There's a lot to learn from David Ignatius' column in the Washington Post today that was entitled, "Failing Airlines, Failing Government." Discussing the current crisis in air travel, he hearkens back to the controversy over airline deregulation in 1978, saying, "most airlines were opposed, arguing that the air transport system was a kind of public utility and that although competition might cut prices, it would erode service and forestall capital spending for new, more efficient planes." Does this sound familiar? As Ignatius points out, "the critics' worst fears have been realized." Now, why should you care?
The answer is that you don't need to care about the condition of the airline industry in the US unless, of course, you fly, or you have a problem with being taken advantage of as an individual having little recourse against market giants. We've had almost three decades of "free market economy," under the libertarian ideals that embody the principle that "the best government is no government at all." In the meantime, we've had the Savings and Loan scandal, Enron (et. al), the housing and mortgage crash, deferred maintenance on much of the nation's infrastructure, an energy crisis, a collapsing dollar, global warming, a failure to save or rebuild one of the country's largest cities (New Orleans), etc., etc., etc.
Right-wing free-market economists and libertarians are correct when they point the finger of blame at government. However, we have exactly the government that we deserve. They're exactly wrong when their criticism insists that we have too much government. The problem in the US, as I see it, is that we don't have enough government and the government we do have has misplaced priorities. The results that we're seeing in this country today are directly attributable to what's been called, "The tyranny of the majority." Mob psychology puts crowd control right in the hands of those with the wherewithal to pay for it. Some wags have rightly quipped that we have the best government that money can buy.
I firmly believe that one of the primary roles of government is to protect (and empower) its weakest citizens. If that means increased government regulation and oversight, then that's what it means. One of our most egregious errors is to think of our weakest citizens as 'the other guys.' We have a real tendency to forget that, without much of a nudge, any of us could be 'the other guy.' Have you forgotten that regardless of what majority you may belong to, you also belong to one or more minorities? I usually feel very good when the majority groups I belong to prevail. I can feel even more upset when the minority groups I belong to are set upon. Like it or not, the government remains the only power that safeguards the minority groups I belong to from being oppressed (or eliminated) by the majorities.
Should I be upset when my privileges are curtailed by the government in order to protect some minority group? I think not, anymore than I should be upset when some majority group has its privileges curtailed in order to protect one of the minority groups I belong to. Isn't that how the 'win-win' paradigm works? What about 'activist judges'? Does it make sense to become upset when the judiciary makes an unpopular ruling that protects the rights of a minority group? I don't think so! If the legislative branch is charged with establishing the will of the majority and the executive branch is charged with carrying out that will, then only the judiciary is left to safeguard the role of government in defending the rights of minorities.
When you think about 'watching out for the little guy,' I suggest that you put your heart into it. After all, it's only a matter of time until the 'little guy' will be you!
H. Les Brown, MA, FCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown
Comments