Translation of excerpts from Robert Heinlein’s book, Take Your Government Back - part 6

"You need to manage the country as well as your business"

This is a well-known and, in my opinion, stupid statement.
Take a look at political professionals - they do just that. Are you sure that was what you meant? Any business is an organization that is entirely aimed at receiving personal gain from the business owner. In exchange for providing customers with what they need, the business gets its money. Isn't that what professional politicians are doing?

Our Constitution clearly states why we need a government - “to improve our country, protect justice, ensure peace and tranquility in the country, jointly defend the country, promote the well-being of citizens, and preserve the achievements of freedom” - and that’s all about government tasks. And there is not a word about the benefits and that "you need to manage the country as well as your business." Business methods are good for business purposes, but completely incompatible with the goals listed in the Constitution. I am not saying that a businessman will not be able to work well in the government. I just want to say that he should not try to govern the country as authoritarian and categorically as he runs his own company, otherwise the voters will immediately throw him out of the government as soon as they understand who they have contacted.

Of course, some issues of governing a country can be treated more as a business, but most attempts to reshape public services in a pragmatic way end with protesting shouts from all those who are used to the order established before the reforms, without the slightest praise from those these reforms helped.
')
Take for example the new income tax return. It was reworked, made understandable, all previously unobvious points are now laid out on the shelves to such an extent that even a clinical idiot with a hangover can fill in a declaration, unless he did not accidentally wash his book of incomes and expenses in the washing machine (and if he had these There are not two books - one for yourself and the other for tax inspection). The main thing that makes the new declaration a miracle of clerical genius is the amazing simplicity with which it describes all those intricacies that take into account various considerations, conjectures, and compromises with which the income tax owes the desperate efforts of government members from both major parties to make the tax fair for all, and at the same time manage to collect in the budget amounts sufficient to pay for the most expensive war in history.

So have you heard at least one praise to the creators of this miracle? No matter how wrong! But one mention of a pop comedian on March 15 — the date of the introduction of the new declaration — is enough for a rather intense laugh in the auditorium. The difficulty of understanding the new declaration is extolled to such an extent that it is compared with the theory of relativity.

Get rid of the advice about managing the country as well as business. No government should take commercial advantage of its work, and a democratic government should not be governed by its head alone. Are you still sure that you really want to govern the country “just like a business”? Then how about the confiscation of your house for non-payment of taxes on time, with the same speed with which the bank takes your house if the installment is overdue on the loan secured by the house, or from which the owner of the apartment you rent will evict you if the rent is not paid on time? So maybe you are satisfied with the fact that in such a situation the government will ask you to pay tax for years before it comes to selling your property under the hammer?

By the way, I can’t understand why people who are forced to stand in line at the post office or other government agencies immediately begin to scold the government for failing to provide their services without delay. And why, standing in the same line at a private bank, these same people are quiet and submissive as lambs. Maybe because they still want their government to work for their benefit and not to do business with them? Maybe.

Politicians always make compromises

This statement is quite true, but the conclusion made on its basis that all compromises mean dishonesty is utter nonsense. Compromises are the basis of democracy, without them there can be neither democracy nor freedom. The fact that we compromise means that when we negotiate with the other side, we, like the other party, make some concessions, and meeting halfway between our and their demands, we agree to act together, following the path, not to the end suiting each of the parties. Every happily married couple makes extensive use of compromises, and if the compromises are good in the family hearth circle, then why are they bad on Capitol Hill? A person who does not make any compromises is not a crystal clear idealist, as one might think, but a smug ass, undemocratic to the core of his bones.
In the chapter on the art of practical politics, we will talk about compromises, especially important in the nomination of party candidates, and during the primaries - the primaries.

Which government is better - recruited from the people of the ruling party, or formed on a competitive basis?

This question is not so clear how many of us see it.

