I would like to interrupt the series on alternative justice systems for a day or two, since I have found some more pressing issues to talk about. Today, I would like to briefly discuss the automakers bailout, which is obviously a very important current event. For today, whether I support the bailout or not is irrelevant; what I would like to discuss is the way we view the executives of the Big Three automakers, and why our view is unjustified.When the Big Three appealed to Congress, they clearly did so in bad taste. One of the executives offered to “work for $1” next year, despite the fact that his salary is already seven figures. None of the companies had a concrete plan, except that they wanted government money. And so on and so forth. The point is, it was embarrassing.
However, though I have little sympathy for them, I think we judged them incorrectly. In America, we often want our political and celebrity figures to be innocent, morally superior people (though we do not always expect this). Over the past few weeks, it has been the same with these executives: we look appalled whenever they show any outward signs of elitism or greed. But this is only because we forget who they are and what they do. Simply put, they do what they do to make money. They have never pretended to care one whit about the country as a whole, and most of them probably don’t. For some reason, we hold them to the same standards as our public officials, despite the fact that they are clearly out for themselves.
To put it in perspective: we call politicians corrupt when they serve their own interests, not the interests of the general public. But it is the job of an executive to serve himself; this is how they got to be where they are in the first place.
To summarize: I am not sympathizing with the automakers in any way. However, I am simply critical of the way we view them, and I think we should not be surprised at their motives. Unfortunately, I do not have time to elaborate on the subject today, but seeing as this is such a controversial issue I will probably revisit it sooner or later.
3 comments:
Agreed, and I look forward to hearing your stance on the bailout.
"...we call politicians corrupt when they serve their own interests, not the interests of the general public. But it is the job of an executive to serve himself..."
Bill I couldn't agree with you more on this stance. You talked about this in Convoy's class today, and I think you made an extremely valid point. As you said today, these men are not the "choir boys" that we expect them to be, and the job of the executive is to feed himself before he feeds the others.
It's really late, but I'll just point out that you said we call "politicians" corrupt when they serve their own interests... however my question for you is: Isn't the job of the politician to serve the interests of the public? I mean, going into the job these men take considerably low wages (as most do in politics), however they realize that their responsibility is to serve the interest in those whom they are representing. I'm going to pass out however, I'll see you tomorrow bright and early.
Just as Steve said, I am really looking forward to reading your stance on the bailout.
Yes, it is the job of a politician to serve the public. Because of this, we call them corrupt when they serve themselves. By this same definition, executives are corrupt 100% of the time. That was my point.
Post a Comment