Vol. 2 No. 1 (May 2003)

Uncommon Denominator

The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute

http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/

“No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. . . . War does not always give over democratic communities to military government, but it must invariably and immeasurably increase the power of civil government; it must almost compulsorily concentrate the direction of all men and the management of all things in the hands of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism by sudden violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits.”

– Alexis de Tocqueville

–

TALKING POINTS

The most important, yet least understood, polysyllabic word in American politics nowadays is probably “privatization.” Important, because there is so much at stake in the various policy debates it touches on. Least understood, because it’s one of those long polysyllabic words that seems to slide by almost without notice. It ought, however, to be put in big blinking lights.

The political initiative at the moment lies with the conservatives, who, generally speaking, advocate shifting a variety of civic functions away from government to the private sector, or at least reducing government involvement in these functions. The list includes some of the most important issues of the day: education, prisons, social security, land use. Listen to some of the more committed privatizers, and you begin to wonder whether they think there should even be a government.

But of course they do think there should be a government, and have proven themselves remarkably effective at acquiring governmental power (often through elections but also through corporate influence and skillful use of communications and mass media). Privatization, despite the soaring rhetoric often used to support it, has to be understood within a partisan context, as an effort to deprive certain key political blocs of resources. While some of the conservative arguments in favor of privatization are principled – based on defensible economic or democratic theory – many of them are not, and those schemes that advance the furthest tend to have naked partisan goals.

For the sake of fairness, however, let’s look first at the main arguments in favor of privatization, with the following question in mind: Why is it argued that private actors in private organizations necessarily, in the long run, work better for the public interest than do public institutions?

The most common claim involves the supposedly greater efficiency that private firms can achieve. In contrast to all the “bureaucratic red tape” that slows down government work while raising its cost, the theory goes, corporate involvement will provide a stream-lined, cost-effective approach. Look, however, at the great number of private entities that fail because of inefficiency; indeed, look at the entire health care system, the least efficient in the developed democratic world, and a tremendous drain on our society. Even though the profit motive may often lead to greater efficiency within single organizations, competition and lack of coordination can lead to striking inefficiencies at the level of larger systems.

In addition, the idea of “efficiency” is badly misconceived. As the conservative scholar James Q. Wilson has argued in his book Bureaucracy, efficiency is a measure of “valued inputs” used (i.e., resources) to “valued outputs” produced (i.e., results), and public projects will have a variety of different outputs beyond the immediate goal. For instance, when we ask the public bureaucracy to build and administer a school, we’re not just asking for 30 rooms and a gym – we demand other “outputs,” such as a knowledge that our money was awarded fairly; that the project was completed with integrity and transparency; and that all children in the community, regardless of ethnicity, religion, intelligence, and physical capacity have access to basic education, through a process that involved and served relevant interest groups. A private actor, by contrast, might aim at only one output: 30 rooms and a gym, in compliance with the fire code, and select students that met the private school’s financial or ideological selection criteria. It should neither surprise nor upset us if the public bureaucracy takes longer and needs more money to build the school – it is building far more, or at least it ought to be.

A related argument involves the benefits of competition. One of the great strengths of capitalism, according to this view, is that weaker, less efficient, less robust entities get weeded out of the system – as long as it is allowed to operate without artificial government interference. This is the mantra of market fundamentalists, who believe that the rough-and-tumble of a competitive free market will necessarily serve the social order better than will government. But applying this Darwinist attitude to all sectors of society can be terribly destructive. Having less privileged schools compete with each other, for example, in order to force some of them to fail, has real consequences for real kids. It must be remembered that capitalism is very good at doing some things, such as extracting resources and manufacturing products, and very bad at doing others, such as achieving an equitable distribution of resources. Even Bill Gates has made this point; hopefully the privatizers and market fundamentalists will pay attention.

A third major argument in favor or privatization is more philosophical in nature. It holds that one of the evils of government is the corruption of those in power. Certainly political corruption exists, even beyond the self-prostitution that the need for campaign cash so frequently encourages. But corruption is a danger that all power carries in its train, and the real power today lies with the corporations (despite the “big, bad government” rhetoric of the Right). Consequently, the direct public harm that can result from the abuse of corporate power generally exceeds that of governmental malfeasance, as any number of financial and environmental scandals will attest.

Again, what must be emphasized is that beneath these principled, if flawed, arguments lurks a partisan, ideological agenda. The centerpiece of this agenda is the dismantling of the entitlement programs that were created during the Great Depression precisely because market capitalism had failed to provide many people with the things they needed to survive. A direct assault on these programs hasn’t worked, and so the conservative movement is pursuing craftier strategies.

