by Roger Prather, Massachusetts Tenth Amendment Center
I have many fond memories of time spent with my grandfather. Some of the earliest are of me watching him watch professional wrestling. My grandfather’s one vice was professional wrestling, and boy did he get into it. He would laugh and slap his knee when the bad guys got slapped around by the good guys. He expressed suspicious optimism when a villain switched sides, and “knew it all along†when a good guy made an alliance with the bad. Today, I can only laugh at professional wrestling: choreographed combat, outrageous speeches, and staged news conferences. It’s really a brilliant form of entertainment, playing on the emotions of fans by exploiting their desire to identify with someone they see as good, while opposing someone they view as bad. In the ring, heroes and villains pretend (convincingly) to dislike one another and everything they’re about, but in reality, after the match is over, they’re slapping each other on the back and sharing a beer. But in public, significant effort is exerted in preserving the illusion – good guys share a locker room apart from the bad guys, but ride to the arena on the same tour bus.
Observing our two party system in the United States, it strikes me that it’s much like professional wrestling – choreographed combat. Most political observers can quickly identify the fringe members of each party, those who could potentially go either way – the players who, with the safety of reelection passed, switch parties to an outcry of “I knew it all along!†And what about the bipartisan alliances, when we hope our good guy is positively influencing the bad guy, but fear the consequences of the alliance. And when our party of choice soundly defeats the opposition, we hoot and holler, confident that, finally, our guys get the spotlight for a while. And certainly we know that it’s only for a while, because it’s all really just a choreographed show, exploiting our desire to identify with something. And at the end of it all, they’re sharing the same tour bus.
I recently re-read some of the writings of John Stuart Mill. In his Chapters on Socialism, published in 1879, he discussed the emerging philosophies of socialism and communism, reporting, rather than editorializing, about the debate between competing political ideologies. As I read Chapters, I felt as though I was listening to a modern day discussion that still rages on between American liberals and conservatives. Owners v. Workers. Capital v. Labor. Have v. Have-not. As I thought about what I was reading, it struck me that this debate has been going on for over 100 years, but with plenty of evidence on either side. Through the Twentieth Century, free(er) markets have outperformed and outlasted centrally planned socialist economies. From the complete failures of Soviet and Chinese systems, to the emerging failures in Western Europe, it seems clear that a centrally planned economy based on the absolute redistribution of wealth will fail. And, to the extent that a mixed economy like those of Germany, France, Greece, and Great Britain is able to fumble along for some time, the buck must stop somewhere, usually on a steep cliff overlooking complete economic and political collapse.
Even in the United States, a mixed economy for sure, but still the freest market in the world, we’re faced with serious consequences resulting from our own attempts at central planning and wealth redistribution. So why are we still having this debate? Why does the middle class, the largest piece of the electorate, vacillate between conservatism and liberalism? The answer lies, perhaps, in our professional wrestling analogy.
Political and economic writers throughout history have recognized that any government, once in power, will tend to grow in power and authority until it is replaced or placed in check. Human nature, as recognized by Thomas Hobbes, tends to seek power, authority, and recognition. Once gained, power will increase through the ambition and self-interest of those in power. This realization is why the Revolutionary generation founded the United States (and every member state) with a written constitution – with hope (rather than true belief) that a written constitution could better limit the inevitable tendency in government to increase its own power and control. This constitution was written with the Lockean philosophy that the only legitimate function of government was to protect individual liberty from encroachment. Unfortunately for Locke’s ideal, government itself, as a human institution, will also be driven by ambition and self-interest leading it to itself encroach upon the very liberty it was designed to protect.
In the United States today, few have experienced life in a tyrannical, totalitarian, or violently anarchical state. For over two hundred years we have held peaceful elections, enjoyed relative economic stability and growth, and sat as the most influential military and economic power in the world. Under such conditions, it is difficult (impossible for some) to even imagine how liberty could die in America. But it can die, and with each passing decade through the Twentieth Century until today, the federal government has grown in size, scope and power with a corresponding decrease in the real and potential liberty of American citizens. Those who disagree with this assertion, believing that the size of government bears no relation to liberty, are simply wrong, for every power that government can exercise over an individual is consequently a power that the individual cannot exercise over himself. And the power to govern oneself is liberty.
