Impressions

America on Sale

By Tim Holland

It’s always interesting to see how those who have learned the art of political speech have the ability to cast their mistakes in a positive light. A fully revised and updated version of Machiavelli’s The Prince, with specific guidance for the 21^st century, must surely be available (secretly of course) to members of legislative bodies in the United States. I find it difficult to believe they could all come up with the same approach to the same problem independently of one another, although I’m quite sure the new version of The Prince comes in two parts: one for those in the majority and the other for the minority.

Education always seems to be the best example. The majority will always tout the success of their initiatives by demonstrating that test scores have improved and students are now reading at a higher grade level. The minority will point out that the overall scores still have the state in 49^th place and that while eighth graders are now reading at a fourth grade level (up from third) they are still four grades behind. Also buried in the report someplace will be the revelation that the passing grade is now 55 instead of 65.

What I also believe must be contained in the new version of The Prince is the requirement that the intelligence of the voter must be praised while firmly believing otherwise (after all aren’t the voters the product of America’s failing education system).

The very best example of the combination of Machiavellian manipulation, education and intelligence can be found in the current economic landscape: the “greatest story never told” versus economic Armageddon. Our problem is that the only one who seems to have a grasp of economics in the United States is Allan Greenspan and no one has understood anything he has said for the past twelve years, and there is some speculation that he has had the same difficulty. His recent replacement, Ben Bernanke, appears to be speaking much clearer but our minds have been so deadened by his predecessor that we are spending all of our time trying to find hidden meaning in his words.

Economists seem to be the new alchemists of the 21^st century. What they do and how they come up with their conclusions is a complete mystery to the media and each legislator and candidate has their resident economic Rasputin whispering and advising in his or her ear. Our leaders have now managed to outsource their brains to an army of consultants, advisors and handlers. Take the issue of the decline of the dollar as this is truly classic economic mystification

The prevailing economic analysis is that the declining dollar is bad because imports will now cost more and since we have a negative trade balance (we import more than we export) prices will rise thereby pushing up inflation and the cost of living. But wait, the declining dollar is good because it makes US manufactured products (whatever we have left after outsourcing most of them abroad) less expensive and more competitive on world markets thereby creating more jobs and lowering unemployment. But wait again, the falling value of the US dollar has put America on sale because it has resulted in the fall in the value of US corporations (the Dollar versus the Euro) making their purchase a bargain for the rest of the industrialized world. Ah, you say, but think of the investment that will be made in the US by other countries and the money that will pour in to the US economy. And then there is the increased tourism dollars that will be generated by all those wealthy Europeans coming to see America now that it is affordable for them.

So where does all this leave our 21^st century Machiavelli? I would imagine that the best advice would flow from the adage of “all elections are local.” When making a speech in an industrial area by a member of the majority, you might want to stress the advantages of a weak dollar (more exports, manufacturing, etc) while the minority might push on the emasculated manufacturing sector (outsourcing, etc.) being unable to take advantage of the current economic environment. Also, this is where an educated electorate comes in. If the man or woman in the street actually begins to understand the economics that rule their lives what will our elected officials do? Could it be that underfunding education works to their advantage? Machiavelli for the 21^st century? Possibly, but then aren’t most of our legislators products of America’s maligned education system?