One central strategy has been to alienate people from government by arguing that their interests are fundamentally divergent from its operations, and suggesting that it is not “their” government, but “the” government. A related strategy is to reduce people’s positive experiences of what government can do for them, such that they will be more receptive to attacks on the government. A person who has to pay a fee for the school bus, for instance, might begin to wonder whether the government should even be in the school bus business. Finally, and most dramatically, conservatives have come to embrace deficit spending as a means of starving the government of the money needed to pay for social programs. Thomas Frank of Harper’s magazine has called this the “train-wreck ideal” – the Right’s “belief that it can persuade the public that government is bad by giving us spectacularly bad government.”

The purpose of all these efforts – and particularly the assault on Social Security (dressed up as “reform”) – is to have people identify their interests with those of corporate profit. Accomplishing that would be a recipe for political victory for conservatives.

Privatization might seem like a good idea to people who have become exasperated with the functioning of government (see above), but the detrimental effects of privatization should not be underestimated. The interests of corporations and those of the average person are not congruent, and often directly conflict. Fair wages in return for one’s labor, the value of one’s home, affordable health care and food, the quality of education, financial security in old age or infirmity – these are what really matter in people’s lives, and helping people in these ways is not the fundamental purpose of corporate profit. Relying on private companies, or the performance of the stock market, to serve these needs is a risky proposition that threatens to leave millions of people less able to fend for themselves.

This is not a question of being “for” public institutions or “for” private ones. Most agree that certain functions, such as national defense and policing, belong in the hands of the government because they serve everybody. Other functions, such as education, environmental protection, or postal services, can be shared, although the government must retain a leading role in them, given their social importance. And then there are all the services in which you don’t want the government involved: selling tobacco, for instance, or manufacturing microchips, or shining shoes. It’s simply a question of where we want to draw the line.

In drawing that line, what has to be remembered is that, by their very nature, private enterprises are designed to serve private ends. Indeed, in the case of publicly traded companies, they have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to serve the interests of stockholders rather than the interests of the public (except as required to do so by law). Public entities, by contrast, are charged with serving public ends. That is their definition and their legal and constitutional responsibility, and it comes with major benefits to the public: greater transparency, greater accountability, greater equality of treatment. Even when governmental agencies and services fail – and on occasion they fail spectacularly – this crucial distinction should not be blurred or forgotten.

The solution lies in improving those public services which need improving, not undermining them. Of course, the first epithet conservatives use against anybody who says so is “tax-and-spend liberal,” but that charge should carry much less weight now that deficit spending occupies a central place in conservative fiscal and social policy. And in any case, what individual citizens (not counting the plutocracy) will end up paying for privatized services over the long run far outstrips their individual share of public investments that could be made today.

The relentless campaign toward privatization, then, can be summed up in two monosyllables: “Bad deal.”

WIT AND WISDOM

U.S. TOPPLES GIGANTIC STATUE OF JAY GARNER

New Plan Calls for Regime Change Every Two Weeks

U.S. forces in Baghdad toppled a gigantic statue of interim administrator Jay Garner today, signaling that the brief regime of the retired general was at an end.

“Jay Garner is, for all intents and purposes, finished,” Commander-in-Chief Tommy Franks said from Centcom headquarters in Qatar. “The Iraqi people can now look forward to determining their own future and charting their own destiny under interim administrator L. Paul Bremer III.”

As news of General Garner’s toppling spread through Baghdad, jubilant Iraqi citizens poured into the streets, some chanting, “Down with Jay Garner!” but an equal number chanting, “Who is Jay Garner?”

-- parody, fresh from the Borowitz Report

EYE ON THE RIGHT

If you’ve noticed conservative politicians sounding strangely pro-environment lately, it’s not a coincidence. Rather, it’s a campaign designed to reduce the political liability of right-wing candidates on environmental issues. Unfortunately, the campaign is strictly rhetorical – it’s not about changing policies but about changing language.

And that’s where Frank Luntz comes in. Luntz, the boyish Svengali of conservative politics, made his name as a pollster who concentrated on identifying the words that would prove most resonant with the American public. Now, in his message book “Straight Talk,” Luntz brings his dark arts to the task of helping Republicans package themselves as concerned about the environment without actually having to be concerned.

The basic Luntzian strategies are the following. First, use words and phrases that are proven crowd-pleasers, rather than those that express the truth. He recommends the term “climate change,” for instance, because it is “less frightening” than “global warming.” Second, assure the public that you really do care, by framing all your comments on environmental policy with a green-sounding principle, such as “The environment is precious to all of us.” Third, portray government as the real problem, since it hinders a “sensible” approach to “managing” the environment, and hold up technological and corporate “solutions” to environmental problems. Fourth, stick to your guns: deregulation, devolution, deforestation.