That government, as an institution, acts self-interestedly by increasing in power, size, and influence presents a more accurate view of the class warfare discussed in Mill’s Chapters on Socialism. Our debates in politics often revolve around convincing the middle class electorate of who their enemies in society are. Democrats would have the middle and lower classes believe that their enemy is the capitalist and the wealthy who build their wealth and power through the labor and ingenuity of the middle class – thus, socialist and liberal policy promises to level the playing field and make sure that everyone gets what’s due to them through egalitarianism and wealth redistribution. Republicans would have the upper and middle classes believe that their enemy is the poor who take advantage of socialist, liberal, and Democrat policies that favor wealth redistribution and unfairly tax the labor and ingenuity of the middle class. While there’s a kernel of truth in the argument of each side, the reality is that these aren’t two polar opposites vying for votes – it’s more along the line of choreographed political theater that plays on the emotions of American voters.
A more accurate view of class warfare is to see American society in two segments: a governing class and everyone else. The governing class consists not just of politicians, but a massive federal bureaucracy that in self-interest seeks to grow in size, power, and influence. Regardless of individual political affiliations, the people who make up the government class, out of their own self interest, will stop at nothing to maintain the existence from which they derive income, lifestyle, and influence. Democrats present voters with a shadowy bogeyman portrayed as the insidious rich man who gets richer off the back of the middle class while Republicans present their own bogeyman in the person of the welfare recipient and his socialist paymaster who taxes the working to pay the lazy. In actuality it’s more like the heroes and villains of professional wrestling, who play their part in the big show put on for those watching. For the wrestlers, it’s to hide the fact that they’re all just paid actors who follow the script. For the government, it’s to control the debate and keep voters fighting about symptoms rather than focusing on the real problem – that there is a government class, producing nothing of social or economic value, that subsists on the taxes taken from the upper, middle, and lower classes, that can contribute social and economic value.
Get the New Book Today!
By controlling the debate, this government class keeps voters focused on the results of bad government instead of the cause of bad government. In the midterm election, Republicans convinced voters that they were the new good guys – the Democrats had their chance. Two years into a Democrat administration was long enough to know that they couldn’t solve the ills of society. Strangely, voters apparently forgot that Republicans were bad guys just two years ago when Barack Obama convinced them that hope, belief, and warm, fuzzy feelings could change America for the better. So, we replaced the Republican that believed government could solve all problems with the Democrat who believes government can solve all problems.
In professional wrestling, if the good guys won all the time, nobody would stay interested. When the bad guys get a little bit ahead, it creates dramatic suspense by anticipating the good-guy comeback that everyone knows is coming. Regardless of how one views Republicans and Democrats, as either good or bad, when the other party wins, the suspense in anticipation of revenge keeps the audience interested, and distracted.
Government is the problem. Actually, the problem is that nobody realizes that government is the problem because they’re too focused on the problems created by government.
Voting for candidates from the two major parties will never solve the problem. As members of the governing class, they will only act in their own self-interest, which is to preserve the government class by convincing voters that somehow government can clean up the problems of government. But government can’t solve the problems created by government, because I can’t recall one government that ever voted itself out of existence.
Roger Prather [send him email] is the Communications Coordinator for the Massachusetts Tenth Amendment Center
Fantastic analogy, Roger!
Great Article. Significant elements of the grassroots are enamored with the attention, invited "into the tent" by the Rs, and being diverted due to the false comfort? What is the solution to address this basic human nature? ?
"Government is the problem. Actually, the problem is that nobody realizes that government is the problem because they’re too focused on the problems created by government."
This statement says it all and should take a place of honor with other classic quotes on government.
Good article, Roger. I want to comment on a few things in it. (Your statements in quotes).
"it seems clear that a centrally planned economy based on the absolute redistribution of wealth will fail."
Yes, but they do not fail because redistribution cause the working class to enjoy too much at the expense of the rich. They fail because the wealth becomes too concentrated. Actually, if you look back in history, every form of government of every kind fell apart because wealth became too concentrated such that peasants could no longer live reasonably. Consider that if the massive majority of citizens are content, there is nothing to fall apart. People are most fascinated with using the Soviet Union's "communism" to claim that wealth-redistribution fails. A close look at the Soviet System will show you that it was not "communism" at all. Wealth was concentrated in the USSR, and there was not enough to be shared among the working class. That was the failure of the USSR. Always remember, the inside threat to every form of government lies in the manner in which wealth is distributed among its populous. There are no exceptions. Always follow the money. Money, its protection and its distribution are the ONLY reasons governments exist.
