Wednesday, May 22, 2024

Governing v. Managing

  There are many names for the types of governments.  These government styles can be broken down into two main categories, top-down and bottom-up.  The top-down style of governments are typically described as totalitarian, regardless if that government is called a Dictatorship, the many forms of Communism, Fascism, or National-Socialism.  The bottom-up style of governments are typically described as freedom based, regardless if that government is called a Democracy, a Representative Republic, or a Parliament; the premise of this political model is that the power comes from the people.

  Of course there are countries with mixed political models that have a greater or lesser leaning towards the models of bottom-up or top-down.  Prime examples of countries that participate in this balancing act are: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK.  At this time, no arguments will be made towards any correlation or causation in participation within the British Empire.

  To paraphrase Pres. Bill Clinton's comment from the 1990s - Government "should be safe, legal, and rare.”  This no longer is, if it ever was, the case.

  Managing on the other hand is the act of perpetuating a process.  In 2009, the Harvard Business Review published Prof. Paul Krugman’s book “A Country Is Not a Company” where the professor lays out that what it takes to run a country is not the same as what is needed to run a company; how things seem to have changed in the quarter of a century since.  At the time of publishing his book, Prof. Krugman wasn’t far off the mark because back in the day, the goals of a political leader were not the goals of a CEO or a Chairman of the Board.

  As the years moved forward from 2009 some countries have come to look a lot like companies more and more, to the point where Donald J. Trump has been arguably one of the most effective US Presidents in the last four to five presidential terms; at least from the perspective of the population at large.  There are some who claim that Trump was a populist President as if it is a bad thing.

  Populism, according to Google is “a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.”  In the name of logic, this implies that those who disparage populism are “in favor of ignoring the ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.”  Any political promise must be considered an opportunistic act until it comes to fruition or not; the political question is not if the players want power or not, the political question is what they do with it.  Consider the current pool of political elites and then decide which of them favour a top-down or bottom-up approach.

  ‘What is a Woman?’ is the title of a 2022 movie in which the responses of some people who claim that trans-women are women are documented.  This tactic towards causing confusion or misdirection on the meaning of the meaning of words has recently been played again by Nancy Pelosi at the Oxford Union in England where the proposition of the motion was: This House Believes Populism is a Threat to Democracy.

  The basic commentary Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) puts forward is a basic rebranding of what Populism is, for Rep. Pelosi the word populism is simply a synonym for “LIAR.  The idea of ‘confession through projection’ is the act of assuming that the actions of others are driven by the motives of the assumer”; the lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

  Besides being the de facto world hegemonic leader, the US is also one of the best Petri-dishes for political discourse.  At this time it is hard to decide if that country is a plutocratic state, a fascistic one or a blending of the two.  A plutocracy is a state ruled by the rich, while fascism requires the co-operation of the media and big business with the government; social media giants like Facebook, Google, and the Twitter of old are considered part of the media as they too are disseminators of curated information.  The use of the phrase ‘saving our democracy’ by some people seems to have made that phrase the preverbal carpet under which all political dirt gets swept.

  In 1793, French revolutionary Robespierre said "Anyone who is afraid now is guilty, for innocence never fears public surveillance."  Maximillien Robespierre, according to a page on Wikipedia, was 1.6 m (~5’3”) though it is not stipulated online if that was before or after he lost his head via the guillotine in 1794.  Robespierre’s words are still being used today on the masses, yet the governments that echo the sentiment don’t standby the principle being espoused; the proof being the presence of redactions on documents requested that pertain to matters within said state; international matters do require protection.

  Returning to the core argument, within the Jewish religion a rabbi is a scholar or teacher of Jewish law, for Shiites an Imam is a man recognized as an authority on Islamic theology and law, the term Minister for Christians comes from the Latin term ‘minister’ which translates to ‘servant’.  Seeing as all systems are hierarchical this would imply that a Prime Minister must be the First Servant, although this translation appears to have lost any link in modern times, seemingly regardless of what country the title is still in use.

  As a Canadian citizen, this author is still able to be critical of the Canadian government, at least until Bill-63 comes into force, at which point Trudeau’s intended UBI scheme will possibly be presented in the form of incarceration.  The policies of Canada’s First Servant have caused many a person within Canada quite a bit of consternation, with the most basic matter being current or future cash-flow.  ‘Cash is king’, is no longer just a slogan, as it has become reality; many people have taken note of this when they get their meals delivered (bad idea) or buy their groceries (good idea).

  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not leading Canada, rather his just simply managing it, and this is just one of his flaws; most of the others will be ignored for this argument.  For being an anti-carbon environmentalist, Trudeau does seem to enjoy greasing the squeaky wheel towards ensuring that things just stay moving forward.  For the sake of this article, it is going to be assumed that PM Trudeau is on the right track, but the wrong train as there seems to be too many squeaky wheels for him to grease and there are too many dirty palms to help apply it.  Trudeau’s cunning plan seems to be one of nationalized appeasement. 

 The tactic of appeasement through mutual co-operation is downstream from the mandate of the United Nations, regardless of the world of hurt it caused, and is causing now.  The miscalculation made is that there can be equity for all; this is impossible unless there are some at the top balancing the scales of supply, demand, geography, culture, and reality in general. 

  The problem with equity for all is that it is expensive for all; the only difference amongst the all is the matter of proportionality. 

  1. Examples for consideration on acts made by this government: moneys lost via CERB payments, moneys paid out for the Arrive-Can app, moneys paid out not finding indigenous mass graves, moneys spent or not collected in the name of a unproven man-made climate emergency, and moneys sent sending Ukrainian citizens into the meat grinder of a proxy war.
  2. Examples for consideration of acts that have been set-upon the people of Canada by this government: discriminatory closures of small businesses during the COVID-19 lock-downs, the assignment of taxation towards the reduction of carbon when Canada is the is the 10th highest producer at 1.6% globally and yet Canada does little to nothing to curb the enrichment of the highest carbon producers, and finally the enthusiastic printing of money causing an over abundance of inflation, the which is worst tax of all.

The Sheriff of Nottingham and King John, along with a handful of Roman leaders, would be proud of Justin Trudeau.

   Children make pronouncements of misinformation and disinformation towards evading punishment and the good parent will show that child that lying only serves to increase the punishment; of course within a utopia no child needs punishment, a policy which resulted in questionable social outcomes.  The number of Ethics Commissioners over the last nine years or the current lack thereof stands in testimony.

  Within a classic democracy many people believe in that a bottom-up system where the people are managing the government rather than the government managing the people.  This entire script can be flipped easily if the population at large, including the political elites,  remember that the word ‘minister’ still means ‘servant’ and that the power pyramid must always be balanced on its point for their democracy to stand. 

  To those people who have been playing the social risk aversion game; you may see now that you are risking living in a world increasing in social adversity.

  

- A Quote -
Joseph Goebbels

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.  The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.  It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”