A good example of the Luntz approach: “You must explain how it is possible to pursue a common sense or sensible environmental policy that ‘preserves all the gains of the past two decades’ without going to extremes, and allows for new science and technologies to carry us even further. Give citizens the idea that progress is being frustrated by over-reaching government, and you will hit a very strong strain in the American psyche.” (For a serio-comic send-up of the whole Luntz operation, click here.)

Now, the Uncommon Denominator does not pretend to be shocked that a political consultant would advocate particular kinds of language use and political marketing. What distinguishes the “Luntz memo,” however, is the depth of cynicism it reveals, particularly on an issue of such vital importance to so many people.

Consider. In discussing global warming and the Kyoto Treaty, Luntz admits that “the scientific debate is closing against us, but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.” Then, lower on the page, he offers the following “Language That Works”: “We must not rush to judgment before all the facts are in. We need to ask more questions. We deserve more answers. And until we learn more, we should not commit America to any international document that handcuffs us either now or into the future.”

Such perverse disregard for an issue where millions of lives are involved is truly malignant. To dispute the science sincerely is one thing. But to acknowledge the science and then suggest ways of talking around it plumbs the depths of self-interested opportunism.

Luntz makes another telling admission: “When we talk about ‘rolling back regulations’ involving the environment, we are sending a signal Americans don’t support. If we suggest that the choice is between environmental protection and deregulation, the environment will win consistently.”

There’s a reason for that, Frank. And let’s hope the environment continues to win consistently!

QUOTED!

“I’ve gambled all my life and it’s never been a moral issue with me. I view it as drinking. If you can’t handle it, don’t do it.” – Bill Bennett, former education secretary and drug czar, and prominent conservative author and commentator

CHECK IT OUT

For a quick and convenient means of letting your elected representatives know what you think, check out Action Network, a progressive group that organizes major petition drives either supporting or opposing various pieces of legislation. At any given time, they have a number of active campaigns, and two of the most important right now involve environmental policy. One is in support of the Climate Stewardship Act, which John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have offered as an amendment to the Senate energy bill currently under debate, and which would represent an important step in the national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sign the petition here. Another campaign is aimed at defeating an attempt by Rep. Scott McInnis to make the administration’s euphemistically titled “Healthy Forests Initiative” the law of the land. According to the White House’s own description of the initiative, it is geared toward “reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles that hinder active forest management” and “expediting procedures for forest thinning and restoration projects.” Translation: Give the logging industry a free hand. Sign the petition here.

If you are moved to action, however, you might want to remember that personal letters and faxes are the most effective means of communicating with representatives, since they require a higher level of effort on the part of the constituent. If you can find the time to do so, it’s worth the effort.

HAPPENINGS

The Commonweal Institute has prepared a study that examines how proposed legislation that would affect California education. This CI study, titled “Proposal May Undermine Efforts to Improve the Quality of Education in California,” shows that a short term effort to deal with the financial crisis in California can have serious long-term consequences with regard to both quality of education and future costs.

Commonweal Institute held a brunch salon for supporters and prospective supporters on May 10. The lively discussion showed that there is keen interest in developing new approaches for dealing with the unbalanced situation that now prevails in our country. Volunteers Mary Alvord and Magda Dennert handled invitations and hosted the event.

Commonweal Institute has posted its plans to raise awareness of the potential problems inherent in the current computerized electronic voting systems being adopted in many areas. (Also see our story in the February issue of the Uncommon Denominator.) We are seeking support for this program. If you care about our democracy and the integrity of voting, and would like to make a substantial gift or know someone else who might, please contact us by e-mail immediately.

ENDORSEMENTS

“As a candidate for political office, I saw the pressing need for a large-scale think tank that can gain public and media support for progressive and centrist positions, and that will serve as a valuable resource for candidates and office-holders who take such positions. The Commonweal Institute will help office-holders put their progressive and centrist principles into action.” – Steve Westly, California State Controller

GET INVOLVED

If you agree with Steve Westly (see above), there are a number of ways you can help the Commonweal Institute achieve its goals.

Right now, as you read, you can simply forward the Uncommon Denominator to friends and family who might be interested in learning about the Commonweal Institute. Getting the word out is crucial.

You can also join our network of donors building the Commonweal Institute. Your tax-deductible contribution is vital to making the Commonweal Institute an effective organization. $100 would help so much! Even a contribution of $10 or $20 will make a difference because there are so many moderates and progressives. Click here to contribute online.

In the meantime, be sure to check out our What’s New page, where we post regular updates about our various activities.

If you know of a foundation that might be willing to provide a grant to Commonweal Institute, please send an email to info@commonwealinstitute.org.

To subscribe to this free e-newsletter, use the Subscribe form below or send an email to: subscribe-news@commonwealinstitute.org.

If you no longer wish to receive the Uncommon Denominator, send an email to: unsubscribe-news@commonwealinstitute.org.