To begin, let us agree that recruiting officials on a competitive basis is well suited to form the majority of state organizations of a level that does not directly affect government policy - provided that the rules for competitive selection are well thought out to form an honest and efficiently working organization, and these rules are are performed. Otherwise, the contest will turn out to be another loophole, filling the public service with corrupt professional politicians and their appointees, which then voters cannot get out of there. Juggling a competitive selection of applicants usually occurs during the oral exam, the results of which are counted almost on a par with the results of written testing. If the selection to your local government includes an oral exam, then there is room for fraud in selecting candidates for work in these organizations, and you have the right to believe that they are full of corrupt officials, incompetent people, and dropouts.

The second way of forming the public service - the appointment to the post of people of the party that won the election - does not bring much benefit to practicing politicians. If they begin to pay for their political obligations with posts in the government, they will very quickly find that they do not have enough of these posts to pay everyone. For this reason, some of our senators have become insatiable in search of new posts for the appointment of their people. Recently, one of the senators even proposed adopting a law requiring that party candidates be taken into account when they are appointed to the post of senior aerodynamics at the Wilbur Wright military air base. Other senators generally refuse to be assigned to posts, or they transfer this function to local party branches. Many politicians holding official posts have told me that it is better to throw off this heavy burden than to get an extra headache, and lose votes in the elections due to these appointments.

The reason for this state of affairs is very simple: for every such vacancy there are at least a dozen applicants who deserve, in their opinion, the post for their political merits. Thus, upon appointment to the post of one of them, the congressman gets his loyalty, and personal dislike of all the other eleven applicants. After several terms at the post, such a congressman finds himself surrounded by a crowd of rejected job seekers, say, postmaster, ready to vote for his opponent.

And yet, if you are going to engage in politics, you will have to deal with the appointment of people to government posts. Even if you accept the rule not to deal with this issue at all, sooner or later he will return to you. In this case, what to do, I will tell in the following chapters.

At the federal level, in contrast to state and local level organizations, there are almost no frauds in recruitment to government. Therefore, the federal level of public service will not give you much trouble, in general, it works well and is managed. Although, he is not a stranger to politics: civil servants of this level have an influential lobby in Washington, which, however, is quite neutral, and does not lean towards any of the parties. Basically, this lobby is seeking to expand and improve the financing of state organizations and increase the salaries of civil servants. By the way, Senator Robert Baird considers this lobby one of the most important issues facing the Republican Party. Personally, I do not think this is a problem. And you decide what you think about this.

The worst thing in our federal government agencies is the salary paid to employees there, and which, like the working conditions, is not so great as to attract enough competent employees to such highly skilled positions as, say, the head of the agronomy department , aerodynamic studies curator, or chief physicist of the Bureau of Standards. This problem is not limited to the federal level, it is characteristic of our entire public service. We pay congressmen $ 10,000 a year for work, while they spend about $ 15,000 on life, not counting the fact that they spend on the election campaign, and then we wonder why everyone in the government takes bribes.

One of the common misconceptions associated with the so-called "trough". According to the general opinion, every official appointed or chosen for a position obtains for himself food through a process, the middle between cannibalism and vampirism, which is almost marauding. In fact, only the most cunning and unprincipled ones stick to the trough. As I said, the salary of a congressman means slow ruin. The state congressmen are even worse off. For a state congressman or state senator, one hundred dollars a month is a high fee, and in most states it is even less. None of them receive a salary sufficient for living, while they work, fully fulfilling their duties in the present difficult situation, sixty hours a week, instead of the generally accepted forty.
How do they survive?
One out of two:
a) they live honestly, receiving passive income, or payment for work performed in their free time from public service, at the expense of their health, because such a lifestyle is an unbearable burden;
b) they take bribes, in a semi-legal, or illegal manner.
If a congressman, like many among them, is a lawyer, then it is not difficult for him to find a way to get bribes using the loopholes in the law. You can ask your lawyer how this is done. Although, what is there to hide, I myself can tell it. In most states (as far as I know, decisively in all), a congressman who is a lawyer has the right to work on the side during his term. For his services, the nature of which is not due to anything, he can receive unlimited fees. These fees can be a real payment for the services actually rendered, or they can be a half-catch that the congressman gets for his social position and related opportunities, without fulfilling any specific obligations (it is quite common, the congressman is gradually tamed by the bribegiver, without the direct purchase of his right to vote). Or it could be the usual bribe given in a way that does not violate the law

