Because You Never Asked

(2000)

     Perhaps one of the principle factors in the demise of the Communist experiment of the 20^th century was an intransigent dogmatism that clamped the altruistic concepts of the ideology in a strait jacket that eventually strangled it. Its "modus operandi" was so perfectly spelled out and delineated that it left no "wiggle room" when such a policy turned out not to be optimal. As the years went by, the system began to wallow so deeply in its own propaganda, that any deviation from the "Holy Scriptures" could only be seen as complete capitulation. The trees that do the best in tropical hurricane conditions are the coconut palms, whose wonderfully elastic flexibility allows them to bend with the wind. If not for this ingenious practicality, they'd all snap off and be killed.

     Referring to the Berlin Wall, I quote from the essay "October, 1917". "Now that the world is a less paranoid place and this Capitalist-Communist dichotomy is not fouling our objectivity, we have a better opportunity to be honest with ourselves. Perhaps we can now admit that not all is well with us either."

     Unfortunately, the thoughts contained in those words are not reaching fruition. Quite the contrary, we seem to be falling into the same trap the Soviets did by denying our own system's fallacies, even when such errors are obvious. Our ideological triumph, rather than lessen our angst with regard to who's right, wrong, better, worse, and other such adolescent insecurity, has made us more arrogant, conceited and over confident.

     One of the most prominent aspects of American propaganda is that we supposedly don't have propaganda, that there is a free flow of unadulterated information that the "informed" listener can take their cues from and make adequate decisions upon. This is the biggest lie of all. There is a "Party line" in America that is being fed to us constantly in an insipid, intravenous way, and we are beginning to wallow in it with the same inflexibility the Soviets succumbed to. Instead of that adaptable coconut tree, which is willing to accept some of the hurricane's wind in order to maintain its health, we've become that huge, stubborn, seemingly indestructible ficus tree that opposes the wind with all its might and refuses to give in.

     Those huge ficus trees are always the first ones to go down in a hurricane.

     Before going further, let's broadly sketch the most deeply rooted, firmly attached concepts of American propaganda: We yield cult to the individual, an unfettered individual who competes aggressively and equally with his fellow man (liberty, freedom, democracy and all that), his victories being the fruit of his superiority and his failures the result of his shortcomings. He operates in an unhindered, competitive free market that eventually provides the best goods for the cheapest prices. If we encourage the incentive for profit and make such entrepreneurial endeavor the foundation of our existence, it'll all be mom and apple pie from here on out.

     In many ways, we are still living an idea of life inherited from our first few centuries as a frontier, pioneering colony-nation. These ideas have served the nation well, but we don't live on the frontier anymore. Some of these concepts are not applicable to the tasks presented in the much more complicated, massive, technologically interdependent world of computer chips and "reality" shows brought to you by Yahoo.com. Many of these tasks call out for a more coordinated, cooperative effort. (Don't look for my web site at www.exlaxforyourbrainconstipation.notcom.)

     As I write, there are a number of chronic problems facing America that could be considered, at least in part, the result of this religious devotion to the concepts sketched in the above paragraphs. We are beginning to "believe" with too much fervor. We are painting ourselves into a corner we cannot escape from.

     Perhaps the most pungent example of this attitude is seen in the field of health care. The system is obviously broken. (For more, see essays  "Health Care" and "Health Care Revisited".) It not only does not deliver reasonably priced services, one checking statistics from around the world will find that it is not even close to providing the best care. And yet, even though there are clearly better models to follow, we childishly refuse to admit that selling medical services on a competitive market, as if this product could be bought in the same way we might choose a tennis racquet, is a ludicrous idea. Undoubtedly, unscrupulous business self interest plays a substantial role in perpetrating this fraud, but it could not be done without the "Party line" propaganda polluting the minds of its consumers.

     The California power "crisis" seems to fall into this intransigent-devotion-to-our-own-propaganda syndrome. Surely, part of the problem is related to the increased amounts of energy today's power companies are forced to provide. But the "crisis" has an almost direct chronological relation to the deregulation of this industry and the sale of its product on the free market (or is it the Enron-Bush market?) Ladies and gentlemen, what we are talking about here is perhaps the most mundane technological task provided in a modern society. My electric current will not be better or worse than yours, no matter who's providing it. It is an impersonal, faceless business, where the consumer and supplier never see each other. In today's world, the deliverance of this technology is as routine as learning how to tie your shoe. Even if the government provided this most basic, elemental commodity (oh my God, did I really say that!?), there is ample enough incentive to keep costs down, because it directly effects the rest of the economy. When you couple this with the fact that the ultimate concern with regard to this product, even more so than rock bottom prices (which the free market has not delivered anyway), is the assured guarantee of its availability, the delivery of electric power within the context of commercial warfare is an obviously silly idea. The California experience has shown us this. And yet, trying to reverse the deregulatory decision seems as remote as someone going up Niagara Falls in a barrel.            

      And then there's the spaghetti western chaos currently running rampant in the airline industry. It has almost become the norm rather than the exception to not complete a flight itinerary as it was mapped out. You buy a ticket and hope for the best. When will I arrive? Will my baggage get there? Will the people who put the blue stuff in the toilet be on strike? Are the computers down? Are the air traffic controllers still awake after 12 hours of rancid coffee? Undoubtedly, as in the California power situation, increased volume is a contributing factor, but it is just this increase that cries out for more supervision. Unlike the power industry, which should not operate in a war-like business climate due to the routine facility with which its product can be delivered, the airline industry should not do so due to the complexity of its nature; pilots to train, flight attendants to dress, mechanics, ground staff, office people, logos, advertising, hangars, counter space, boarding gates, innumerable airports in foreign countries, routes to fly, prices to charge, food, movies, music, weather surprises, planes to put in and out of service, on and on . If we let this dog off its leash and let it run wild in the free for all of unhindered business competition, the result is now obvious. Oh sure, on occasion we get a bargain fare, but is the increased uncertainty and aggravation worth it? (I personally have never stumbled upon any great bargains. My trip to Spain will cost me $200 more this year.) And yet, we dogmatically stick to our free market Party line, as if we were not allowed to wander from the rules spelled out by some anti-Karl Marx in his holy anti-Das Kapital text.

     Guns! America treats its guns in much the same way the Hindus revere their sacred cows. Once again, we refuse to modify a concept that's been handed down from the days of Clint Eastwood drifting through the high plains. In the spirit of my unquestioned devotion to truth and objectivity, I can't rightly say what effect stricter gun control will have on gun violence, but simply as a matter of public policy it seems to be the practical thing to do. One tends to believe that the purchase of a deadly weapon should not be consummated with the same ease one purchases a head set at Circuit City. And yet . get the picture?

     In closing, allow me to say something I've alluded to previously in this bowl of chicken soup philosophy. There are many ways in which the resources available to us can be distributed and the services we rely upon provided. If we limit ourselves to one "Party line" solution, we are severely prejudicing our ability to resolve our problems.