Newfoundland Politician Dilemma

Our current political system has an inherent dilemma. It's been discussed in various ways. Now, I think we can change the system within the system. There is no need for any kind of revolution, but only a new awareness for people of how these things work.

The Newfoundland political dilemma, which may already be gone past the point of no return, is that politicians are not incentivized to work for the general good, but only for the good of specific lobby groups. There is no group representing "everyone". There are teachers unions, nurses unions, community groups, seniors, disabled people, bus drivers, farmers, etc. etc. etc. They each have a keen interest in having their voices heard. What we don't see is the negative general impact these demands have when they are met.

Take for instance farmers. They demand subsidies for their crops. Everyone probably agrees they deserve this subsidy and we have no idea that it costs us anything. In reality, our food costs more, but not quite enough for us to notice. This death-by-a-thousand-cuts scenario stays under the radar so no one reacts with outrage.

On the other hand, the farmer whose entire life is dependent on this subsidy, will have a much different outlook on the issue. A government subsidy could mean a 20% or 30% or 40% increase in revenue. You better believe they will fight for this subsidy.

Now, the politician's main goal is to get elected. If this farming lobby is very vocal, it makes a lot of political sense for the person running to declare publicly that they support the farmers. So, they give them the subsidy. The farmers then campaign for the politician.

This happens with every area. Nurses, teachers, fisherpeople, etc. all have loud voices. Many people know people in these professions and are on their side. Powerful unions and lobby groups campaign for these special interests and everyone knows what they are looking for.

Yet, once again, there is no citizens' representative. No one runs an entire campaign against a special interest because they might lose $20 a year because of them. They are not even aware of the $20 and even if they were, they wouldn't be motivated to stop it.

Probably one of the best examples of all of this can be found in Newfoundland. All the political parties during the election spent their entire campaign going from one special interest group to another saying how they would "increase funding" or "continue to support" these groups.

These politicians will say whatever is necessary to get re-elected and they know it is political suicide to say they will not support one of these groups.

Imagine if a politician said the following:

I will not support an increased pension for seniors. This will save the average taxpayer $20 per year!

or

If I get elected, I will not invest in local business. I will let the private sector do that. I will not support rural communities with make-work projects through taxation from the productive sectors of the economy.

Like I said, it would be political suicide.

The only way to turn the tide on this attitude is to advocate freedom and to let people know that they can spend their own money far better than the government can. People have to realize that taking money out of the productive section of the economy and handing it out as gifts to the unproductive parts will not improve the economy, only make it worse.