"This realization is why the Revolutionary generation founded the United States (and every member state) with a written constitution – with hope (rather than true belief) that a written constitution could better limit the inevitable tendency in government to increase its own power and control."
This is correct, but the focus should not be on "government," per se. This tends to make people think of "government" as something disassociated from aristocrats. Our country was founded to dismember the then-existing aristocracy. Only through civil war against Britain could our then-working class hope to gain some of the wealth that was beyond the ordinary man's reach. This is why, for example, titles of nobility were outlawed and the rule of primogeniture was modified to require equal inheritance by descendants of equal order. This is also why we did away with monarchy and resorted to an elections process. The list goes on and on, and every bit of that grand scheme was to place a check on aristocracy. This is because history proves, without a single exception, aristocracies control governments to maximize their wealth. "Government" is really nothing more than the turf over which those at the top battle to control the flow of wealth which can easily be extracted from the working class by simple rule-writing. Look how easy it was for the fed to dole out $3.3 trillion to those at the top. Did you ever get a check from the fed?
"…that there is a government class, producing nothing of social or economic value, that subsists on the taxes taken from the upper, middle, and lower classes, that can contribute social and economic value."
The government is a body of aristocrats. The executives, representatives and bureaucrats are their minions. Government produces enormous value. How else do we see the increasing concentration of wealth occurring? $3.3 trillion to the inner-circle is quite noteworthy. Not to mention all the other rules and regulations that form the architecture for the flow of wealth into the hands of those who control the rule-making. If I am an aristocrat in America, I would be quite content that my government is very, very effective. I am getting richer and richer, faster and faster.
"That government, as an institution, acts self-interestedly by increasing in power, size, and influence…"
Yes. That is the wealthy whom you are calling "government." The wealthy do in fact act in their self-interest to write rules and laws in order to increase their power, size and influence. So, yes, the distribution of wealth IS very important, and it IS working in the U.S. AGAINST the working class. I say that it is working AGAINST the working class because the wealth and income gap is rising. This recession is not about rich people and what happened to them. It is about the working class. It takes money to buy things, and if people do not have money, they cannot buy things. When they do not buy things, the economy slows and people lose jobs. The ONLY way to get the economy moving again is to either re-shuffle the wealth/income so that people have money, or to start lending to people despite their inability to repay. We just finished the latter, and we are in the aftermath of that. So the question is, will we try another lending episode to prop-up demand and grow the economy, or will we stagnate?
J M – You are absolutely right. It is all about the money. It's embarassing to mention, but I had no idea until this year (and I've been around for 30 odd years), that the Fed is for the most part, a private company, and that every dollar made is actually a debt several times over. Big thanks to "Money as Debt" and "The Money Masters", both of which can be viewed for free on freedocumentaries dot com for giving me a starting point for research.
Between that revelation and actually reading the Constitution, my view on everything political has changed.
I find it hard not to talk about it all now and hard not to share what I'm learning. It's been nothing short of amazing how many people are actually concerned and afraid to talk to each other at the same time.
Yes, as to your last statement, you are right. The big problem in this area of concern is that this idea that we are a "free" country leads people to believe that wealth concentration results from freedom. Thus, they think that a better wealth distribution can only be the result of "communism," and none of us want that.
In the days of the monarch, it was obvious that "rights" were whatever the monarch declared. Thus, he laid the rules for preserving his monarchy. Obviously, he couldn't execute his entire political sphere by himself, and so he dubbed people to do his bidding by declaring them nobles.
Today, we think we are "free" because there is no monarchy. However, we do have an oligarchy. Essentially, the oligarchy competes with each other. They are not "friends" in the game together, and there is no conspiracy. Their competition with each other is real. That's why they use their money to vie for power by way of using our representatives, executives and bureaucrats to write their policies and make them laws.
Think of the top 0.1% as several monarchs hiring tax collectors and law-makers. That's our modern-day system of "checks and balances." It doesn't "check" or "balance" much of anything, except for preventing the ability of any one of these 0.1% to become a monarch. This is good, but it is far, far from our ideal as a government that serves "the people."
Michael Boldin please do something about the comments, they are difficult to read due to the light gray color. Thanks, keep up the good work.