armchair pundit

If Sarah Palin falls in the forest and the media ignores her, does it make a sound?

I shouldn’t have to wish for Sarah Palin to go away. After all, what is Sarah Palin but the losing candidate for vice-president in an election that happened 10 months ago, and the former governor of a state most of us never think about (sorry Alaska)? If the winner of the vice presidency is awarded with “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived” (in the immortal words of John Adams), then what does the loser get?

As far as I can tell, Sarah Palin generated a lot of media buzz last summer because she was a woman that no one had ever heard of, and the GOP picked her to be John McCain’s running mate. Pure shock value basically. In a sensible world, the buzz would have quickly dwindled to the sub-audible hum that most veep candidates garner. Except that it turned out she was kind of a dimwit. OK, so that was a bit newsworthy, and Palin was good for a few ammusing “joe six packs” and “you betchas.”

But then it really should have been over.

When McCain lost the election, and she went back to Alaska, that should have been the last we heard from or about her – barring a sex scandal or some kind of meltdown. Like suddenly quitting her job.

But this is the governor of Alaska we’re talking about, and we only care about her because she ran for vice president. When a former veep candidate resigns from office in the least-populous state, it warrants a few paragraphs of coverage for a day or two.

So who’s still talking about Sarah Palin? I don’t read the conservative press, but the New York Times has run several Op-Ed pieces in the last few days and another front-page story yesterday. The Huffington Post has posted probably 50 Palin stories in the last week. The Daily Dish, which usually has better things to talk about, has been beating the dead horse too.

Can y’all stop now please?

It’s been a while since I posted here, and I’m introducing a new category: Elimination Dance.

Instructions: An elimination dance begins with a crowded dance floor.  At a signal, the band stops playing and the announcer reads an elimination, say, “Any lover who has gone into a flower shop on Valentine’s Day and asked for clitoris when he meant clematis.” Any dancer answering this description must sit down, and his partner is also disqualified. The process continues (e.g. “Any person who has burst into tears at the Liquor Control Board”) until a single couple remains.

(from the description of Michael Ondaatje’s book by the same title)

This new category, in other words, is for all the things I wish would go away. My first is small-government fanatics. For some reason I’ve allowed myself to rant in the comments of a couple friends’ blogs this week in response to passionate small-government fanaticism and comments I somewhat unfairly deemed as such.

The rest of this post is a lightly-edited re-post of a comment I left on my friend Jay’s blog…

Small-government fanatics seem to believe we are a prosperous and successful country in spite of our government – rather than because of it, whereas I believe the truth is very much both.

We are beneficiaries of two centuries of government protection and support – much of which we basically seem to take for granted at this point, and much of which few people would really want to go back and undo. Of course there have been missteps too, but the small-government libertarian crowd usually fails to acknowledge the ways in which we have benefited.

One core principle of small-government fanatics is free markets, or as my friend Jay unambiguously put it: “The free market is one of the greatest gifts to mankind in all of our history.”

I think, however, that total market freedom almost inevitably leads to “tragedy of the commons” scenarios. People and businesses will pursue their own desires even to the detriment of everyone’s needs. They pursue immediate individual gains that risk (and often cause) generalized future catastrophe.

If government does not serve to protect the commons from the individual, then what – or who – will?

Before the FDA required drug companies to prove their products were not dangerous prior to putting them on the market, there were numerous incidents of contamination – sometimes maiming or killing thousands (thalidomide, diethylene glycol). What’s the free-market alternative to this? The free-market response might be to put a company out of business because one of their products killed a few thousand people, but um… the company KILLED people. That was the free-market drug industry before the FDA.

What about a more straightforward tragedy of the commons? I have a hard time envisioning a free-market solution to protecting fisheries from individual companies competing against each other to pull in the biggest catches. The companies know when they are pushing fisheries toward collapse, but they also know that if they hold back, then others will just step in and out-fish them. What’s the free-market answer?

This is similar in nature to what happened in our financial markets. Smart people knew they were taking insane risks that were not sustainable, in order to reap huge short-term gains. But they also knew that if they didn’t do it, plenty of other people would out-gain them in the short term, and they would be fired.

For whatever reason, it’s easier for me to stomach this problem with the financial markets (as part of the cost of doing business – even if it hurts a lot of innocent bystanders), than with things like forests and fisheries. Damage done to forests and fisheries is longer-lasting.

I have a hard time believing our country’s major parks and wilderness areas would ever have been created without our government deciding to do so (imagine how many more dams could have been built along the Colorado River and how many more trees harvested in Appalachia if companies were free to do so). I’m personally happier to have the parks and wildernesses.

Scientists have been sounding alarms about atmospheric carbon and climate change for five decades, warning us about a point-of-no-return. We probably needed to start doing things differently 10 years ago to avoid the point-of-no-return, but what free market incentive existed to do so? None, and that’s why we’re in the predicament we’re in.

If you believe there are no situations when the collective good is more important than individual gains, then my argument is lost on you. I don’t believe this. And it’s hard to imagine who would aim us toward the collective good if the government was not trying to do so.

It’s fair to argue that the government does not operate effectively or efficiently enough, but I think the answer is to improve it, not to eviscerate it.

I think it’s good and necessary to debate each threshold of government intervention (currently, healthcare), but I think we need to acknowledge how much existing government protection and support we take for granted and would not want to give up.