A symptom is simply an indication (telltale sign) that a problem exists, somewhere. A problem, on the other hand, may not exhibit many symptoms, or we miss the ones that it does exhibit, because they look like something else entirely. Problems are really good at disguising themselves.
Our current culture makes it very easy to fall into the solution-versus-problem trap. Thinking skills are not taught to children in school. Instead they learn politically correct dogma, which will probably change in a few years, leaving graduates with a befuddled view of the world and poor chances to negotiate the new environment. It's a big disservice to those kids who got an indoctrination instead of an education. That's educational poverty.
Financial poverty is often discussed as a problem inherent to a capitalist economy. But is it, really? What if financial poverty is really a symptom of an entirely different problem? The socialist political left wants to end poverty by making certain that the government gives everyone enough money so that poverty disappears.
America embarked on that road back in the days of Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ). It was even called the War on Poverty, which was to lead us out of the wilderness and into the Great Society. That was a while back in history. It might be worth asking, "Has poverty disappeared?" Twenty-two trillion dollars and 60 years later, poverty is still a political campaign issue, so I guess it is still with us.
Maybe, though, poverty was never really the problem? Maybe poverty was just a symptom of some other problem? In fact, poverty is such a big symptom that it could involve multiple problems, all hiding behind that one symptom.
What if poverty is really a symptom of inadequate education, because public education is run to benefit teachers, unions and administrators over and above students?
What if poverty is caused by drug addictions, which win out over basic necessities in the family budget? What if poverty is caused by children in broken homes who grow up without fathers and lack a healthy role model? What if poverty is caused by sophisticated advertising methods that are just very good at selling things people don't need, but really want? What if poverty is caused by poor work habits that make an individual unemployable?
When we treat a symptom as if it were a problem, we never solve it. Symptoms can only be relieved, not solved. The best relief comes when we identify the underlying problem and treat that problem. We may be surprised that other symptoms we never associated with poverty disappear as well.
The amount of money spent on solving something that doesn't respond to the "cure" is a flashing red warning light that you are treating a symptom, not a problem. Knowing that, why would you want to spend more money on a failed solution?
Well, there are reasons. Maybe corruption is enriching some of the people involved on the legislative, bureaucratic or private industry side of the "solution." Maybe these people know that whatever they are being paid for won't ever fix the problem, but they like the money they are making peddling their "solution." Maybe the politicians and bureaucrats like a little "extra cash" the kickbacks add to their salaries. Maybe it's just an extraordinarily good campaign issue to get reelected with, generation after generation.
Or maybe corrupt people aren't the problem. Maybe they are just a symptom. Maybe the real problem is that we don't elect people of good moral character and at least average intelligence to represent us and carry on the business of government. Maybe our big media have grown small enough in ownership that they lie to us. Maybe big tech oligarchs think they own humanity and will do whatever they please with you and me.
So many symptoms. So few real problems. And almost no problem solvers in politics. I wonder what the problem is?
craigemcmillan.com