Local Public Policy as if Charitable Assistance

Whitewater’s policymakers, and those of other small, rural cities, should – in these times of economic stagnation, a lingering opioid crisis, failed business welfare, and an approaching recession – view their principal obligation as if it were charitable outreach. (It’s not charity, of course, but that’s how policymakers should view it: as both palliative and restorative care.)

The alternative that Whitewater has pursued for a generation – boosterism and trickle-down business welfare – has done nothing to cure the city of her lingering maladies (or immunize her from approaching ones).

A WEDC-lite outlook has been, is, and always will be an exercise in anti-market meddling and ill-informed, wasteful redistribution. 

(These few “Greater Whitewater” men would not be more ridiculous if they rolled in molasses, covered themselves in feathers, and ran clucking down Main Street.)

When policymakers look at the city – if they are to be of value to Whitewater’s residents – they need to think of all their actions as if those actions were service to those in need (because in many cases that will be, regrettably, true). In this way, An Oasis Strategy that looks away from government – or in this case reshapes government’s attitude and perspective – is needed even more than it was in 2016.

To care for others properly, some local officials and notables will have to set aside an unjustified sense of entitlement and importance, and put others ahead of their narrow interests and pride. For some of these men, that task will prove impossible (and, to them, likely unnecessary in any event). There are undoubtedly officials and notables in this town who are humble and hardworking, but it’s the ones who are proud and self-serving who crowd podiums and agendas.

The safest direction for Whitewater, come what may, is to turn from the last thirty years’ path.

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
A Town Squire
4 years ago

Some of these guys will never change. They can’t move on.There’s been a lot of talk about their demands however. Council sits there and gets’s a tag team approach but all B.S. at this point.Hard to figure why the bigger one brings along the littler one.It makes things dumber if you can believe it.You could have a drinking game with their stock lines.No way it helps more than a few.

X marks the spot
4 years ago

Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same useless thing forever?

4 years ago

This is an interesting perspective. This implies that people should look at the city as a private place, but not a private business. It makes perfect sense that you would favor private over public.

But this is not the typical “run government like a business” routine. (To be honest, it’s really clear that you think these business types are full of it. We agree completely about that.) This says that government should imitate the way a private charity would think about people. Why do you think that? Is it because government should focus on the needy or is it because there are lots of needy people now?