The Tragedy of Political Mascotism

``It is our moral and rationally selfish obligation to help others understand that freedom is not free.  And one of the biggest costs of freedom is an end to government handouts.”-Robert Ringer

 

Political mascotism is when incumbent political leaders use the underprivileged to dramatize or “put a face” on the predicaments of the society and to represent the “deprived” sectors supposedly meant to benefit from their proposed political programs.  This showcase of symbolism has been a conventional feature for almost every incumbent President of the Philippines during their SONA (State of the Nation Address).

 

Unfortunately for Mang Pandoy (Felipe Natanio), who served as the model of “courage and dedication to improve life” for the 1992 SONA of former President Fidel V. Ramos, passed away last week in the same destitute and disadvantaged conditions prior to his ascension as a political icon. RIP Mr. “Mang Pandoy” Natanio.

 

While media seemed quick to pounce on the opportunity to imply of the personality based “failure of leadership” attributes, what appeared to have been lost in the tragic Mang Pandoy experience is the most important lesson of all: the failure of government intervention through the patron-client based political economy.

 

We learned that following FVR’s SONA in 1992, Mang Pandoy was accorded with a television show “Ang Pandayan ni Mang Pandoy” (inquirer.net)which he co-hosted in a government owned TV station. Unfortunately, because of the lack of continued appreciation from the public, the show lasted for only 3 years. Although at the same time he was also appointed with a short-lived job at the House of Congress which likewise came to a close as his “popularity” faded.

 

But there had been other opportunities which he reportedly have also wasted; he was said to have been given livelihood projects which included a hog raising package, aside from scholarship grants for his children-from which none of his children availed to its fullest because of “lack of allowance and daily fare.”

 

UP professor Randy David quoted by the Inquirer.net poignantly encapsulates Mang Pandoy’s hapless living conditions (highlight mine), ``He had ended up expecting the government to help him all the time. But help was not always there.”

 

So instead of a role model for social and economic upliftment as the former President had envisioned for Mang Pandoy, he turned out to be a paradigm of unintended consequences for government welfare programs.

 

Apparently Mang Pandoy and his family’s utter reliance on government support have cost them numerous opportunities to progress. Applied on a multiplier scale, this is what I decry as the “dependency culture”, where absolute dependence on welfare programs or from gratuity of politicos translates to bigger government spending which takes a toll on the productivity aspects of the society. 

 

And lost productivity means higher costs of doing business which extrapolates to higher hurdle rates or lesser investment opportunities needed to boost the capital stock of the economy. Yet, without investments we can’t get the Mang Pandoys of the society out of poverty.

 

Remember, governments are essentially consumers of capital.  That’s the reason why they tax and use the coercive arm of its institutions to enforce collections. And when governments spend more via intervention in order to provide the Mang Pandoys their share of the economic pie, it also means that someone else would have to fund these activities. Funds, which should have been efficiently allocated to productive sectors and thus expand the labor pool and incomes, ends up subsidizing non-productive jobs or activities.

 

As the illustrious Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian School of Economics wrote in Socialism, ``All almsgiving inevitably tends to pauperize the recipient” aptly describes on the conditions of the Mang Pandoys of our society.

 

Yet lamentably our Mang Pandoys elect for the illusion of perpetual government sustenance instead of living on the ideals of having “courage and dedication to improve life”-the slogan ironically contrived by the former President Fidel Ramos for our Mang Pandoys. Noble sounding political slogans almost always end up as empty rhetoric.

 

Paradoxically too, the Mang Pandoys are the very constituents from where most of our politicians derive their innate strength for expanded political power. By pandering on the masses and to media by catering to the abstractionisms of “guiltism, envyism, villainism, covetism, and angerism” to quote self development author Robert Ringer, by encouraging more economic and financial dependence and by peddling the charade of simplified cure all solutions or elixirs to the society’s complex problems so they can arrogate for themselves more control over our lives and expand access to financing to whimsically bankroll programs for political or personal reasons.

 

In the words of conservative economist Thomas Sowell, ``Politics is largely the process of taking credit and putting the blame on others-- regardless of what the facts may be. Politicians get away with this to the extent that we gullibly accept their words and look to them as political messiahs.”

 

And while corruption has been a popular political issue, it has hardly been dealt by the media and our experts as a symptom to a systemic disease but one of personality based disorders which seem to always recur, if not deeply rooted in the bureaucratic culture. Hardly anyone tells you that the systemic corruption is an offshoot to BIG government. You reduce chances of corruption by minimizing their political power and by slashing wasteful and nonproductive discretionary spending.

Yet day in and day out we hear politicians offer themselves as the solutions to our problems. At the end of the day, we all end up as losers with the Mang Pandoy’s enduring most of the brunt. Headline stuff indeed. Unfortunately we never seem to learn.