I remember that each of them were required reading as part of my education. But, I can't remember when and in what sequence I was required to read them. On reflection, they should have been read in historical sequence. Each of the authors lived in very different historical times. Despite that, however, the books have a remarkably similar theme...the creation of the perfect way to govern people, which is another way of saying the creation of Utopia. It is clear to me that the literary works of these men should form the basis of the political science segment of the study of history in our schools. A classroom discussion of the ideas of these philosophers, and a subsequent discussion of their impact on the thinking of many Americans would be a very useful basis for an understanding of governance. I also contend they should be required reading for every elected official.
I keep asking myself the same question...Why would someone with little or no education about the very complex area of governance seek public office in the very area they know very little about? To me, it is akin to me applying for a position of diamond cutter, a trade for which I have no education or training. Since no one in my family has ever practiced that trade, who would hire me? The answer is simple...no one, especially with no family in the trade. Yet, we often elect people, who have direct control over our lives, but have absolutely no education or training on governance. Even worse, many elected officials actually resist education and training about governance even after they are elected. I just don't buy the notion that we can always sweep the uneducated from office if they under perform, because the harm they may do is too often irrevocable.
Regretfully, I believe that the current and past members of the Council of Point Pleasant Borough have been are seriously deficient in their understanding of governance, and therefore, have made mistake after mistake at the expense of those governed.
Permit me to use a simple example. Some years ago, the Council decided to build a skateboard park. The reason for this government sourced undertaking was that it would provide a gathering place for children away from private property (think home driveways, shopping malls and commercial parking lots) and public places (think streets, and sidewalks). At first blush it sounded like a good idea, but where should it be built? The Council decided to build the park with public funds on prime commercial real estate.
What they did not consider follows:
- Without supervision, the skateboard park is as dangerous as skating in the street... Think $ for supervision
- To insure the Borough against liability claims... Think $ for insurance
- The facility has to be maintained... Think $ for upkeep
- The noise created at the site selected has raised the ire of nearby residents... Think time and angst.
- The facility is lighted... Think $ for electricity
I believe the reasons are quite simple. The elected officials who approved the skateboard park believed that the proper role of government to provide services that they think will make people happy and satisfied. According to this philosophy, government should undertake projects that may not economically feasible for business entities...all for the common good. The Council members of the time felt it necessary for the borough to build the park, because no one else would.
I suggest to you that the skateboard park is a perfect exemplification of a lack of basic understanding of the Council at the time of the role of government and the mechanics of fostering and encouraging private enterprise as opposed to replacing it. A much better approach would have been to use tax policy to achieve the same ends without the direct use of public funding (now and in the future). For example, the Council could have advertised tax incentives to encourage an entrepreneur to build and operate a skateboard park. In fact, tax incentives could have been used to partially fund the ongoing cost of such a park, and thereby, make the cost of use well within the reach of everyone.
You may conclude this example is a small thing...not a big deal. I say no! I say this example is a reflection of uneducated and untrained people in the seats of governance. A lack of understanding of governance and the lack of education led directly to a tax increase in the middle of a recession, a surcharge on water billing, financial disarray, a directionless way forward, and the stubborn refusal to develop a strategic plan for the Borough. What do you think?
