Public Service

15Oct/102

An Insufferable Elite

A contrast:

Anne Applebaum, writing in 2010:

In America, the end of the meritocracy will probably come about slowly: If working hard, climbing the education ladder and graduating from a good university only wins you opprobrium, then you might not bother. Or if you do bother, then you certainly won't go into politics, where your kind is no longer welcome. We will then have a different sort of elite in charge of the country -- and a different set of reasons to dislike them, too.

G.K. Chesterton, writing in 1905:

Everything in our age has, when carefully examined, this fundamentally undemocratic quality. In religion and morals we should admit, in the abstract, that the sins of the educated classes were as great as, or perhaps greater than, the sins of the poor and ignorant. But in practice the great difference between the mediaeval ethics and ours is that ours concentrate attention on the sins which are the sins of the ignorant, and practically deny that the sins which are the sins of the educated are sins at all. We are always talking about the sin of intemperate drinking, because it is quite obvious that the poor have it more than the rich. But we are always denying that there is any such thing as the sin of pride, because it would be quite obvious that the rich have it more than the poor. We are always ready to make a saint or prophet of the educated man who goes into cottages to give a little kindly advice to the uneducated. But the medieval idea of a saint or prophet was something quite different. The mediaeval saint or prophet was an uneducated man who walked into grand houses to give a little kindly advice to the educated. The old tyrants had enough insolence to despoil the poor, but they had not enough insolence to preach to them.

Perhaps if said "elite" weren't so preachy, they might be better liked. We certainly don't need further enticement to public positions for those who went to pricey colleges.

Here's another clue as to why our supposed superiors in intellect are disliked (again, from Chesterton):

With us the governing class is always saying to itself, "What laws shall we make?" In a purely democratic state it would be always saying, "What laws can we obey?" A purely democratic state perhaps there has never been. But even the feudal ages were in practice thus far democratic, that every feudal potentate knew that any laws which he made would in all probability return upon himself. His feathers might be cut off for breaking a sumptuary law. His head might be cut off for high treason. But the modern laws are almost always laws made to affect the governed class, but not the governing. We have public-house licensing laws, but not sumptuary laws. That is to say, we have laws against the festivity and hospitality of the poor, but no laws against the festivity and hospitality of the rich. We have laws against blasphemy—that is, against a kind of coarse and offensive speaking in which nobody but a rough and obscure man would be likely to indulge. But we have no laws against heresy—that is, against the intellectual poisoning of the whole people, in which only a prosperous and prominent man would be likely to be successful. The evil of aristocracy is not that it necessarily leads to the infliction of bad things or the suffering of sad ones; the evil of aristocracy is that it places everything in the hands of a class of people who can always inflict what they can never suffer.

Chesterton was talking of the aristocracy of England 100 years ago. What ever became of those people?

Anyway, perhaps I should give up writing my own words and keep quoting GKC. Because it doesn't seem that his points 100 years ago have at all changed in their applicability. And he writes so much better than I do.

Meep

Meep is a member of the Irish Catholic mafia, having a suspiciously high number of green-eyed, red-haired friends. While she doesn’t have red hair herself [except when she goes into the sun (rare for any vampire)], she does have green eyes. She’s a raving Papist and is a life actuary on the side [i.e., she counts dead people]. An amateur pain-in-the-ass [willing to go pro!], she likes covering retirement, mortality, math, and education issues.

Tagged as: chesterton, Public Servants, Public Service 2 Comments

4Sep/0917

On the 8th Day, The Bureaucracy Killed the Host

Yesterday I received this email from monster.com - I was immediately struck by how obnoxious it was to me.

The idea that civil servants are in all ways protected from the ebbs and flows of the economy - completely separated from the harsh realities of the marketplace - is a source of not just a little animosity by yours truly.

recession-proof

In terms of the massive make-work stimulus bill, Wisconsin for her part gets 2 years of additional teachers and 2 years of additional cops on the street paid for with federal tax dollars (subsequent years to be paid with state tax confiscations). It is not lost on me that the teachers union stands to gain. It is not lost on me that the police union stands to gain. But in what way do additional teachers and officers stimulate the economy? The short answer is that they don't. They neither create jobs or wealth. And in doing neither, the increasing numbers of both do nothing for the state and federal coffers - except of course decrease them.

