There's nothing like a good scandal to make the news, and politicians have been awfully obliging the past few months. Marital infidelity is an oft-recurring scandal, and the more brazen the attempt to conceal the affair ("hiking the Appalachian trail," for example), the bigger the news buzz. There are also bonus Nielson points for soliciting prostitutes, using drugs, or attempting to hide homosexual behavior.
But why, why is this such a common theme? I'm not asking why cheating politicians make CNN headlines; I take our collective indignation/morbid curiosity as a given. I'm asking rather why it is that there seem to be so many politicians who risk political suicide for a momentary (or repeated) satisfaction. These are smart guys, right? (Almost always guys, yes.) Why then the stupidity, the risk?
I think the most explanatory analogy comes from the field of statistics. Any researcher working with sample data (statistics) knows that to be a true representation of the larger population, the sample must avoid, as much as possible, any selection bias. Simply stated, a selection bias can taint the results of a survey by virtue of the method in which the survey is collected. A well known example is "Dewey defeats Truman," which was based on a survey conducted via telephone in an era when telephone ownership was restricted to richer (read: Republican-leaning) Americans. The survey was flawed; the sample group was not representative of all Americans.
Representative democracy works on a principle similar to statistics: A group is selected from the total population and is intended to represent the wishes of the whole. [I know this isn't exactly fair to the political philosophy of the Framers, WF and OG, but spare me the historical skewering for the moment, please.] However, representative democracy, particularly in the modern, financing-driven style, is subject to a selection bias, specifically a self-selection bias. Think about the years of political maneuvering, fund-raising, back-scratching, and bacon-bringing required of any politician who wishes to be successful. Anyone who willingly subjects himself to that gauntlet, on the assumption that he/she can actually win at it, is likely to possess traits which may ultimately lead to a fall.
Pride, of course, goeth before the fall, and pride, manifested politically as (pick your term:) ambition, arrogance, charm, confidence, egotism, self-aggrandizement, or selfishness, is required of any politician. I'm an armchair psychologist at best, but I think there is a strong connection between the pride that allows one to consider politics and the pride that allows one to think he can get away with a crime. Speaking statistically again, one could say that there is a positive correlation between a political figure's political skill and SBI - Slime-ball index.
I guess the good news is that if this is true, and politicians are biased as a selected group, then what politicians do does not necessarily reflect on the general morals of Americans overall, since they're not a representative sample.
For debate: Is this self-selection bias an inherent flaw in the system? Can it be overcome structurally, or do we just need to pray for a Washington every election?
But why, why is this such a common theme? I'm not asking why cheating politicians make CNN headlines; I take our collective indignation/morbid curiosity as a given. I'm asking rather why it is that there seem to be so many politicians who risk political suicide for a momentary (or repeated) satisfaction. These are smart guys, right? (Almost always guys, yes.) Why then the stupidity, the risk?
I think the most explanatory analogy comes from the field of statistics. Any researcher working with sample data (statistics) knows that to be a true representation of the larger population, the sample must avoid, as much as possible, any selection bias. Simply stated, a selection bias can taint the results of a survey by virtue of the method in which the survey is collected. A well known example is "Dewey defeats Truman," which was based on a survey conducted via telephone in an era when telephone ownership was restricted to richer (read: Republican-leaning) Americans. The survey was flawed; the sample group was not representative of all Americans.
Representative democracy works on a principle similar to statistics: A group is selected from the total population and is intended to represent the wishes of the whole. [I know this isn't exactly fair to the political philosophy of the Framers, WF and OG, but spare me the historical skewering for the moment, please.] However, representative democracy, particularly in the modern, financing-driven style, is subject to a selection bias, specifically a self-selection bias. Think about the years of political maneuvering, fund-raising, back-scratching, and bacon-bringing required of any politician who wishes to be successful. Anyone who willingly subjects himself to that gauntlet, on the assumption that he/she can actually win at it, is likely to possess traits which may ultimately lead to a fall.
Pride, of course, goeth before the fall, and pride, manifested politically as (pick your term:) ambition, arrogance, charm, confidence, egotism, self-aggrandizement, or selfishness, is required of any politician. I'm an armchair psychologist at best, but I think there is a strong connection between the pride that allows one to consider politics and the pride that allows one to think he can get away with a crime. Speaking statistically again, one could say that there is a positive correlation between a political figure's political skill and SBI - Slime-ball index.
I guess the good news is that if this is true, and politicians are biased as a selected group, then what politicians do does not necessarily reflect on the general morals of Americans overall, since they're not a representative sample.
For debate: Is this self-selection bias an inherent flaw in the system? Can it be overcome structurally, or do we just need to pray for a Washington every election?
