Is Might really Right?

Right after Prop 8 was passed in CA, I was watching a CNN program where Larry King had assembled a group, as usual, to discuss the reaction of the people of CA. One of the guests was a prominent writer who was also gay. He was protesting the passing of Prop 8 when Larry made a remark, "But, you know, the majority of Californians have spoken - the people have spoken, they do not want Gay marriage. What do have to say to that?" To which the journalist said something that struck at the core of my beliefs. He said, "Just because a majority has spoken, it doesn't make it right. Think about it, there was a time when the majority thought that Slavery was OK. That didn't make it right."

Mulling about what he had said, my thoughts went to the Great Bailout Bowl that everyone wants to dip into. The latest of the dippers are the Big Three auto companies. And their reasoning was that they either directly or indirectly employed a few million people, so they needed Govt. assistance to continue doing whatever they were doing to keep their companies afloat. When questioned in Congress about their plans for the monetary assistance they were asking, the Big three CEO's didn't have a clear answer. All they could say was that since they were so big, they HAD to be helped, IF NOT!

So, does Might make it Right? Does sheer numbers justify any regulation, any request, any law? What about the minority? Do their needs not matter? Just because there are fewer Gays and Lesbians, do they not have any rights? Just because the auto workers and their sidekicks are employed in droves by the auto industry, does it mean that people who earn far less and ironically, some of those who don't even have health care, have to support the industry so that they can continue to have fancy health care and great pay packages for everyone who is and has been employed there?

What about AIG? That veritable drain? They came back again and again with their begging bowls, looking for public handout. Same argument - too big to fail.

Just what is too big to fail? Were we to frame this differently - Can we call this "Too big to survive?" Too lumbering, too large, too elephantine, too cumbersome, to be nimble?

Here's what I think is fair: Yes, we cannot let a large industry that is the backbone of American manufacturing fail. BUT, we can and probably should, break it up into multiple smaller companies so that if one of them fail due to uninspired leadership (Let us not kid ourselves, because that is what this is - Uninspired leadership) the rest will survive.

Leadership is not about steering the ship in calm waters, it is about bringing it home in a storm.

Now we have a storm and the so-called leaders are asking for help while blaming the Gods, the devil, their father, their mother, and the economy, for their predicament.

I read a post where someone had written that it was time to combine the Big Three into the Big One. I disagree. They should now become the Small Many. And so should AIG. Time to break things up so that no ONE company can hold a gun to our heads.