The Downside of Living in a Market Adjustment

I'm a "cord cutter" and proudly so. Yet, I've chosen to be that during a volatile time in media market disruption and chaos. So, what has this looked like for me? Well, I'm an Atlanta Braves fan...so...it's ugly. 

The Braves broadcasts are mostly on FOX's regional networks, FOX Sports South or FOX Sports Southeast. While, as a market capitalist, I respect their ability to own these broadcasts and place them wherever they want, I do take issue in the limited availability of these broadcasts. Apparently, there is ONLY ONE streaming service that still offers these options. It's AT&TNOW. 

Now, while I don't dispute the decision to place the Braves games on these networks, what I question is why FOX would make decision to limit the availability of these broadcasts. While all the other networks have been moving to a "cafeteria style" subscription service, FOX seems to be determined to tie their broadcasts to other streaming options that increasingly omit or limit their full broadcast options. 

FOX has marketed itself to it's political customers as the "free voice" choice in politics and social issues but still operates under an outdated and limiting broadcast template. Just like the political party it seems to prefer, it lags not only behind the times of culture, but behind the capitalist market curves. 

FOX has a problem because it really doesn't understand the markets, it's customers or the culture. They are not progressive or conservative...they are just plain lost and it's going to cost them in all their viewership.

They are trying to play both ends of the market when it's collapsing like the end of a black hole's life. There's only two things that can happen when your trying to live that edge...you get sucked in or blown out in the destruction.

The Atlanta Braves have a "landing spot" on the MLB package if FOX implodes. So, they will take FOX's money until it dries up because as of right now, they are the only thing keeping those regional networks alive. 

FOX's leadership continues to show themselves as short sighted in their business decisions. It's hard to imagine them continuing as viable network in the market because of the recent business decisions and the lack of foresight years ago to be a free standing media outlet.

Who are you following and what have you gained?

It is interesting how the 21st century has begun in the United States. We have a growing economy with rapid technological development that has created unprecedented levels of wealth in this country. As like every period of history, wealth creates free time and free time leads to wonderful creativity, learning and progressive ideas and philosophies for a better society.

Now I enjoy living in an age of financial stability that provides the time for our society to be introspective and discuss ways to progress that creates better societal equality. It's much better than the alternative of widespread poverty and economic inequities. Yet, like many other times in history, when a wealthy society has that privilege, it gives rise to clashes of ideologies. We find ourselves trying to sift through the political, economic, social and doctrinal philosophies of our our history to determine what we need to cast off and what we need to retain while also debating the new ideas of our present time. All of this is an effort to determine how to progress as a healthy, united and diverse society.

What is unique about the United States in modern western civilization is the vast diversity of people living side by side in every neighborhood. This has happened in history but mostly in the eastern Mediterranean but is unique to a society birthed by the European Enlightenment ideas of democracy and liberty. What is also unique to the U.S. versus other countries is the federalist system of government in place. This is the collection of individual self-governing States which have been referred to in history as the "laboratories of democracy". It gives the States opportunities to test policies and ideas on a local level. In our history, we have seen very bad ideas fail and very good ideas succeed. Many times these differing ideological viewpoints lead to conflict within our society that the rest of the world views as potentially destructive, yet seems to lead to usually lead to a stronger and more diverse society.

To us, and the citizens before us, living in an age of social unrest and conflict seems like our society is unravelling before our eyes (and it may be and I may be naïve) but the uniqueness of the U.S. system of self-government allows for conflict in a self correcting way. Our political, cultural and societal system is primarily governed (by law) by two fundamental rights...individual liberty and property ownership. Our government is bound by law to protect those two things. The protection of these rights causes the third societal correction (and basis of our societal strength) to come into play, economic growth.

When a conflict arises and our government fails in one State to uphold these rights other States usually move to protect them. This has a segregating effect on our society causing people to "vote with their feet" and move to States and communities providing the property protections and civil liberties they desire. This migration causes economic growth in the more politically liberal States and generally causes an economic downturn in the more politically oppressive States. At the end of the day, we are all "belly gazers" and economic survival is our first priority. So, economic development will always solve ideological differences as long as the opportunities are equitable.

However, in our republic, the decisions of state and local politicians have immediately more influence over the equity of our society than the federal government. Yes, the federal government can print money, adjudicate the legality of laws, grant contracts for federal governmental needs and provide a national military defense. Yet, state and local politicians impact business growth in the local economy and allocate any State and local grants and tax revenue.

As I listen to the social and political narratives of disillusionment from the right and the left right now, the common theme is that their is no "equity". Which is true. In any and every society there has never been "equity" nor will there be. Human nature will always prevent it because humans are all self-interested. Even the loudest voices demanding change are always interested in gaining some social or political power over those who agree with them and especially those who disagree. What has always happened in history and will continue is that when they gain power, they seek to marginalize or punish those who they see as the "problem" and those who disagree. This is the definition of authoritarianism.

Our national politicians have simply become cults of personality in which their supporters seek this outcome. They speak vaguely and pander to their base like rock stars just playing their hits. There is no longer any discussion of issues and policy because they are actually ignorant of the intricacies of good policy. From what I've witnessed, they are lousy legislators. They are only in their positions because they are good fundraisers and drag money in for their party. Then they are promoted as the next "great leader" whether they have good leadership skills or not. Our citizenship doesn't vote for politicians with good ideas, we've simply chosen a side and vote as if it's "our team" and the results are a scoreboard at the end of the game. It's a disgrace to true democracy.

Now, I understand the underpinnings of the disillusionment of this moment in our history. I've lived long enough to see wages stagnate and inflation escalate. There is a sense that the gap between rich and poor is widening. There are many statistics that can be stated to quantify anyone's opinion on the severity or dispute of this issue. Yet, keep in mind, we are talking about the wealthiest country in the history of the planet.

Our nation has a complicated and embarrassing history of marginalizing and oppressing people based on an arbitrary (and wrong) definition of race. No honest person can deny that and there are still remnants of those ideas on the fringes of society. Our laws seeking to keep those ideas and their societal impacts out of the public square are true, right and just. Yet, new ideologies like critical race theory use the same arbitrary (and wrong) definition of race and weaponize it against those they perceive to be the cause of social inequity. This is simply a revenge tactic. It's gaining power to marginalize people out of some false sense of equity. Any time an ideology seeks to marginalize or silence conversation, it stops being equitable and starts being authoritarian.

[For the record, I reject the idea of different human races. I believe the biological reality of one human species (homo sapiens) and diversity within that species.]

The problem with these ideologies is simply the same problem throughout history. It becomes an ever shrinking circle of adherents. In the end, no one "measures up" and more and more people are marginalized until those with power are under siege from the society and revolt happens.

The circular firing squads are already forming within these ideologies. The push back will be enormous once the repercussions of these policies ripple through society because it is repressive, authoritarian and not democratic. I just hope and pray the revolt happens at the ballot box and not in the streets.

I am always skeptical of political and social leaders barking "bumper sticker" slogans. It seems they burn out quickly and the leaders end up wealthy and politically connected while their followers are in the same social position as when the movement began. The only people really helped by these movements are the leaders. At this moment in time, we have many of these people profiting from their loud voices and those who follow left behind...on both sides. So, how is that "equity"?