My Stones and flowers blog was never intended to be overtly political, although I should have known that the love of beauty is not separate from the rest of human life. Furthermore, the care of our earth has always been political, albeit not in the current sense of partisan warfare and competition for public approval. Politics in its basic meaning is “the art of managing the affairs of people who live in proximity and share resources”; or “the art and science of government.” In terms of such broad definitions, almost everything we do is political, since we do not live in isolation.

 That being said, I do think that the language of politics these days has become toxic enough that it is past time to examine carefully some of the assumptions that lie beneath our unquestioned positions. If we want to survive the coming weeks in North America with at least some integrity and sanity remaining, we could begin by declaring openly what we take for granted.  

            Assumption 1: government is bad, while business (of all sorts) is good, hence, the more government regulations we have, the worse off we’ll be.

Those who subscribe to this belief that government is inherently bad often preface the word “government” with “intrusive.”  I live in a province where this belief is widespread; agricultural communities, with their typical stance of self-sufficiency and determined independence, often (sometimes for good reasons) deride government officials as interfering and annoying.

There is much to admire in that rural pride and creative problem-solving, especially since farming communities can be astonishingly generous in their assistance of one another. Yet something bothers me about an automatic dismissal of government as bad.

Since government is run by human beings and businesses are also run by human beings, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that one is inevitably corrupt and the other trustworthy—whichever way you choose to apply those attributes. Government offices (at all levels) are often populated by good and decent people who strive to do what is best for as many people as possible; the same can be said of places of business. Both spheres can also inflict much suffering and injustice, and we don’t need to look far to find examples. To make a general statement about either is illogical and unrealistic.

Besides, governments change; businesses change ownership. In a democracy, we have more direct influence in government changes but we can also influence some changes in businesses through our buying choices. Thus it is far better to pay attention to specific actions and consequences than to simply apply automatic labels. In fact, pay a great deal of attention and make sure that both governments and businesses are strictly regulated and independently monitored. Make it as hard as possible to get away with corruption of all sorts in both systems.

            Assumption 2: Because government is by nature always inefficient, private businesses should be contracted to meet as many human needs as absolutely possible. About the only institution that government should provide is military defence, and even that can (and should?) be privatized as much as possible.  

 Before I comment on this assumption, I want to point out that there’s yet another assumption underlying this one that really needs to be examined.

            Assumption 3: Efficiency is an ultimate good and should be sought after without question. Waste of time, waste of money, waste of resources—all criminal (metaphorically at least if not actually).

 Since the efficiency of any action or policy is measured in relation to the goals of actions and policies, we have to return to that second assumption and ask questions about the purpose of government and the purpose of business.

Businesses, from massive corporations to small family farms and craft markets, can be made more efficient because their primary purpose is to make money. They have additional purposes, of course, such as meeting the needs of their immediate communities, developing and using the skills of the owners and workers, paying for the resources required by the creativity of owners and workers, taking care of the environment, etc. Add in what delightful goals you wish. Some profits will have to be made, though, in order to achieve those additional goals. Interestingly, too zealous a focus on money and/or efficiency is likely to sabotage those goals.

  The purpose of government, however, is entirely different. Its only goal should be to take care of its people, all of its people. If that sounds startling and ridiculously idealistic, let’s take a step back. The purpose of government is to create enough order and predictability to make it possible for people to take care of themselves, beginning with the basic needs of survival. Whatever form of government you imagine, from feudal landlords and monarchies to modern dictatorships, and including various forms of cooperation and/or democracy, the purpose of government is to establish and keep enough order to provide what people need to flourish.

If that still sounds idealistic—we know very well that plenty of governments of all sorts have not taken and are not taking care of their people—it helps to remember that even the worst, most brutally selfish dictator or drug lord will be better off in the long run with satisfied, happily productive people than with angry, starving people, even if only in terms of personal security. At a very basic level, people want their governments to defend them from outside threats, establish predictable and dependable ownership of property, and make it possible for them to earn their living. As soon as the goal of government becomes making money, whether for an aristocratic class. or for a single individual, or for a clutch of oligarchs, it has become corrupt and no longer fulfills its only rightful purpose.

Efficiency has nothing whatever to do with the act of caring for people. Anyone who has ever been a parent or looked after small children knows that being efficient is impossible. Anyone who has cared for elderly parents understands that beyond slight changes here and there, efficiency isn’t the point. In fact, a focus on being efficient puts some other goal in place of the compassion and patience required to give care.

Is all of the above over-simplified? Yes, definitely. Both business and government are far more complex than what I’ve suggested here. However, we need to start somewhere in our thinking, if we choose not to just yell insults. Paying attention to assumptions is a place to start, both our own assumptions and the assumptions of all those others we have derided as fools for thinking differently than we do.

            A second step, which is related, is to pay attention to the words used to talk about those crucial assumptions. As George Orwell so astutely noted in his famous essay, “Politics and the English Language,” a misuse of language indicates either fuzzy thinking or nefarious intentions or, more likely, both. To take one egregious example: a “Department of Government Efficiency” is by its very title and supposed purpose revealed as illegitimate. Subsequent information about the performance of said new department indicates that efficiency was never actually the point, but merely a distraction, a mask. It’s worth asking just what the purpose was.

It may feel like trying to nail porridge to the wall, but let’s keep asking questions about assumptions and keep insisting that words be clear and consistent.      

              Language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. (George Orwell)