The Locus of Responsibility

Bubblehead:

It is comforting to know that you are ever vigilant and protecting viewers from Morialekafa’s overgeneralizations, exaggerations, and carelessness. Of course one can’t blame all of South Dakota for the mindlessness of one of its legislators. Nor can you blame all Arizonians for the idiocy of their legislators, all of Wisconsin voters for the evil of their Governor, all of Florida for the stupidity of their Governor, or all U.S. voters for the behavior of their Presidents. But you do raise an interesting question; just where is the locus of responsibility to be found?

Taking South Dakota for an example, it does not seem reasonable to me that this legislator, whoever he/she is, would have suggested legalizing the murder of abortion doctors just on his/her own. He/she must have had enough votes to get elected to office. Perhaps those who voted were not aware of what they were voting for as it’s unlikely the person campaigned on murdering abortion doctors. But they must have known the candidate was a conservative, and must also have known he/she was probably virulently anti-abortion. The bill must have been introduced with at least the expectation of some support. There must have been a climate of belief in South Dakota that allowed such a fantastic bill to even be considered. So where does the responsibility lie? With the lone legislator, only those who voted for him/her, the leader of the branch of government that allowed the bill to be put forward, the Governor of the state, or the people in general who for whatever reason allowed this person to be elected? It is pretty difficult to pin the responsibility down in a case like this.

In some cases it might be possible to narrow down the possibilities, at least somewhat. Take Wisconsin, for example. It is obvious (I think) that voters of that state did not expect their newly elected Governor to almost immediately attempt to take away the right of workers to engage in union activities. Even here, however, the Governor has the support of the Republican Congress (sans Democrats) that must have known and even promoted this draconian proposal. Republicans in Wisconsin are in the majority at the moment and only need to capture one Democrat to pass this bill. But why are Wisconsin Republicans so dedicated to breaking the unions? There is every reason to believe they are acting on behalf of corporate interests, the Koch brothers in particular. As this seems to be part of an organized effort to destroy unions in the U.S. there must be other corporations involved. Wisconsin is not the only state where anti-union procedures are taking place. In this case it is probably reasonable to conclude that the locus of responsibility for union busting lies with our corporations that would stand to gain a great deal from getting rid of union demands. The practical responsibility for bringing this about lies mainly with the Governor and his supporters.

Were Bush and Cheney responsible for the “war” in Iraq? In this case I would say yes, they were. It is true they represented oil and other interests, but in this case they had the power to say “no” had they chosen to do so. They not only chose to invade Iraq, they even lied and schemed to do so. We know now that Bush/Cheney wanted to attack Iraq even before 9/11, and we also know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Whether Bush/Cheney were representing oil and other interests in this case is essentially irrelevant. They and they alone had the power to do what they did. It might have been difficult for them to resist pressures to attack Iraq, but they could have done so.

It seems to me it is only when you reach the level of the Presidency, or the highest level of authority possible, that you can truly pin down responsibility, for it is only the President or the very highest CEO who enjoys virtually absolute power. It is not absolute in theory, but in practice it might as well be. President Obama, for example, could have decided not to continue the “war” in Afghanistan. He must have been under enormous pressure to continue, and he may even have believed it was the right thing to do, but he, and he alone, could have decided differently.

It seems to me the true locus of responsibility always comes back to leadership. It is true that leaders have supporters that put them in their positions of authority, but it is always the leader that has to decide how to use that authority. The Governor of Wisconsin could have said “no” to the Koch brothers and their plan to decimate the unions. He obviously decided not to do so. Obama could have said “no” to Afghanistan. Bush/Cheney could have decided against “war,” as well as torture, but did not. When you think about it, it is hard to conclude that the perilous situation we find ourselves in at the moment is not the result of failed leadership all along the way for a very long time. Why, for example, have so many species gone extinct? I would say it is because our leaders did not protect them and their environments. Why are we now confronted with failing bridges and deteriorating schools? Why are our states in such terrible financial conditions? Why do we have such a tremendous national debt? Why are so many people living in poverty? Why do so many millions of Americans lack health insurance? I would suggest that all of these things are the direct result of the wrong decisions made by our leaders. In some cases leaders may have thought they were doing the right thing but it didn’t turn out that way. I strongly suspect, however, that they more often made bad decisions for questionable reasons.

Why, we might ask, have our leaders made such poor decisions? Do we have a propensity for electing bad leaders? I think we often do, but our leaders are under tremendous pressure to satisfy special interests, and in order to get elected and stay in office they have to try to satisfy these interests. But special interests are special in that they are, indeed, special, as opposed to the general interests of all, To make matters worse, these special interests tend to share one primary characteristic, greed. There no longer exists in our country any conception of the common good. Virtually no decisions are made with the common good in mind. What makes things even worse, we have not only abandoned legislating for the common good, almost all of our legislation is the result of compromise. But as this is compromise between different special interests, two different versions of greed, rather than compromises involving the common good, nothing we do, virtually by design, can ever be in the best interest of the community at large. There is something to be said for Benevolent Dictatorships, but benevolent dictators are almost as rare as benevolent Republicans.