|
If people constantly say the government is responsible for the economy, it will become responsible for the economy. The kind of people that want to be politicians only say "no" to power when they see that the only two options are to say "no" and get screwed over or to say "yes" and get screwed over so deeply, thoroughly, and painfully and, above all, *immediately* (since politicians have the attention span of 4-year-olds) that you won't be able to walk, talk, or defecate until their grandkids are again wearing diapers.
The people tend to like it because it removes a sense of anxiety. Daddy'll take care of us, we can go back to sucking our thumbs. In this, the electorate tends to be like a 2-year-old. Unfortunately, to a 2-year-old a 4-year-old often seems like an adult. The more a family or community feels like it needs a protector, needs a daddy, can tattle on others to their daddy so that the others get time outs, the greater the drive to not only allowing politicians to be their guardians, the greater the drive to actively yield as much power as possible (especially if you think you have daddy wrapped around your finger).
In other words, almost everybody is in agreement, to some extent: The politicians are in charge. Then it's only a matter of time and working out exactly *how* to actually make them in charge.
Some politicians are a bit more humble. They realize the job is daunting and, after getting placed in a wheelchair because of their last screwing over decide perhaps they'd rather take the less of the two choices--and opt for 'no' instead of 'hell, bring it on!' They also see that various constituencies differ in how thorough the screwing meted out is--if you really, really want a daddy then you set the bar lower, as long as you still get what you want.
But for most politicians failure simply cannot be because of their stupidity, incompetence, or the sheer impossibility of having 100,000 people pushing pencils and monitoring the producting, shipping, and consumption of bubble gum, I-beams, amoxicillin, zippers, and dowels doing a tolerable job. After all, they have aids and acolytes saying how brilliant they are. They *know* they can do this, because they're better. So failure must be denied, and if undeniable then externalized. The first line of defense is to require greater and greater authority and power, greater ability to command the economy. In some countries that finally fails when the leadership has nearly absolute control--then any deviation has to be because of sabotage and treason. After all, it can't be the leadership. It might be the laws and regulations, but only for so long--then the laws/regs reflect the leadership and also cannot be at fault.
This is the lesson of much of the 20th century outside the US. It's a set-up for disaster when we think we're different, we're special, we're us and not them and the mistakes were theirs and not ours (as opposed to, "We're human and they're human and while the mistakes where theirs they were human mistakes and could have been ours"). It may be possible to thread the needle, to find that fulcrum, that concentration of extreme politico-economic power where hubris and competence balance, or to at least oscillate back and forth in a narrow band. But it's tricky.
|