What’s It Gonna Be: Representative Governance or Corporate Governance?

Part of President Obama’s 2012 nomination acceptance speech made reference to the different visions and choices for our future.

“And on every issue, the choice you face won’t just be between two candidates or two parties. It will be a choice between two different paths for America, a choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future. Ours is a fight to restore the values that built the largest middle class and the strongest economy the world has ever known …” — President Obama, September 6, 2012

One of the major choices we face is between representation by an efficient, properly funded, and properly manned government that is accountable to its citizens, or corporate governance, via privatization or our government, that is accountable to a small subset of citizens: major shareholders. It’s a choice between a representative government with a primary goal to protect and empower its citizens thus promoting equal opportunity for all, or corporate governance with a primary goal to make a profit with no regard for citizens rights thus promoting opportunity only for the wealthy. It’s a choice between a representative government which regulates corporations to protect citizens from the unfettered excesses of the free market, or corporate governance to protect profit from citizenship dues and the costs related to protecting citizens from harmful corporate byproducts. It’s a choice between a representative government bound to empower and maximize the freedom of its citizens through the resources of the Public, or corporate governance bound to destroy the Public and enslave the citizens.

George Lakoff writes about the governance choice as a balancing act:

” … The issue is the proper balance between the Public and the Corporate [Private]. Both need each other. Corporations should create goods and services that people need at a reasonable profit, without any harm. Government regulation exists to achieve this. Honest business has been the American way for a long time, supported by the Public, regulated by the government, and producing goods, services and well-paying jobs. All in balance. We need to get back to that.” – George Lakoff, The Little Blue Book, page 69.

Here are some of the elements of this balancing act from President Obama:

“This is the choice we now face. This is what the election comes down to. Over and over, we’ve been told by our opponents that bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations are the only way, that since government can’t do everything, it should do almost nothing. If you can’t afford health insurance, hope that you don’t get sick. If a company releases toxic pollution into the air your children breathe, well, that’s the price of progress. If you can’t afford to start a business or go to college, take my opponent’s advice and borrow money from your parents. ” — President Obama, September 6, 2012

Without rich parents, most citizens need representative government to protect and empower them, and ensure equal opportunity for success. With corporate governance only ONE% of America’s parents will succeed. Then, they can protect and empower just their children while most citizens are left on their own.

Care to guess which form of governance Romney and Ryan prefer or how long it will take them to complete our transition to it, if elected?



This entry was posted in Corporate Intrusion, Protect & Empower. Bookmark the permalink.   |   Email This Post Email This Post   |  

About Andy Hailey

Vietnam Vet, UT El Paso Grad, Retired Aerospace Engineer, former union rep, 60's Republican now progressive, web admin, blogger.

Comments are closed.