Overloading The Well-Oiled Machine: An Analogy For How Liberalism Has Destroyed American Capitalism

Overloading The Well-Oiled Machine: An Analogy For How Liberalism Has Destroyed American Capitalism 07/11/2009

by Dacia Nichol

It would be nice if all the efforts regarding this administration could be separated with cover-bound opposition summaries, but such is not the case. All of the issues are so convoluted with agendas and prior proven failures connected to one another that writers risk tiring or boring the readers with the necessary repetition of resistance talking points. Administration 44 does nothing but propose ideas that have a multitude of examples of failure worldwide while pointing to any opposition suggestion as being part of a policy that failed under Administration 43 and thus branding them the elusive party of "no". This is convenient as yes, failures did begin under 43, but the equation only proves true without any analysis of legislative history and the forces behind the proposals that made it so.

This explanation admittedly is somewhat abstract, so for a visual metaphor, let's think of a lean track runner - efficient, healthy, effective in his purpose to cross the finish line victorious and with ample time to spare before his competition catches up. He has a training routine that he can adjust and alter as necessary and at his full discretion to achieve the maximum results. After so many wins, a competitor makes a complaint - they claim that the runner has some unfair advantages such as more expensive running shoes, a better coach, and better training equipment, all of which he's gained through sponsorships. The competitor advocates to other losing competitors and to the track authority for budget restrictions in the name of fairer competition. The authority agrees in the hope that the lean track runner will spread the techniques of his success by using public equipment that the rest of the runners also have, and the new regulations are enacted.

The lean track runner now works harder since training is now somewhat more tedious (more weight reps because the resistance machine costs too much...things of that sort), but he still manages to stay in top shape and win every race. Unhappy with this result, the competitor makes another complaint: Because of the biological advantages afforded to the lean track runner, his wins cannot be fairly judged as evidence that hard work can lead to success. Therefore, all the other runners who were not so blessed should have their time subsidized with an extra 45 seconds per race. The track authority understands that the lean track runner brings in a large fan base of paying spectators, and by enforcing such proposed rules, they stand to lose considerable profit since there will be no star athlete to draw fans. While wavering over the decision, an anonymous donor makes a large contribution to the school on behalf of the advocating competitors for better track equipment and new uniforms. Free from budget concerns for the season, the school board pressures the track authority to approve the subsidized time, and the track authority obliges.

The lean track runner is now forced to enact streamlined training techniques to make up for his lost time. He eats a steady high protein diet, and gives up most social activities in order to still keep his first place finishes. He is cranky and resentful and no longer feels any sort of team spirit since the team seems to be working against him. Still...he pushes onward out of pride and loyalty to his fans. He now takes some losses, but overall he has majority wins. Again, the competitor makes a complaint: It's not fair that the food the lean runner consumes is of such high quality and fortified with so many vitamins that the other competitors cannot easily access without supplements. To further their point, they make a presentation to the track authority detailing the environmental impact the fortified food is responsible for, and present a multitude of confusing statistics and graphs that attempt to point out negative long term effects of consuming the fortified food. The track authority has had enough, and now having lost so much money by losing their star athlete's status despite the anonymous track donation (the board went out of budget of course because they assumed spectator profits would continue to grow), they turn the competitors down.

In response, the competitors appeal to the school board, broadening their argument further to include the lunches served at the school. They petition the school's parents, and when they are unresponsive, they petition parents at other schools whose children are sworn enemies or disgruntled opponents of the school's athletes. Under pressure from the surrounding school boards and parents, the board and track authority cave, enacting the competitor's proposals regarding nutrition for athletes and students. As the year goes on, the star athlete begins to put on extra weight from the high-calorie food he now must consume. Any competitive advantage has now been lost and as a result, he never wins another race. The school's track events now garner minimal attendance as all the fans have now invested their money into the surrounding schools who still have star athletes to entertain them (the regulations were only put on their school - not others in the district). Eventually, their track program closes.

So in sum, it wasn't that the school lacked the funding or the necessary components (star athlete) to succeed and have a profitable venture. It was all the policies enacted in the name of "fairness" that slowed down the well-oiled machine. And this is how liberalism has killed capitalism - it's not that capitalism doesn't work, it's that it can't function when the parts are crap.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

About Us