficult in today's America to separate sheep from wolves, the latter being people with the means and talent to manage their own affairs. Thus the whole question of a need for "shepherds" arises.

Nevertheless there is stil a school of thought, most often held by the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party, that bright and well educated people - usually them - have an obligation through government to manage the affairs of the many who may be assumed not to have the talent to handle their own affairs competently. In a word, they must be protected from themselves by people of good intentions and high intellect who understand their needs. A manifestation of this attitude was the Democrats reaction to George W. Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security. It was shock! Tey all knew that if you allowed ordinary citizens access to their retirement savings they would gamble them away on slot machines or be gulled into bad investments, winding up at retirement age with few funds. Only government in the form of the Social Security Administration stands between them and ruin.

There is some truth to this concept as, unfortunately, there is a significant number of citizens who do lack competence in managing their affairs, but the concept also embodies arrogance and condescension on the part of the self-appointed guardians. It's a very old attitude. We shouldn't forget either that the United States was created not as a democracy but as a republic, with the vote restricted to white male property owners over the age of 25.

I'm not an expert on Plato but I recall something he postulated abouth the best form of government being that of rule by a "Philosopher-King" aided by a group of advisors representative of the middle class. Perhaps in technologically simpler times one could conceive of a single individual knowing most of what was known at the time, but even so it was a dubious proposition. This model, which I call the "Platonic Myth", lived on in the structure of the Roman Empire: an all powerful emperor, advised by a Senate of the worthy and wealthywith an occasional call on the "plebes". A few centuries later this became the Pope, a College of Cardinals and senior clergy, the bishops. Always top down authority imbuing the attitude that the mass below can't be trusted to think for itself, for example by reading the bible. This is the model not only for the Catholic Church but of most Latin American elites. Governments tend to be top down and possessed of the illusion that they can regulate everything. Democracy has had a hard time gaining a foothold and at best can be said to exist truly in only a few of the Latin American nations.

Woud-be shepherds are alive and well in the US today. Rules and regulations governing how we live grow apace. We have the "Nanny State". And now there are dozen of well intentioned if deluded members of Congress who are convinced they have the wisdom and capacity to oversee our complex health system and to reform our environment. Always with legislation hundred of pages in length, incomprehensible complexity and entailing a host of unintended consequences. But never fear, your friendly governmet bureaucrat will save the day!

I do fear and I do not trust the ability of the US Congress to run anything very well, least of all my life.


















thisd

No comments: