When a political figure says something outlandish or untrue, people often ask, do they really think we're that stupid? Maybe. But the more likely answer is, no, not anymore. They may have worried about that sort of thing when the elected class at least pretended to work on our behalf. Back then, the power of the vote was taken more seriously. Today, however, public service has become self-service. We are no longer citizens to be governed but rather, subjects to be ruled.
Instead of govt working for the people, many within it see it the other way around. How else does one explain rules that apply to us but not to those who make them? In that light, no, they don't think we’re stupid. It’s worse than that. They simply don’t care. They will lie with impunity, make ridiculous claims, and openly slander half the country because, well, what are you going to do about it? And lest you think these examples are one-sided, the other side of the aisle is not immune to this condition, either, as shown here, here, and here.
Given the re-election rate of incumbents, there is little incentive for them to care what we think. Hence, FYTW has become a very attractive model. If you have not already figured it out, FTWY is as crude as it is direct – fuck you, that’s why. You can practically hear that sentiment whenever the proles dare to ask impertinent questions of the elected and anointed. They told us Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation. They told us inflation was transitory. Years back, they told us that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and that the era of big government was over. And people believed those claims and others, especially when the letter next to the speaker’s name corresponded to their voting preferences. As if being made a fool of by someone on your team makes it okay.
Way back during the beginnings of our dalliance with “fundamental transformation,” a new thought process began to emerge: when all of the plausible reasons for why a plan or policy did not work are exhausted, you have to consider alternative reasons. One of the alternatives is an explanation that most Americans reflexively avoid – that the bad outcome was intentional. No one wants to believe that their elected representatives and the bureaucrats whose salaries we fund would purposely do things that harm the country. In the real world, intentionally hurting someone else is usually called a crime. Here, it’s known as politics. FTYW.
Where does that leave us? On precarious ground if polls are to be believed and there seems little reason to doubt them. In my lifetime, two seismic shifts have occurred in the relationship between the government and the governed. The first was cited earlier, that of people within government believing that we work for them instead of the other way around. The second is that too many people have become conditioned to believe that any issue, question, problem, or concern demands a government answer or fix. Why? What special powers do the elected and anointed have that we mere mortals are not privy to?
This is not an anti-government screed. A functioning government is necessary to maintain a civil society, but that responsibility comes with limits. No one would expect a food manufacturing company to take up automobile production or a consulting practice to start building homes. By the same token, the public sector also operates within implied confines. For instance, think what you will about climate change and the dangers it may or may not pose to human life. By what calculus is government equipped to deal with it?
This is the same apparatus that foisted enormous economic and societal harm on millions of people during the pandemic while its own members did not miss a single paycheck. This is the same group populated by people pushing electric vehicles on you while climbing into the back of chauffeur-driven SUVs whose fuel is someone else’s job. These are the people accusing you of crimes against Gaia because you like airline travel and backyard barbecues while they jetted to all corners of the world on private planes and ate in restaurants as the rest of us were caged at home. FYTW.
This doctrine is very convenient to people who are impervious to economic reality, people who rarely face the consequences of their own decisions. What’s inflation to someone with a nine- or ten-figure net worth? What’s the argument over gun rights for people protected by armed security? Why would people whose kids are welcomed into the private school industrial complex that spits out the next generation of masters of the universe have any interest in school choice for the masses? FYTW.
One potential antidote for this condition is reality. One-time advocates of sanctuary cities are doing are flipping when illegal immigrants land on their doorstep. Same with people whose concern over the homeless ends when the problem gets too close to home. And, the same people who are all for neutering domestic oil and natural gas production and use are suddenly experiencing heartburn over OPEC’s decision to cut output. When an issue is in your face, FYTW loses its utility.
This will only intensify if economic times are as harsh as some have predicted. A possible recession is the lowest-level expectation, and when hard times hit, the first things to go are luxury beliefs. We’ll have less time for pronouns, diversity, and ESG when things once taken for granted – like affordably heating one’s house – become major muscle movements. Reality does not operate in shades of red or blue; it does not see at all. Or feel. Or rank order people based on identity. It simply is and it demands to be addressed.
The stress of reality also creates a second possible remedy – the proles connecting the dots between stated intentions and actual outcomes. “The current thing” mentality that began with almost unequivocal support for Ukraine has since led to questions over just how much taxpayer money will continue being sent in our name. Treating social concerns as more important than the quaint idea of teachers teaching the subjects they were hired to teach has created an ongoing exodus from public schools. You can probably think of other examples where the cold, hard slap of reality has been heard. How many more will it take?
In fairness, FYTW gets a good deal of its value from we, the people. When you let the staff – and elected officials are our employees – do what it wants, you may not like the results. Systemic change follows the model of turning around a battleship. It takes a long time. One election won’t do it. Swapping a few Ds for Rs or vice-versa is an activity but not necessarily an action. Perhaps it begins with people finally understanding that while they may not care about politics, and there are innumerable articles on that topic, politics unabashedly cares about you.
"being made a fool of by someone on your team makes it okay" - A really serious point in our hyper=-partisan world. As you note when things are going well we pretty much can ignore our leaders. Then we had a pandemic where all of a sudden the world changes. A few were angry right away as they saw it was foolish theater, others are discovering how badly they were treated. OTOH, that same odd 30% think the government did a great job and they are better off - go figure.
I suspect this coming recession will sink many boats. And when we discover that ~ 50% of the outlays must go to pay debt service and actual cuts to cherished things must happen and must be done, oh dear. We are busy devaluing the dollar via inflation at a much faster rate than the nominal, tolerable (hidden) 2% but the day is arriving. People ask how could we build the interstate highways (that we can't maintain) or how did we get to the moon, back in the day. That was before nearly half the budget was devoted to individual transfer payments.
Prepare for some very mad people and maybe and end to FYTW.