Within the recently completed course on budget management we were presented with a comical video that has stuck in my head. Perhaps discussing it will help me not dwell on it so much.
It presented a middle aged, middle manager making a ridiculous argument against public parks.
If I recall correctly the actor was white, overweight, balding, and in a non-descript brown suit. He was complaining that since the new city manager arrived, the city had been getting all these government grants for parks and recreation projects.
This was a terrible thing since it meant he had to do more work actually building parks or implementing recreational programs. This devolved into a rant about how any parks were a bad thing since the government shouldn't be in the parks business at all. His preferred approach was to privatize parks like the "Chucky Cheese" model.
At the end of the video, we all agreed this video made a great point about how necessary government services were and how ridiculous the chucky cheese model was. The instructor even asked for any discussion on the subject and no one replied. Potentially since to advocate on behalf of the managers position would seem ridiculous and to advocate against it was unnecessary.
I've thought about it since then, and have some of the following observations that I would love to hear further discussion on. I will try to note them with minimal editorial opinion so as to not accidently place myself in the defense of the ridiculous manager. After all anyone who could even slightly agree with the loser manager, must be one himself.
But a little deconstruction and discussion would be fun.
My questions:
1. Would this have the same effect if the manager was not a white, middle aged, overweight, balding male? Does a well dressed woman have the same effect? How about an ethnic minority?
2. My immediate stereotype of the individual was, "Oh, he is playing the entrenched middle manager that tries to do as little as possible while protecting his own job and pension."
Why is it that this stereotype exists in relation to our form of government? Why wasn't the reaction "Wow, a public servant who is not 100% devoted to giving the public as much return for their money as is humanly possible. I sure am glad I have never encountered that in any government employee I have met."?
Why did we come away thinking, "I'm glad our government has parks." and not "How do we get a system of government that avoids the possibility of allowing a manager like him."
3. The whole premise of the argument provided by the lead character is presented so as to seem beyond ridiculous. After all, what sensible person could possibly argue that government is not responsible for providing parks. Isn't it in the Bill of Rights that every person is entitled to an ADA accessible park or recreational area within easy walking distance of their normal place of residence? If the purpose of government is not to provide this essential service, than what is in fact the purpose?
Or is it that we have ceded the need to provide recreational opportunities to our government so long ago that we now simply expect it of them without any thought?
4. Did it matter that that the city manager had gotten grant funds for the parks? Was there an unstated assumption that this money did not even cost anybody in the town anything. It was just money given to the city to build parks. That's why we send representatives to the Capital or Washington DC, so they can make sure that money gets back to our towns!
Would it sound different, if he said, "I don't think every man, woman, and child in this great County/State needs to be paying for a new big toy for our town's kids?"
And since our federal government is running an annual deficit, (potentially the same can be said at the state level) would he have sounded differently if he said, "I don't think the children and grandchildren of every man, woman, and child in this great County/State needs to be paying for a new big toy for our town's kids."?
If we add in our learning from this week that it is nearly impossible for any single individual to understand all the decisions and assumptions in our state and federal budgeting process, what if he said, "Since it is not even possible that anyone but a handful of government insiders to know why and how this money is being spent, I have serious reservations about committing the children and grandchildren of every man, woman, and child in this great County/State to pay for a new big toy for our towns park."?
5. Is there any possible example of a private entity providing recreational opportunity other than Chucky Cheese that he could have used to more persuasively made his case? The local mall has a great kids play area they provide. There are children's museums throughout the northwest that operate at least in part with private funding? How about Wild Waves or the Great Wolf lodge? Are there no churches or schools that have places for kids to play? The YMCA was founded to address just this issue, was it not?
No comments:
Post a Comment