In Congress, in the White House, in the bowels of the federal bureaucracy, they call it the “Washington Monument Syndrome.”
When times are tough, when budgets are being cut, when government jobs are at risk, you throw up your hands in despair – and threaten to close the Washington Monument.
Almost everybody knows how the game is played. In blue-collar towns with ardent sports fans, what is the first thing the school superintendent threatens to do when the budget whackers come calling? Eliminate the football team.
These make-believe catastrophes work best, of course, when the supplier of goods and services is government, with a monopoly on public goods. For instance, in a nod to tough times, the local branch of my regional bank stopped providing free coffee and cookies. That was very sad, but if they had tried to eliminate savings-account interest or pocket calendars, or the teller who collects the handful of pennies that I earn from writing Banker & Tradesman columns, I could have, and probably would have, found another bank.
All of this explains why Gov. Deval Patrick actually deserves a thimbleful of sympathy for his tantrums about the zoos in Dorchester and Stoneham.
What happened when Patrick vetoed the state money that normally goes to the operator of the Franklin Park and Stone zoos? First, of course, quite a few boo-hoos from the legislators, who believe in supporting local elephants, even if they don’t like Republicans very much.
But, more importantly, the operator of the zoos threatened, of course, to close the zoos and, in an admirable public relations flourish, euthanize some of the animals.
By God, even a Democratic governor would rather snatch crusts of bread from the mouths of welfare mothers than to contribute to the execution of zebras and giraffes and stuff. The governor got all cranky and held two press conferences and suggested that the zoo entrepreneurs were a big bunch of exaggerating monkeys, who probably deserved to be euthanized.
Tested Technique
The editorial staff at Banker & Tradesman is very familiar with this kind of drama. Every time an advertiser threatens to yank some business from B&T, the publisher shakes his head sadly and explains that several of the news and opinion staffers will probably be euthanized, as a result.
I can’t tell you how many razor burns I have around my neck, when I was minutes away from joining the zoo creatures in that special place in Heaven where you go when threats become reality.
The “Washington Monument”-type threat is more than a ruse to rescue a budget. Business executives also use it to control the rabble, to keep the employees in line. Oh, times are very tough. If we actually raise salaries and stuff, we may have to euthanize a few of you, to make ends meet.
Ever since the late, great economist Milton Friedman wrote, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits,” companies and zoos have been much more inclined to scream, “euthanasia!”
The genius of the zoo threat is that the euthanasia could really be marketed as mercy killings. What are you going to do with the mountain lions if you can’t afford to feed them? Let them loose in the Back Bay, where they will get lost, like everybody else, and starve to death in a traffic jam?
As I remember it, Motorola’s old “Six Sigma” management program had, as Sigma Number Five, “You could always euthanize some of the surplus help.”
A few of you might wonder why, in this “at will” employment environment of the modern age, it wouldn’t just be better to fire surplus workers you don’t want any more, rather than, well, you know, stick a needle in their arms and bury them in a hazardous waste site.
Well, because, it just doesn’t have the same emotional impact as euthanasia. Do you think Gov. Patrick would have had two press conferences, if the zoo had threatened to dismiss the herd of kangaroos and send them off to the unemployment office?
As of this writing, the zoo animals are still at theoretical risk. I think they’ll survive. Just like the Washington Monument.
