There is one paragraph in Holman Jenkins’s Wall Street Journal column in defense of Howard Schultz of which I think note should be be taken:
This is the part that never will be explained in a campaign speech or op-ed. Scandinavian citizens exhibit an off-the-charts willingness to pay the necessary taxes because they have an off-the-charts confidence in government to deliver services in an honest, equitable and efficient fashion.
The reason that the Swedes and the Norse have more trust in their governments is that their governments are more trustworthy than ours. I do not entirely know why that is but I know that it is true. I do not know if it is due to our greater individualism, their greater (until recently) homogeneity, our lack of social cohesion, our two party system, just plain perversity or all of the above but American politicians using their offices to become rich is commonplace and crosses party lines and ideologies. Bill Clinton never earned a salary greater than $30,000 in his life before he became president. Now he’s a multi-millionaire. Rahm Emanuel pushed his way into investment banking without training or experience using the Rolodex he’d acquired via his political activities as a lever and was paid millions. Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan has been cross-ruffing his law practice with his power over property taxes in Springfield, an obviously corrupt arrangement, more than 30 years. These are not exceptions. They are the rule.
It will take more than a government program to change that. It will take a sea change in American government and if you want to see why that will not happen just look at the present Congressional leadership.
Another country to consider that is closer to the U.S. is England.
The NHS has historically been the most trusted institution in the UK, almost akin to how the armed forces have been viewed in the United States. I think it is an historical artifact from WWII, which created broad social consensus, and the need to maintain national morale. A study advocating cradle-to-grave healthcare was published in 1942, widely read and widely supported. It was in essence “what we are fighting for” as opposed to simply fighting against the Axis. It was also built on the foundations of national healthcare services developed during the war to address bombing casualties.
The other aspect was it was rooted in religious views of charity when the UK was more religious. But without the war, its not clear that the NHS would exist, at least it wouldn’t exist in the form of strong centralization.
The U.S. didn’t fight the war this way and domestically didn’t face anywhere near the war-socialism of the UK.
There was also an enormous public relations campaign of a sort and style that would almost unquestionably be illegal in the United States. It continues right down to this day—the most popular TV drama series in the history of British TV, “Call the Midwife”, is at least in part an hour-long infomercial promoting British National Health.
That’s an insight I had not heard of PD. Thanks.
I think your references to Clinton, Emanuel, Madigan say it all, Dave. I remember Bill Clinton telling the nation “it was the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make” when he went back on his middle class tax stance. Who in their right mind believes government?
” Who in their right mind believes government?”
Look at what the banking sector did to the economy. So do we say who in their right mind believes the financial sector? Look at the Enron scam. Do we say who in their right mind believes the energy sector? Remember WorldCom? Who in their right mind believes telecoms? This list could go on forever so that we end up saying who in their right mind believes any private enterprise?
However, I hope that most of us are above such simplistic thinking. Probably best not to take government or private groups entirely at face value. Use whichever entity solves the problem at hand best. Remember that they arent all really crooks.
Steve
There are differences, steve. For example, banks, energy companies, and telecom companies cannot legally confiscate your property, imprison you, or take your life. The state can. That’s why we should be skeptical of the state.
And importantly, steve, as a certain D Schuler has pointed out many times, the remedies vis a vis private companies should reside in the courts. It is only their illicit grasp on your precious government that shields them. Obama bailed out his buddies at GM, and the banks. Wash out the equity in bankruptcy.
I know you operate in a subsidized industry, and find this difficult to grasp, but stop your simple minded thinking.
When the Olympics were in the UK, the NHS figured prominently in their opening ceremony – clearly it is a source of national pride.
Business interest absolutely can behave coercively. They can gas you, use water cannon on you, set dogs on you, have police and prosecutors prosecute you, hire mercenary corps to spy on you, and blow your limbs off with grenades. That’s no different than what a politician can do.
There is no separation between business and the state. They are one.
Businesses using force is a violation of the law. Failure to enforce the law is government abuse. Most of the examples you’ve given are from a century ago or nearly so. You should also balance your commentary with examples of violence by organized labor. There are thousands of examples and they’re not all false flags or trumped up as is sometimes claimed. There are hundreds of examples just from the Daily News strike.
I think that dragooning the government into your union disagreements is more an example of abusive government than of corporate abuse.
Respectfully, you are just not correct. There was massive corporate violence authorized and supported by state, local and federal authorities at the DAPL protests, where police and mercs brutalized the protestors, inflicting mass casualities. Wall Street firms coordinated the paramilitary crackdown of Occupy with the FBI and NYPD.
This is just one of many examples of private firms acting as agents of the state, and it has gotten much worse since. These paramilitary outfits are contractors throughly integrated into the Department of Homeland Defense and the intelligence agencies, precisely because it’s impossible to hold them accountable.
“There are differences, steve. For example, banks, energy companies, and telecom companies cannot legally confiscate your property, imprison you, or take your life.”
In the US this is not done arbitrarily and for personal gain. This is not Saudi Arabia. The government does have the power to do those things, but that is also true for the Scandinavians. Just having that power does not mean that you should have no trust in your government.
On the other hand, those companies I mentioned, and we all know there are tons more, cashed significant harm, often irreparable harm to hundreds, thousands and even millions of people. Those harms were caused explicitly to make sure that the wealthy, the donor class, profited. Enron wasn’t scamming people to make the clerk in the mail section richer.
Maybe the answer should lie in the courts. That would probably be a big comfort to families who lost their homes, ended up divorced and never got a good job again once the case is finally settled 5-10 years later, maybe more. As part of the industry that takes its money up front, I guess you wouldn’t be too concerned about the long term problems caused by the (so many) crooks in private enterprise. And the government shields those crooks? I am sure that happens, but it is the wealthy crooks who are paying off government to make that happens. No crooks, no incredibly wealthy crooks, and that doesn’t happen. Besides, the corporations mostly just need to hire expensive lawyers. That is pretty much all they need to make sure they walk away, and walk away still wealthy. Pretty rare to see any corporate crook go to jail or end up poor.
Steve
The key point here is that there are millions of companies, maybe tens of millions, that are extremely honest. They don’t even file their taxes late. I seriously doubt that there is any governmental entity that is not corrupt. Maybe a few local school councils somewhere are free of corruption. The question is not whether they are corrupt or not but when does the level of corruption become objectionable?
There are any number of good reasons for it. One of them is that the laws and rules are so thick and dense that government departments inevitably break some of them in the interests of getting anything done. Another is that government is a good place for people who aren’t interested in working for a living and there is an unending supply of those. It only takes one in an organization.
I think that size is the enemy. Big companies, big unions, and big government all have serious problems.