The Socialization of America

I am fascinated by the perspective of many of my more conservative peers on the "bailouts" of Wall Street and others as "stealing money from other constructive governmental uses", and those of the more liberal that these are not bailouts but "our duty". The sad irony is, it is neither the governments responsibility or duty to bail out a failing industry, and it is most definitely not their role to borrow from the treasury to do so. My generation, who spoke out (and protested) in the '60s for individual freedom, reduction (or elimination) of the government, and self actualization are now clamoring (on both sides of the issue) for the same government to save us, against whom we railed as young men and women.

The other prevailing perspective that quite honestly baffles me is that socialism is the new threat from the left. The conservatives bemoan the socialist beliefs of PEBO (President Elect Barack Obama), and how he will drive our country into the socialist quagmire that has proven a failure in every other attempt throughout history. While this may be quite true, they should study history a bit closer before blaming the socializing of America solely on PEBO. While you find some socialist ideas in nearly every presidents policies and initiatives since the middle of the 20th century (obviously much more so on the democrat side), you have to go back to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing attempts at economic recovery to find the true root cause.

Most historians and economists attribute the "socializing" of America to FDR. His "New Deal" instituted many government funded (or should I say working people funded) work programs, and led our country boldly into a financial abyss flags waving. The New Deal represented a significant shift in political and domestic policy in the U.S., with its more lasting changes being increased federal government control over the economy and money supply, intervention to control prices and agricultural production. This was the beginning of complex social programs and wider acceptance of trade unions. The effects of the New Deal still remain a source of controversy and debate among economists and historians to this day. For all accounts, these programs were a disastrous failure, and would have led us into fiscal insolvency had it not been for an unlikely savior : Hitler. I know, WWII historians will say that Japan drug us into the war by attacking Pearl Harbor, but if you examine world affairs of the time, Hitler had given FDR more than enough reason to enter the war in the Atlantic by that time by sinking many liberty ships destined for Great Britain, but the American public opinion at the time was still very isolationist, this now gave him an attack on our soil, and the people supported joining the war.

A subtle but significant point was the wider acceptance of trade unions. Probably the two most detrimental influences on our society and economy of the past century have been the United Auto Workers and the Teachers Unions. Because of the very nature of the mechanics of collective bargaining, over time it transfers control from the employer to the employed, or more accurately to the union who controls the employed. In the case of the UAW, every 4 years the contracts must be re-negotiated, and for every change that the employer seeks, the union makes sure they get something in return. This has led over time to the unions ability to prevent the US auto makers from closing older inefficient plants, implementing automation to reduce costs and remain competitive, and reducing staff levels when demand diminished. Their non-union competitors were not held hostage to these agreements, and now enjoy a significant competitive advantage in the market place. The distinction between union activity and racketeering is so difficult that legislation had to be passed to exempt unions from prosecution under racketeering laws. The overall impact is largely economic, and can be compared to a parasite that eventually draws so much of the blood of it's host, that it dies with the host it kills.

The case of the Teachers Unions is an exact parallel to the UAW, but with far more devastating consequences. While the UAW transferred control from a corporation, with a negative impact to our economy, Teachers Unions have wrested control from society itself. Our educators, like our politicians, are not compensated based on performance. Once a teacher is tenured, they must commit the most heinous acts to be removed (of course, in the case of politicians, even that seems insufficient for dismissal). Privatization of the educational systems seems to be a good idea. Pay and promote based on performance, not based on the number of days one has been receiving a paycheck. Teachers in our public schools should be managed like college and professional football coaches. After all, they educate and lead, and the product of their labor is how well their students compete in the workplace and society. Unfortunately, our teachers are not held to the standards of our coaches, the end of season sacking of those who didn't perform is a good example.

But unlike the UAW, the problem with this parasite is the host that it will eventually kill is society itself.