I'm not a big fan of the voter as customer metaphor but if you are, here's an interview with the author of a book titled, The Price of Government: Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis.
The quote from the title of this post is his and he seeks to give lessons from the retail world to government officials.
On one of the campaigns I worked for, the candidate made what I thought was a very convincing argument that when we treat voters like customers, or more accurately, consumers, we end up ignoring that citizenship and being a part of a commonwealth or city requires some sacrifice on our part for the common good. That's not to say that the sacrifice should come in the form of sacrificing our expectations for the efficient, predictable, courteous and consistent delivery of basic city services. The sacrifice comes from paying your taxes knowing that not every cent is going to benefit you directly.
He went on to say that when we treat citizens as consumers, they treat their elected officials like salesmen, voting out any of them who even consider raising a tax. Of course, this has more to do with federal tax policies than local tax policies. But we don't call the occupant of room 215, the CEO of Philadelphia, we call him (or someday her), the Mayor. There's a lot more to that than just managing the dollars and cents.
Comments (4)
Government is clearly one of the fields a businessperson can go into where he or she can get away with not giving the "customer" its moneysworth yet remain in business, simply due to the fact that the customer cannot stop catering government the same way he or she can choose not to buy at Wal*Mart anymore or what have you. And this becomes even more the case when elections are rigged, which probably is true of most if not all elections held in the U.S. today. And since government is the ultimate regulator of all business, I believe you start to get the picture.
Fortunately, things are not to the point where consumers have completely lost all power to boycott businesses they don't like. But thanks to the way government has become, there are a lot of businesses now that we're pretty much forced to cater without any choice, cases where it's that or nothing. And where, if we do boycott them, all negative consequence is on us.
There are instances where no government at all is better than having one, and this is clearly one of those times. Laissez faire economies have often been criticized, and rightfully so, for their ofttimes austerity. But far worse than laissez faire is an economy headed up by a government that regulates all wrongly, that isn't there when it needs to be, but is when it's inappropriate. In brief, the current economic state is one where incompetents look out for fellow incompetents, where ruinization has become the only pathway to profitability. And at the top of this mess is government itself. And we can hardly boycott our incompetent government by legal means if elections are rigged. This whole thing about if you don't like this or that politician vote them out has pretty much worn completely bare. But like rats on a treadmill, Philadelphians go along with that belief as if it's true nevertheless.
And where will it all end? Shy of a revolution, most assuredly with a massive crash rather than any sort of gentle landing.
People say, it hasn't happened yet and this has been going on a long time now. Look at how long ago it was, for instance, that the Philadelphia Inquirer's Art Carey came out with his book, "The United States of Incompetence." To which I say, yes, but that which is falling is here at this moment, and that which it's falling towards is here, and though the two points are now much closer to one another from when Carey's book came out (1987 I believe?), the "yet" is still to come. And you can see it coming....though our current incompetent government obviously can't.
Posted by Steve W. | June 11, 2007 1:57 AM
Unregulated LF economics lead to not so soft landings like the great depression. There is a reason why the Supreme Court started permitting federal economic regulation starting in the 1930's.
Posted by Kevin F | June 11, 2007 1:31 PM
Thank you Kevin F. for pointing that out, although in this case the "not so soft landing" up ahead will make the Great Depression look like a Sunday picnic. In hindsight, as we now look back to the Great Depression era of the '30s nearly all the hardship that was experienced back then was simply due to a widespread lack of knowledge. For in those years America's resources were abundant and its population was far lower than it is today. It was just a matter of synchronizing the two better. Today we're looking at an almost complete reversal of that. That is, those of us who are actually taking the time to look. To be sure, better synchronization is being called for once again, but even small efforts at introducing this are being blocked. Such as ideas that could be incorporated right here in Philadelphia. At present, in contrast to the nation over all, our city's population is considerably lower from what it once had been. And we do have some excellent resources that could be made use of very wisely. But the political agenda appears to be to boost our city's population once more, and to make use of those resources we have all the wrong way, this grand illusion that THAT is the right answer.
For instance, bringing two giant casinos to Philadelphia being a smart thing to do? WRONG! Allowing Northeast Philadelphia's Fox Chase Cancer Center to expand at its current location in whatever way it "best sees fit" a smart thing to do? WRONG! Gentrifying/yuppifying our city's previously industrialized areas a smart thing to do? WRONG! I mean, the list just goes on and on. Resource mismanagement that appears to work in the short term being the "right solution" for the long, that's the current political agenda, and in terms of the mayoral race whether we're talking Nutter of Taubenberger.
Posted by Steve W. | June 12, 2007 3:10 AM
And how does that mean? I do not understand anything.
Posted by Paige | September 25, 2011 3:39 AM