If you suddenly want to eradicate this evil in your state, make it easier than ever! Just ensure that the congressmen of your state receive at least $ 10,000 a year. This amount is a reasonable payment for their labor. In addition, prohibit them from receiving payment for work on the side, and ask each of them to publicly report on the income received at the beginning and at the end of the term of deputy.
However, advising to do this is much easier than writing and implementing such a law. And not because of opposition among congressmen, but because of the fierce and short-sighted resistance to the adoption of this law by the majority of the population, who hates government officials to receive a salary for which they can live, and will not tolerate any increase in public servants. salaries to a level commensurate with the degree of their responsibility.

It is strange and surprising that with all this, despite the meager wages and irregular working hours, despite the scornful, suspicious and biased attitude on the part of voters (who, by all accounts, consider congressmen something average between the released recidivist and the slave on the galleys ), a very large part of our congressmen are honest, sincere workers who do everything in their power for the benefit of the state and the voters.

Why do they do it? Why does anyone even take on such hard and ungrateful work? In England, work in the government is the most prestigious of all the activities that a gentleman can do. In our country, a person who has decided to enter the public service must say goodbye to his good reputation in society.
So why do respectable people get involved in civil service (and their number is an order of magnitude greater than the number of corrupt officials)? And, having burned your fingers on it, again and again they seek their re-election to the post? Maybe it's a thirst for power? Or they can not live without fame in society? Is there some kind of psychic dependence?

All of the above may be true to some extent, but I have my own theory about the main reason forcing people to serve society. My theory is based on a personal acquaintance with many congressmen, and, although it may be incorrect, I will still express it. I think the main reason forcing these people to do what they do is patriotism.

Party support

The majority in our country believe that actively supporting any of the parties is simply indecent, and that truly worthy people do not support any parties. You can often hear the smug “I vote for the candidate, not the party,” said as if all sins were forgiven for this pious deed. Especially this phrase is typical for women of middle and old age.

Personally, I always, with rare exceptions, vote not for the candidate, but for the party that nominated him. And I advise you to do the same. Find the party that suits you, and support! Maintain it regularly! Vote in the elections for the same party for which you voted for the primaries. Help strengthen party discipline, not only during the election campaign, but also after the elections, among the government officials appointed by your party. Let them support the political platform of the party.

Like all generalizations, this rule has its exceptions, which, however, are very few, so few that you need to spend several sleepless nights before deciding that special circumstances require breaking this rule. I can advise the simplest indicator of the need for such a decision that I use myself: I will not vote for a candidate about whom I know for sure that he is a notorious corrupt official, an opponent of our state system, or has, in my opinion, other negative qualities to the extent that makes it dangerous for society if it is appointed to the government.

At the same time, I will vote for the boob from our party, and not for the clever girl from the party of our opponents. Because all that I ask the wise-minded poor fellow is to represent me in the government, and there he will do exactly what the party deems necessary. A clever person from another party, by the very fact of his membership in another party, voted against the political program, which I consider fair, and which distinguishes one party from another.

The opinion that the most ideal way is to vote for a candidate, ignoring his party affiliation, results from a lack of understanding of the very essence of the democratic process. Democratic government is a way to reconcile the desire of each of us to do what he pleases, with the need to develop rules and regulations that promote the well-being of all together, and preserve the individuality of each individual.

