RE: government and industry

E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor (ACLARK@plant.uoguelph.ca)
Sat, 24 Jul 1999 13:30:24 EST

Folks: I have been following the dialogue on Glickman's speech. The
mention of the "L" word (lie) brought me back to a question I keep
getting from the press lately, namely, why is it that government
(equally true in Canada as in the US) is so thoroughly and
unambiguously committed to supporting the interests of industry? The
question arises, from many disparate sources, because the process
of promoting industry interests necessarily contravenes, compromises,
and ultimately countervails against the presumptive and still
popularly believed role of government in protecting the interests of
society. You know, "of the people, by the people, for the people"
and that kind of stuff? This transformation also results in the most
transparently outrageous statements from elected officials, as in the
current context of Glickman's speech. Equally imponderably dubious
statements and speeches have been imanating from the lips of Canaidan
officials in recent months - so this is an international affliction.

The context of the current dialogue is genetic engineering, but I
think it could equally well be biocides, or power-concentrating
agricultural practices in general. Perhaps it is equally true of
other contexts outside of my understanding.

So, my question to you is "why" and "when"? Why is government so
thoroughly, openly, and indeed, unashamedly abrogating its historical
responsibility for protecting the interests of its citizens?

1. Is there some kind of implicit assumption that what is good for
industry must, necessarily, be good for society as well (evidence,
pls)?

2. Can it be as simple as campaign contributions/political influence?
This seems implausible in countries with short campaign windows and
correspondingly modest opportunities for explicit corruption, yet
this same phenomenon seems to pertain globally, regardless of the
density of lobbyists per elected official.

3. Or do elected officials and industry interests just swim in the
same circles, intermarry and produce fertile offspring, and just
basically interweave quasi-metabolic connections engendering
sympathetic responsiveness when it comes to policymaking?

4. Is it just easier for elected officials to keep within the fast-
flowing stream-of-consciousness which originated with
Reagan/Thatcher/Mulrooney, namely, "deregulation and let the buyer
beware", than to stand back and see it for what it is?

I don't know, which is why I am asking. I'd like to have an answer
for the interviewers who justifiably curious why no one seems to be
minding the shop anymore.

I also want to know "when". Has it always been this way and I was
just too blind or disinterested to to see, or is this a recent
phenomenon? I await your thoughts. Ann

ACLARK@plant.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
http://www.oac.uoguelph.ca/www/CRSC/faculty/eac.htm

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail