I studied some Soviet history in college, and one of the most fascinating anecdotes my professor told me was about what happened when the archives were finally opened to Western historians. You see, the papers that historians had access to prior to the fall of the USSR were mostly from low-level bureaucrats, and the language they used about their amoral behavior was excessively bureaucratic, a butchershop of what had been a beautiful Russian language. Historians expected that when the curtains were lifted and papers from top officials were made available, they would be able to get a sense of the 'real' intent of the leadership, in normal Russian.
What happened of course is that, like with any regime loosed from its moral bearings, the language the top officials used was the same bureaucratic language used by the middle management. In essence, the Soviet system failed because its language codified corruption and bleached morality from it. Leaders thought in terms of the language they used, and that language did not allow for error or moral failure on the part of the state.
To one extent or another, this kind of linguistic and moral corrosion can infect any large organzation, and it's for this reason that Americans have an instinctive dislike of bureaucracy. I'm reminded of this story because I'm reading the new Verizon blog, and it's just kind of stunningly similar to the kind of bleached out language so common among large and amoral institutions trying to delude themselves about their moral bearings.
Here's Tom Tauke, the head lobbyist for Verizon and former Republican candidate against Tom Harkin in 1990, talking about Verizon's move to the states.
Our business is providing communications services to customers. And we're now operating in a very competitive environment with sophisticated consumers. So if we aren't offering the right package of services at the right price, consumers take their business elsewhere.Our public policy goals are therefore focused on either removing barriers to the efficient delivery of those services, or improving Verizon's ability to continue to invest to meet customer needs. Once we define our goals in the public-policy arena, we use the most appropriate vehicles to accomplish those objectives. Sometimes that means going the legislative route; sometimes the regulatory approach is better; sometimes legal action is necessary. Following that thinking, we've pursued our video entry objectives on all fronts - in Congress, selected state legislatures, local franchising authorities, the FCC, in a few state commissions, and in one court case. With about two years of work behind us, we've made great progress.
If you strip away the confusing language, this admission is stunning. It says, in effect, that Verizon is a bad actor in the political process. If you put legislation through on a Federal level, they will go to the states. If you go to the states, they will go to the FCC, or to the localities. If you stop them there, they will go to the courts. At no point, however, will Verizon accept the democratic process as legitimate, at no point will this company accept a set of laws that they don't like. Our country is built on the consensus of the governed, that even if you don't like all of our laws, you buy into the process of forming them and consent to all of them.
Verizon sees laws as just one tool to advance the interests of its management team. That's simply wrong. It's immoral. And it's unbelievable that they would admit to it, in public. And when I go back to the bureaucratic language, it strikes me that what's happened to this company's management is that they have been divorced from any ethical basis for their business for so long that they have built their own language to avoid even considerations of morality or good faith discussion.
Amazing.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