The shovel-ready projects are also hand-outs to unions, whereby only union workers benefit. Sure there is arguably some stimulus that may occur in terms of bolstering those who feed at the government trough - materials come to mind. But here too, there is no real wealth created. No long-lasting investment being made whereby one could point to an actual return on investment.

The auto industry is said to have been bailed out. But let's be clear: the government put forth the notion that too many jobs were at risk to allow the manufacturers to fail. However, the only jobs that have been 'saved' are line jobs - union jobs. Professionals have lost their jobs. And with the retail auto dealership closings, retail professionals have also lost jobs. And continue to lose jobs as each dealership is closed.

Something is terribly wrong with the common presumption that any job is a good job. It is simply not the case. Some are worthy of existing - some are not. Some are attractive and some are not. But mostly this is not about jobs, per se. Rather, the Government's objectives are two-fold only: the Executive Branch is busy paying back the unions - at the literal expense of all of us. And the Executive Branch in collaboration with the Legislative is also involved in the fleecing of America, both for political payback and personal gain. Somewhere, lost to those who cling to the philosophy that Big Government can do little wrong is the fact that the Government does not create wealth. The Government creates nothing. And without creating wealth, the propping up of jobs for the sake of employing people only exacerbates the first problem: namely no wealth in the private sector - the only sector that actually creates anything - and the only sector which, ironically, contributes to the "common good" in many ways beyond, yet including, tax revenue from flagrant acts of creation... services, products, wealth, sales tax revenue, increasing living standards, options, competition, opportunity, etc.

And here is the rub: a government and its benefactors - the bureaucrats, affiliated unions, etc - can only flourish - not just survive - when it still represents a small portion of the workforce. There is a point at which the government's sheer size makes it unwieldy and exceedingly harmful to the host it is bleeding dry. And like a parasite, there is a fine line between living off of and killing the host. We have, in my estimation, surpassed that point some years ago. the only thing you can count on when it comes to bureaucracies is that they never, ever die. Even when the host is clamoring for breath, they cannot stop their impulse to grow ever bigger - always taking more - always feeding - never sleeping.

So back to the email from monster. It is obnoxious to me. It reminds me that in this nation, one is better served, fiscally-speaking, to feed at the trough - and not just when hungry, but as a matter of course. And not just to sustain oneself, but to gorge oneself... to fatten oneself without consideration of where the money comes from, who is creating it, who is going without.

It's enough to make an entrepreneur put away his hard work and pick up a postal route. Or become a union teacher. Or a union assembler. Or become a DMV bureaucrat. Or run a publicly funded day care. Because no one is tending the cash register. And the drinks are on the house. And you wouldn't believe the fringe benefits and job security you get for doing next to nothing. Creating nothing. Contributing nothing. Advancing nothing but the self. At the expense of your neighbor. Like a rabid raccoon that just won't f*cking die already.

It's enough to wonder what exactly I was thinking. Idiot me had visions of investing in myself, taking risks, creating wealth, employing people (creating opportunity for others in the form of jobs), contributing to the tax-base, improving the overall living standards in my neck of the woods - all while offering valuable and needed products and services. Living and dying on my ability to offer the best possible for the price the market would sustain.

Who knew I was just a glutton for punishment? My recommendation to my kids is to get a government job - one where you can't be fired - won't be expected to perform - one that provides luxurious bennies unheard of in the private sector. One with a path to retirement!

snuff-a-bureacrat2

Oh to dream of the customer care I could get away with not providing. And you can even complain while you do it - about stress, understaffing, the scum you have to 'serve,' etc. But no worries the gravy train always comes on time. No one working for the government has been known to go without a paycheck. Ever.