30/06: An Important Day in Iraq
I have posted this essay many times over the years, but, on this momentous day, perhaps it is once again appropriate to reconsider this restatement of WHY WE WENT TO IRAQ:
1. Saddam was bad. He deserved ouster, capture, trial, and execution. Twenty-five million Iraqis deserved an opportunity to take control of their lives free of Saddam's oppressive regime.
2. Saddam was at war with the United States and a threat to regional security. For more than a decade, we flew combat missions over Iraq and drew anti-aircraft fire everyday. Our forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia to neutralize the threat Saddam posed to the region. Our presence in Saudi (part of our essential commitment to preserving the peace) irritated the international Muslim community. In fact, Osama bin Laden cited our presence in Saudi Arabia as the casus belli for war against America in general and 9-11 specifically.
3. Saddam was contained--but only as a result of the costly military commitments cited above. In addition, Saddam was contained as a result of a United Nations sanctions regime. Before the war, several human rights organizations charged that the heartless US-driven sanctions policy had killed upwards of 500,000 Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of adequate medical attention. Later, we learned of massive corruption on the part of the UN in administering the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq. Moreover, by 2002, the flagging resolve of the French and other European powers threatened the entire sanctions program. Containment was a leaky policy taking on more water every day.
4. Saddam unbound meant a return to the status quo ante bellum in which he had threatened his neighbors and worked assiduously to manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction.
5. Saddam and 911. It is a long held article of faith in the mainstream media that "911 and Iraq were not connected." This is nonsense. What they mean to say is that Saddam and his regime were not complicit in the terrorist attacks of 911. Those two statements are not the same. Conflation of these two distinct ideas belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the task that confronts us.
Although there is very little patience for a nuanced discussion of Saddam and the dangers he posed in the Middle East, here is a review in a nutshell:
Saddam was our sworn enemy. We know that he supported terrorist networks in the Middle East, and he may or may not have been harboring al Qaeda operatives (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) [6-30-09: IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP WAS NOT INTENTIONAL]; either way, his regime, inarguably, contributed to the continuing turmoil in the region. More importantly, our state of war with Saddam's Iraq, and the continued vendetta with him presented an insurmountable obstacle to progress in the region.
Saddam was connected to 9-11 in that the insecurity he created in the region contributed to the greater instability and discontent, which facilitated terrorism. The relationship between Saddam's Iraq and the cauldron of hostility that produced 911 was so obvious and internalized for so many of us that public opinion polls have consistently revealed a significant portion of Americans who connect Saddam and 911. Of course, many have taken those numbers as evidence that the Bush administration merely deceived the simple-minded. But that conclusion, once again, flows from the mistaken but foundational premise that 911 and Iraq cannot be connected; therefore, any person who makes that connection is: 1) wrong; 2) deficient in intelligence and 3) under the spell of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
The bottom line: If Saddam could be deposed, many of us believed that a new Iraq would emerge, which would begin a process that might lead to an era of reform in the Middle East, which might ultimately make Islamic terrorists as rare and irrelevant as Ku Klux Klan terrorists.
Yes. Iraq was a war of choice--but it was not a frivolous choice. Granted, now we face potential crises in the region of our own making that dwarf the old inconveniences. However, while it is tempting to view the past through the knowledge of the present, we must remember that the Iraq policy emerged from a long list of terrible choices. Doing nothing was an extremely unattractive option in the post-9-11 world.
All of the above is unalterable history. Now What?
1. Saddam was bad. He deserved ouster, capture, trial, and execution. Twenty-five million Iraqis deserved an opportunity to take control of their lives free of Saddam's oppressive regime.
2. Saddam was at war with the United States and a threat to regional security. For more than a decade, we flew combat missions over Iraq and drew anti-aircraft fire everyday. Our forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia to neutralize the threat Saddam posed to the region. Our presence in Saudi (part of our essential commitment to preserving the peace) irritated the international Muslim community. In fact, Osama bin Laden cited our presence in Saudi Arabia as the casus belli for war against America in general and 9-11 specifically.
3. Saddam was contained--but only as a result of the costly military commitments cited above. In addition, Saddam was contained as a result of a United Nations sanctions regime. Before the war, several human rights organizations charged that the heartless US-driven sanctions policy had killed upwards of 500,000 Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of adequate medical attention. Later, we learned of massive corruption on the part of the UN in administering the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq. Moreover, by 2002, the flagging resolve of the French and other European powers threatened the entire sanctions program. Containment was a leaky policy taking on more water every day.
4. Saddam unbound meant a return to the status quo ante bellum in which he had threatened his neighbors and worked assiduously to manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction.
5. Saddam and 911. It is a long held article of faith in the mainstream media that "911 and Iraq were not connected." This is nonsense. What they mean to say is that Saddam and his regime were not complicit in the terrorist attacks of 911. Those two statements are not the same. Conflation of these two distinct ideas belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the task that confronts us.