When it comes to 140,000,000 individuals, the decision-making procedure is more formal and complex than if a family makes a decision on which film the whole family will watch. The decision-making procedure we use when necessary is as it is, and nothing better for this purpose has yet been invented by mankind. Individuals who have similar points of view get together, discuss the candidates they will nominate, and propose solutions to pressing problems, resolve the differences that arise, make compromises and, in the end, work out political programs and lists of candidates for primary elections - primaries. Naturally, individuals participate in the primaries of the particular party, with the point of view of which they initially agreed the most. As a result of the primaries, they hope to bring the list of party candidates and their program as close as possible to the ideal - their own point of view. Other groups of individuals do the same. After the primaries, political groups, both successful candidates and programs, and unsuccessful ones, are grouped into even larger groups, working out further compromises among themselves. By the way, a considerable number of concessions, if not most of them, are made by successful groups in favor of unsuccessful ones - because they know that they will not be able to win the elections alone.

And so, one way or another, the party program is forged, summing up a set of compromises, the arithmetic mean of the desires, opinions and needs of many people. All these people, albeit only partially, got what they consider to be fair, and in return give the party their support. After that the pre-election committee is formed. Often, the election campaign is governed by the most influential of the non-electoral candidates. Everywhere in the pre-election committee you will find candidates and their supporters who have not passed the main elections, who, however, are now working hard to ensure that their recent rival won the primaries. Do you think this is unprincipled? Oh, no! This is mutual support and civilized cooperation.

After the elections, the process of reaching a compromise begins again, because the candidates from each party who have won the elections are now in power. And now, based on their unlimited campaign promises, diametrically opposed directions of reform, and radically different points of view, they must develop common strategies for action, adopt laws and form a government.
It is from this complex endless chain of compromises that the government of our country, states, cities and towns is born. And there is no other way to create a government capable of managing truly free people.

But the main moral of this whole story is that you cannot participate in this process without belonging to one of the parties. What is a political party? This is a large group of people with quite different points of view, who agreed to compromise among themselves in order to develop a common, acceptable for all program that they could not single-handedly put into practice.

This definition fits decisively for all political organizations. In our country, we call political parties the level below the government as parties. The groups that make up these national parties are also small parties, no matter what we call them, a political club, group, bloc, wing or league. And, by the way, the “non-party league” is also a political party. Just like the "league of voters of independent candidates," or the "committee on civil matters." Lincoln also said about this: “the tail called by the foot doesn’t become like that because of the name”. Parties that do not call themselves parties, as a rule, are less responsible to their voters, and more prone to fraud than parties that openly admit their party nature.
But why is it necessary to support the party, rather than vote independently, after a thorough study of the candidates and their programs, proceeding from the common good? This approach looks good, and would look even better if it worked. It would be even better if the number π equals exactly three, but not an irrational 3.14159 inconvenient in calculations ...
You need to support the party for two reasons: one of them is of a moral order, the other is practical. The practical implication is that you cannot effectively engage in politics without participating in this process of finding compromises and settling differences, whereby individual citizens join together in larger groups until they can form a government. If you do not support the party, it means you are a loner, not going along with everyone else, and you have only one chance against 140,000,000 that you can influence what is happening in the country.

If you alone write to your congressman on some important issue for you, he will understand that you are a light-weight political loner and will not pay particular attention to your letter. But if he knows that you are an active member of the Southern Political Club of the Democratic or Republican Party, he will answer you with a detailed description of his views on this issue, and will ask you to state your answer to him. And no matter whether your congressman belongs to the same party as your political club or not, the main thing that the congressman knows is that you regularly participate in the fundamental democratic process of party politics.

: , , , . , , , , , .
, , . . , , , , . – .

! , , , , , , . , , , , . , .
, , . – . , , , . – , , , . , , – , . , , , . , , .

, , , , . , , , . , .
, «», , . . , , . : , , , . . , . , , , , .
, ? , , , , . , , . , , , .

, ? , , . , , , , - , , . . «» : , « » , . , , , , , .

, , , , , , . , , . , , , . - , , .
, , , , , . , , , , . , , , , .

. , . And it is right. , , , . , , . , .

7
Part 1, where there are links to all other parts