I am astonished at how all of us struggle with the concept that there can be too much of a good thing. In these days of lobbyists and memes, the risk of pushing a cause to an extreme beyond all logic is more present than before. I have no idea how to guard against it, but it seems to be doing more and more damage around the world. It is especially dangerous in the US legislative environment, where incremental change seems to be impossible and where sound bites rule the discourse.
Examples abound. One is the idea of helping small businesses. Mentioning small businesses seems to act like a magic wand for politicians. We all call to mind a mom-and-pop store, perhaps selling books or old-fashioned children’s toys, and are minded to offer all the help we can spare. No package or budget nowadays is complete without copious reference to helping small businesses.
We should pause. Surely some large businesses need help too? What about businesses that are still dreams? There must come a point where the next tranche of help runs into diminishing returns, as a vast pile of inefficient money is wasted? There is a more fundamental point too. Why are these businesses still small despite all the help showered upon them? Perhaps they serve no economic purpose? It is large and growing businesses that provide jobs and consumer benefits. Are we targeting a load of perennial losers?
In the UK, the beloved NHS fulfils the same role. In this case demographic changes mean that it very hard to throw too much money at the institution, but we still try our best. This one is tied up with the political demon of privatization. Privatization is something we either love or hate, like Marmite. One faction wants to impose it everywhere it possibly can, following a dogma of free markets. The other side wants to hold it back. Surely there is a happy medium? In health care, some services, like parking, cleaning or maybe logistics, make much more sense when run by private contractors, able to be flexible and respond with agility to market needs. But privatizing the core parts of healthcare runs headlong into the risk that the primary purpose – keeping people well – becomes subsumed by a profit motive. The US demonstrates this very well.
But the UK health debate never seems to move forward, except that everybody wants to be associated with the national treasure and shower it with cash. Privatization becomes a tug of war rather than an assessment of merit. This is unhealthy for both the institution and for its consumers and paymasters.
It is like driving a car without the accelerator or without the brake. In the small business example there is no brake, and the car hurtles along without control or balance. In the privatization example, both levers exist but there are multiple drivers, none prepared to use both levers, so whichever power is in the ascendancy either stops the car completely or drives it into danger.
The whole debate between capitalism and socialism has the same pitfalls, and arguably the same can be said of democracy and autocracy. There is a happy balance between acceleration and braking, and it is contextual. Certainly, after forty years of acceleration, hitting the brake for a while makes sense. And after fifty years of stasis (cold war Russia), the first application of the accelerator should be gradual and careful.
In the US, the adoration of the military is another example of one pedal being lost. No politician makes any headway by questioning a budget for veterans or for military personnel hardware. The military have successfully lobbied themselves into the hearts of the nation, offered unattributed gratuitous mentions even by NFL commentators.
The result is downright dangerous. America takes on far too many campaigns brings a military mindset to most situations and is an exemplar of the insult of having more money than sense. There is no efficiency whatsoever in procurement, and one result of all the spending is merely to goad competitors into matching, thereby making the world more dangerous for all of us. Military drones are only the latest example of a technology the USA thoughtlessly developed in naïve hope of creating an advantage, but instead unleashing a cheap and scarcely controllable lethal technology into unscrupulous hands everywhere.
An almost comical example of the car with one lever was US Israel policy under Trump. The Israel lobby had succeeded in creating an unbalanced debate over generations, with Israel elevated close to the sympathy level for small businesses. But then Trump simply removed the brake completely, simply giving Israel anything it asked for. The Israelis themselves struggled to work out how to deal with this change.
This example illustrates how smart leaders handle the pressures of competing agendas. Life can be one long evolving negotiation. If a concession to one side is timely, use the moment to obtain a concession in return, fixing a stubborn iniquity that matters a lot to you but is less critical to the other side.
I used to do this all the time in business. One weapon was to develop an agreed charter for a team or project. As well as goals and approaches, a good charter lays down what team members have a right to expect but is also crystal clear about expectations.
In a functioning environment, this is how to achieve evolutionary progress in many areas. Unions and management can each have their agendas and preferred lever but give and take allows both to be used and a stronger overall outcome to be achieved for everybody. So can creditors and debtors, and bail reformers with law-and-order types.
Criminal justice policy, especially police policy, is a current example of lost opportunities. In 2020 the brake predominated, with the George Floyd case and other injustices fuelling a movement to defund the police. Then crime spiked and the well-funded police lobbies fought back. In New York, Eric Adams was elected and all talk now is of strengthening and supporting the police, especially when dead police bodies are all over the news.
Surely both sides can be right and an intelligent administration would take this chance to forge a grand bargain. The police do a critical and dangerous job and their service should be adequately funded and protected. But mental health issues would be better dealt with by other professionals, also adequately funded. Further, it is not just a few bad apples who are racist, violent and who fraudulently manipulate evidence. I have yet to have an encounter with the NYPD that did not feel like an abuse of their power. Their behaviour as above the law in petty areas such as placard abuse becomes endemic and spreads into their attitude in weightier matters.
It is laudable that Eric Adams leads a campaign to support the police where they warrant support. But surely that creates a moment to rectify abuse on the other side. A clear charter of rights and expectations, with strong enforcement, would be negotiable right now. The many bad apples could be progressively eliminated and the culture changed for the better. Instead we get a relentless pumping of one lever and nothing on the other one. What a waste.
Sadly that seems to be our fate in most areas of US society where politicians are involved, which is almost everything. Actually this becomes a powerful argument for autocracy. In China one leadership team, hopefully with the public interest top of mind, can impose beneficial evolutionary change via a series of charters. Both levers are used, apparently rather deftly.
Of course, autocracy itself is a single lever operation, and the time will come when some balance is required, yet it is likely that nobody will be able to find and apply the brake in time.
No comments:
Post a Comment