The Big Tent

Our government is a circus. Three rings – all controlled by political ideology and the vying for media attention and for voter approval. Sadly, apart from the public relations aspect of the system, there is little concern by our government about the repercussions of what they do – the unintended consequences. If our leaders can convince voters that their efforts are in the public interest, meriting their votes next time around, it does not matter if their claims are true. They accomplish the purpose for which they are designed – just like the clowns they are.

Blaming the politicians, however, shifts attention away from those who are really corrupting the system – the protesters who demand benefits for all “oppressed” people. It sounds virtuous, but the loudest advocates have concern only for the impressionable folks they can stimulate – the Big Top's audience. They either understand and support the likely outcome of the proposals, or haven't considered them and really don't care what they are. The laws they introduce are among the greatest causes of unintended, and almost always detrimental, consequences that society faces. And so much of it is for show – the show they present under the big tent.

The Big Tent. It used to be a designation of the Republican Party – who could never make it work – but it is, perhaps, more appropriate to see it now as an instrument of the liberals. Designed to house all of those who have complaints, the only thing necessary is the assertion of oppression. Surely no one would lie about that. And no one would lie about misfortune. So if some complain about unemployment, illness, racism, police brutality, the one percent, or anything else, they must be telling the truth, and our society must be corrupt.

It only takes one complaint and it's national news. The loud complaint of one squeaky wheel ignites the media and the clowns. True or not, there will be many who are sympathetic of whoever claims to have been oppressed by society. It's a movement. And the politicians will express horror at the injustice that has been done. Proof is unnecessary. What is necessary, however, is a new program designed to correct such inequity. Damn the cost of such a program (or of all the necessary programs). It gets votes.

It's usually the same crowd of people who are protesting every time. And it's in part a matter of politics as well as “justice.” Each group that is vocally supported is directed into the big tent for direction on how to vote in the next election. The big tent winds up containing numerous interest groups which have little in common except for perceived (and their perceptions are sometimes valid) injustice, and a ringmaster who offers (but often can't, or won't provide) relief from all their miseries.

And the public buys in. We're all in favor of virtue in the form of justice for all our citizens. We all want the best for everyone – even those who are simply looking for a handout. And we're happy to pay for it all. Cost doesn't matter. (It's all in taxes anyway so we won't see it now. The theory is that the rich will pay for socialism, and it won't hurt me. So I can afford to be virtuous.) Equality. It's the American way.

Our magnanimity doesn't only involve those around us. It extends to our children, grandchildren, and the generations that follow them. And inspired by the protectors of our land, the enironmentalists, a goup devoted to protecting our “heritage,” we have come to favor the acquisition of more and more land to be incorporated into our National Park system. The land may be State property or under State jurisdiction, but we're ecstatic when the Federal government buys it, or acquires it otherwise, because it will give those who follow us the opportunity to visit the parks and see what a wonderful land we have. (That the vast majority of us haven't done so ourselves, and have no interest in doing so, is not relevent. And the reality that only the rich could afford to do so is also of no importance.) We owe it to our children to protect the land, not withstanding the costof doing so – to secure it for ourselves and to provide services and security for it now and in the future. It isn't just the virtue of protecting our sites and sights, a big tent should include environmentalists along with the other constiruencies.

And we also support those who protect endangered species – even at the cost of jobs and tax-paying industry. In the meantime – as we admire them from our seats, we'd do well to free the animals in the nation's circuses – we're profiting at their expense. (Of course the same logic would justify ridding our National Circus – our government – of the paying customers – taxpayers, because the management is profiting at their expense.)

But the idea that all interest groups should be gathered together to elect a government that will provide for them is contrary to our goals – if those elected actually do what they promise – an unlikely premise. As I write this (May 17, 2017) our national debt is approaching 20 trillion dollars. Add to that the cost of new programs and new land acquisitions and the debt will be much higher. When we talk about leaving a heritage of land to our children we ignore the heritage of debt we leave to them (indeed we add to it) – debt that politicians are happy to incur in order to get votes from those in the big tent.

However a tent has a high top, and the government that rules us has a high tolerance for debt that will be someone else's problem. Those seeking office fill their campaign balloons with all the promises they need to attract the voting public into their tent. But the balloons are also filled with helium and hot air and rise above the reach of those present. They're as helpful and healthful as the junk food at a circus. We'll glow now and feel the deleterious effects later. But they're well worth the cost when you consider that we're looking at the greatest show on earth.

And those in the big tent have chosen the performers.

May 17, 2017