By LEE N. HOWELL
Politically Speaking

One of the favorite expressions of the verbally challenged political hacks in this country — the ones who can't think of anything original to say and figure that any trite phrase which sounds good on the stump will do — is, “Why can't we run government like a business?”

We have all heard it said — we may have said it ourselves — for it does seem that this is one thing that some of every political stripe can agree upon.

But, the bottom line is that government can not run like a business.

The main reason is that government is not a business.

For starters, businesses are supposed to make a profit — and none of us really want government to make a profit.

(Of course, there is some difference of opinion on that point, depending upon whether you are looking at the state or federal government and what your partisan leanings are: In government, profits are called surpluses and, at the state level, Republicans tell us they are bad because they fund all those “pork” projects that Democrats believe are really the “meat and potatoes” their constituents demand; at the federal level, the Republicans and the Democrats, while differing on the specifics, both tell us they are good because they fund the projects we need but can't justify during the years and years of deficits we have struggled through.)

Then, there is the fact that in most businesses — especially the “Mom 'n' Pop” operations which make up the vast majority of America's small businesses and were the beginning of most of the big ones that exist today — the top level management is fairly stable while the employees come and go, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes not.

In government, though, the executives (read that the politicians) are elected for set terms and may be voted out of office on a regular basis, while the employees (read, civil service bureaucrats) are on board for the long haul and can just thumb their noses at the politicians with a “I'll be here after you are defeated” attitude.

(One of the more controversial elements of Gov. Roy Barnes education reform package — the elimination of the so-called “teacher tenure” law — was aimed at combating this problem: Good teachers — like good administrators who gave up their tenure protection several years ago — don't need the crutch of tenure to succeed, while bad teachers can't survive without it.)

Now, some people who say “government should be run like a business” are probably sincere, and there are some tools used in business that could be useful in government.

But, many people who say it are simply voicing their frustration with what they perceive as a government grown too big.

What they overlook, though, is that government is still charged with the Constitutional responsibility of “creating a more perfect union, insuring justice, promoting the general welfare, providing for the common defense, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”

That is a big job — one which could sometimes be done more efficiently and more effectively, to be sure — but still a big job that demands big answers.

In the late 1970s, there was an argument in this country over returning control of the Panama Canal to Panama. The same conservatives who argued the loudest against big government were the same people who were most vehement about the U.S. keeping control of the Canal.

What they overlooked was the fact that it took a pretty big government operation to defeat yellow fever, strong-arm local entities who objected, clean out a rain forest, and build the Canal in the first place.

Businesses had dreamed of a “pathway between the seas” — but, if it had not been for government which overcame many of the problems that businesses could not address, there would never have been any Canal to argue over.

Why can't government run like a business? Probably because they are not the same and never will be.

[Lee N. Howell is an award-winning writer who has been observing and commenting upon politics and society in the Southern Crescent, the state, and nation for more than a quarter of a century.]

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page