Conservative Populist Rhetoric

The oxymoron of conservative populism is in full rhetorical swing as we assess the possible alternatives to a power structure that the vast majority are quite sure does not operate in their individual interest.

Conservative populism is to minimize the retributive value that accumulates with an accumulation of wealth and power, especially in a structured social environment that relies on a pluralistic legitimacy (like a free-market system) in which individuals collectively decide investment of the capital (what is produced) and at what price (the marginal utility, or the profit margin, that determines incomes for both consumers and producers).

An accumulation of power means that the majority of individuals have less power to determine their fate than a systematic pluralism is supposed to legitimately allow (that outcomes--distributions--are the result of "command" and not a legitimate "demand").

The demand for legitimacy by the populace is argued by conservatives as an assault on the primacy of individual liberty because it is a collective, a populist, demand. The argument is then this: if the elite (the accumulators of wealth and power) are not allowed to freely pursue life, liberty and happiness, the individual liberty being pursued by the populace will be lost. Of course, the very demand for populist action is the measure of individual liberty lost (commanded) in zero-sum to the elite (the retributive value). It is the plight of conservatives to "conserve" the illegitimate disequilibrium as the general will of the people, providing for (commanding) the general (collective) welfare instead of being defined as value misappropriated and to be retributed to the legitimate, the expected, outcome.

Moneterism, Keynesian spending programs, and pulbic-private partnerships are bureaucratically designed and ministered to at least approximate the legitimately expected outcome without retributing the full value.

While the vast majority of citizens in a populist outrage do not expect the system to be perfect, massive foreclosures, unemployment, accumulation of wealth and power to the point of global economic collapse is not a reasonable approximation of what is to be expected, despite the conservative rhetoric.

It is equally unreasonable to expect reforming, or reinventing, the system we have now to produce a better approximation of a stable, equilibriating, structure of power without ensuring the fundamental organizational elements that allow for it.

It is unreasonable, for example, to expect pluralistic, unconsolidated, fair-and-equitable results, like compensation, when we reorganize "too big to fail" (what accumulates the wealth to pay the inequity) into a public-private partnership that allows conserving the organizational size to achieve the "synergistic" (the accumulated, non-pluralistic) efficiency of an "economy of scale."

The best way to control risk-prone executive compensation is to not allow for the large-scale corporates that can pay it. The risk associated with the reward of the compensation is the effect, not the cause of the problem. The problem is organizational. Since it causes the effect, the solution can only be reasonably expected to eliminate the cause, not just reform the effect to allow for continued consolidation of industry and markets. Treating the effect (symptomatic treatment) ensures non-pluralistic, command type of outcomes that deliver short-term reward with a long-term risk that really is not a "risk" at all, but a fully predictable benefit created by the "synergy" (the efficiency) of consolidating that comes with cyclical (recessionary) trends.

It should be perfectly clear, at this point, that allowing corporates (the private sector of power) to organize to be "too big to fail," or to be tyrannical, is inimical. It should be equally clear that allowing the corporates to partner with government (the public sector of the power structure which is by definition absolute in its power with the force and legitimacy of public authority) is equally inimical. That absolute power needs to be operationalized to prevent "too big to fail" and the tyranny, and the false efficiency, it empirically verifies.

Each and every individual has the power together to command the fate of freedom we all legitimately, pluralistically, expect. It is not impossible, it is just not being allowed to happen.

A government for and by The People does not allow for the inefficiency, the tyranny, of "too big to fail" in priority, but allows for the individual to succeed in priority without having to join the dictates of the too-big consolidation of the corporate collective.

The People want to fully exercise the freedom prescribed by the Constitution, not proscribed by economic dependancy on a large, extortionate, corporate collective. The People choose freedom over feudalism, in liege to the happy pursuit of a self-defined individualism that far exceeds the value of having to join the collective identity of an ever-larger and demonstrably corrupt and incompetent corporate culture in order to succeed.

A private drone made into a public drone, or a public-private drone, is still a drone, in liege to the corporate self from the top down.

Government that ensures a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority allows for a collective defined by a pursuit of individual happiness that is allowed to become without the limitations of an organized determinism subservient to an elite class of would-be feudal lords with the false free-market legitimacy of a consolidated capital and the false individualism of a collective corporate consciousness.