When the initial central planning doesn’t work as intended the failure begets another special interest/politico intervention based on the last set of “plans” that failed. In turn, the new-newest plan fails which begets yet another set of special interest/politico intervention based on the new-newest plan failure and so it goes resulting in cascading intervention failure.
One might know the concept of cascading intervention failure under another title: It will be different this time. Yes, the concept that it’s not the plan that fails, it’s merely the people instituting the plan that failed. Therefore, new people will make the plan succeed. Yet the plan fails again.
Maybe, just maybe: It’s a plan failure and not a people failure? Nay, nay. It will be different this time! -Or- is it really: It will be different this time, like it wasn’t last time, nor will it be next time.
Sound familiar? Sounds like Greensboro in the last thirty years?
How can one spend thirty years, untold millions of dollars, and yet the city decays? How can one spend thirty years, millions of dollars, the city decays yet do the same thing over and over with only occasional opposition?
There certainly are many reasons, however, one reason, in particular, that encompasses most of the other reasons, is purposeful sentiment coordination by those orchestrating the cascading intervention failure. Sentiment coordination? How so?
Sentiment coordination is the attempt to make all believe in a common experience. That all, believing in a common experience, then need to act as an integrated entity in order to enjoy the common experience and achieve the ends of the common experience. Politicos yearn to be the focal point of the common experience and promote the image that individuals should act as an integrated entity so as to support the common experience and its ends. (1)
If one steps back for a moment and ponders the concept of common experience one will find that individuals do not display sentiment coordination as they lack common experience across the entire array of individuals. Jamal, Jose and Sam have differing experiences/differing sentiments. Even when individuals, such as Jamal, Jose and Sam display some level of voluntary coordination of sentiment, such as joining a club, the club generally has many members exhibiting many, many sentiments and the common experience differs widely among club members.
Regarding politicos and their attempt at sentiment coordination, exactly who sets the sentiment that needs coordinated? Is the sentiment cloaked in platitudes?
You guessed it! Politicos attempt to set sentiment coordination as a platitude. Maybe the following sounds familiar: job creation. Hence everyone is lead down the political path of sentiment coordination of “creating jobs” and being that job creation is a platitude, how could anyone be “against job creation”? Therefore, regardless of cascading failure in the realm of job creation, the failure is supposedly not the point as one needs to feel warm and fuzzy, in that, they support the common experience of job creation. Insidious, huh? (2)
One ends this exercise with unabated, constant and continuous cascading intervention failure. The failure is perpetuated as the sentiment coordination of a platitude makes all naysayer(s) politically framed as against the platitude i.e. “against job creation”. Regardless of the path of failure and multi-millions of dollars wasted, the failure and waste are politically-purposely framed as good… as one merely needs to feel the warm and fuzzy common experience of the political platitude.
Notes:
(1) The People’s Romance, Why People Love Government (as Much as They Do), Daniel Klein, The Independent Institute, Summer 2005
http://www.academia.edu/2802162/The_People_s_Romance
(2) Unsustainable platitudes, Pittsburgh Tribune, Donald Boudreaux, 08/14/2014
http://triblive.com/opinion/donaldboudreaux/6556379-74/petroleum-sustainability-policies#axzz39n9x2J8b
