I’ve always been a bit leery of the idea that what government needs is a successful business executive. Henry Payne’s recent column comparing Gov. Snyder and Gov. Daniels prompted me to wonder why. I came up with a few more ideas.
He wrote, “Contrary to popular wisdom, the Daniels role model — followed to a ‘T’ by Snyder — is not conservativism; it is creating a successful business climate. What defines Daniels and Snyder is their executive’s competiveness. They are CEOs who see their states as businesses in a battle for market share.”
This suggests a lack of governing principles, or as George H.W. Bush called it, “the vision thing.” Do whatever it takes.
A political executive who has a business background, without an adequately freedom-oriented vision can be harmful to the public good.
To take one example, the drive to “battle for market share” is entirely compatible with targeted business incentives, such as the much-maligned film-industry tax. Does Indiana give a tax break to Michael Moore? Well, so should Michigan!
Viewing state government primarily as a means of boosting the business competitiveness of a state can translate to a pragmatic-based advocacy of government doing things it shouldn’t be doing. The problem goes beyond tax incentives for business.
During his state-of-the-state speech, Snyder went big, if you will, on obesity. Will the state fisc save in outlays if the governor enacts policies to nag people into eating right and exercising 30 minutes a day? Probably. But in taking those steps, government becomes our mother, stepping outside its boundaries. (Is obesity a problem for the state budget? Then cut back on state spending on health welfare.)
Focusing government on competitiveness, in other words, is a bad philosophy of governing.
Dutch theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper came up with the idea of “sphere sovereignty,” and I think it’s worth mentioning here. The idea says, in brief, that God ordained various human institutions–family, business, government, church–to address human needs. If one institution takes over the responsibilities of another, trouble results. I don’t think you need to be a Christian to see the value in this concept.
So when business leaders become political ones, we run the risk that they will apply business logic, inappropriately, to government. In business, you can say, “does it save money? Let’s do it.” In government, you need to ask, “does it save money? That’s interesting. Now, is it consistent with principles of American government, including personal liberty?”
Unfortunately for the war on obesity, a nanny state may save the state money. But I don’t see that it honors individual freedoms.
If Snyder’s approach to governing does not include any philosophical (rather than pragmatic) limits on the role of government, it will lead to an over-reaching government.
http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=3990