France and California, Ungovernable
History tells us that there is nothing inherent in human nature that brings the peoples of one nation together and enables them to act in concert. For populations within countries, no more and no less than the members of a single family, will never be of a single mind but will always represent opposing points of view.
History also tells us that only elections (in democracies) or superior physical force (in totalitarian states) will enable the one or the other point of view to triumph. The opposing points of view, of course, will remain, out in the open in democracies, hidden in totalitarian states. Rarely, if ever, do elections do away with the entrenched disagreements among peoples.
In the 20th. century the failure of democracies (and monarchies) to govern, in several overwhelming instances, effectively permitted totalitarian ideologues to seize power. The whole world became threatened for its continued existence by the handful of totalitarian states born in the collapse of earlier more representative, if not more democratic or republican governing structures.
Only this deadly threat to their well being enabled the Western democracies to come together as one and defeat those threatening them. But, the threat once removed, the opposing forces within these countries immediately resurfaced and once again made fully effective government, that we saw during the war, a thing of the past.
And this, right up until today, when we are faced once again with the possible failure, in this case our own, of democratic governing structures. Things may be even worse today than they were nearly 100 years ago because today the so-called leaders of the free world, including the leaders of France, the United States, and California, seem unable to make the tough restructuring decisions that are necessary if they would now lead their countries or states into a viable future.
The threat today is that in too many places too many lives, especially those of the young, are becoming fixed in place, too many are no longer able to improve their lives by their own actions. Now, perhaps for the first time in the history of our country, although not of the world, inequalities of opportunity are threatening to become permanent.
Why? Again, because governments seem unable to act.
I began to think about all this as I read Matthew Kaminski in today’s Wall Street Journal. He was writing about France and California, about Nicholas Sarkozy and Arnold Schwarzenegger. In both “states” reasonable actions by political leaders to improve things were no longer likely, in fact were highly unlikely, because entrenched interests, those opposing points of view that are always there, were in nearly every case powerful enough to prevent it.
In Kaminski’s own words:
“Now there’s much to recommend the Old World. California brings to mind my last home, France — God’s country blessed with fertile soil for wines, sun-blanched beaches, and a well-educated populace. Amusingly, both states are led by bling-bling immigrants married to glamorous women and elected to shake up the status quo. In both departments, the governator got a head start on Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris.”
“The parallels are also disquieting. The French have long experienced the unintended consequences of a large public sector. Ask them about it. As the number of people who get money from government grows, so does the power of constituencies dedicated to keep this honey dripping. Even when voters recognize the model carries drawbacks, such as subpar growth, high taxes, an uncompetitive business climate and above-average unemployment, their elected leaders find it near impossible to tweak the system. This has been the story of France for decades, and lately of California.”