Although there is very little patience for a nuanced discussion of Saddam and the dangers he posed in the Middle East, here is a review in a nutshell:
Saddam was our sworn enemy. We know that he supported terrorist networks in the Middle East, and he may or may not have been harboring al Qaeda operatives (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) [6-30-09: IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP WAS NOT INTENTIONAL]; either way, his regime, inarguably, contributed to the continuing turmoil in the region. More importantly, our state of war with Saddam's Iraq, and the continued vendetta with him presented an insurmountable obstacle to progress in the region.
Saddam was connected to 9-11 in that the insecurity he created in the region contributed to the greater instability and discontent, which facilitated terrorism. The relationship between Saddam's Iraq and the cauldron of hostility that produced 911 was so obvious and internalized for so many of us that public opinion polls have consistently revealed a significant portion of Americans who connect Saddam and 911. Of course, many have taken those numbers as evidence that the Bush administration merely deceived the simple-minded. But that conclusion, once again, flows from the mistaken but foundational premise that 911 and Iraq cannot be connected; therefore, any person who makes that connection is: 1) wrong; 2) deficient in intelligence and 3) under the spell of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
The bottom line: If Saddam could be deposed, many of us believed that a new Iraq would emerge, which would begin a process that might lead to an era of reform in the Middle East, which might ultimately make Islamic terrorists as rare and irrelevant as Ku Klux Klan terrorists.
Yes. Iraq was a war of choice--but it was not a frivolous choice. Granted, now we face potential crises in the region of our own making that dwarf the old inconveniences. However, while it is tempting to view the past through the knowledge of the present, we must remember that the Iraq policy emerged from a long list of terrible choices. Doing nothing was an extremely unattractive option in the post-9-11 world.
All of the above is unalterable history. Now What?
I received this email today:
Hi, Prayer Warriors,
How are you?
President Obama, according to this article, has picked a church and personal spiritual advisors.
Whether we agree with his politics or not, let's pray that he is surrounded with God's truth and His love.
Thank you.
May the Lord bless you,
Philip
I like the tone of this note. Thanks, Philip. In my view, it is much more Christian than an "imprecatory prayer" against the President.
Allow me to associate myself with this invitation to pray for the President of the United States.
Hi, Prayer Warriors,
How are you?
President Obama, according to this article, has picked a church and personal spiritual advisors.
Whether we agree with his politics or not, let's pray that he is surrounded with God's truth and His love.
Thank you.
May the Lord bless you,
Philip
I like the tone of this note. Thanks, Philip. In my view, it is much more Christian than an "imprecatory prayer" against the President.
Allow me to associate myself with this invitation to pray for the President of the United States.
From VDH via National Review:
"[Barack] Obama plants soft questions at news conferences, lies about earlier promises of posting pending legislation on government websites for public perusal, feigns populist unease with his radical government expansion, fires public auditors who uncover liberal transgressions, and in general adopts a hardball politics that the Left claimed was innate to George W. Bush. These again are lies that are noble, in that they facilitate progressive politics that help the people — and they are presumably indiscernible by a fawning media and an unaware electorate.
"So why does President Obama so often get history wrong, so often call for utopian schemes he would hardly adopt for himself, and so often distort by misinformation and incomplete disclosure?
"Partly the culprit is administrative inexperience, partly historical ignorance. But mostly the disconnect comes because Barack Obama believes he is a philosopher-king, whose exalted ends more than justify his mendacious means."
I recommend you read it all here. Insightful analysis and a helpful mini discussion of Plato's Republic. Can't beat that combination.
"[Barack] Obama plants soft questions at news conferences, lies about earlier promises of posting pending legislation on government websites for public perusal, feigns populist unease with his radical government expansion, fires public auditors who uncover liberal transgressions, and in general adopts a hardball politics that the Left claimed was innate to George W. Bush. These again are lies that are noble, in that they facilitate progressive politics that help the people — and they are presumably indiscernible by a fawning media and an unaware electorate.
"So why does President Obama so often get history wrong, so often call for utopian schemes he would hardly adopt for himself, and so often distort by misinformation and incomplete disclosure?
"Partly the culprit is administrative inexperience, partly historical ignorance. But mostly the disconnect comes because Barack Obama believes he is a philosopher-king, whose exalted ends more than justify his mendacious means."
I recommend you read it all here. Insightful analysis and a helpful mini discussion of Plato's Republic. Can't beat that combination.
Powerline links to The Washington Times for the story.
Vietnam's "hidden" war on Christianity just rumbles along, and on March 13, the communist authorities demolished one of the first Christian churches built in Vietnam's Central Highlands. While religious persecution is nothing new to Vietnam, the significance of this demolition is particularly symbolic because the church was more than a historical landmark. The large stone Church at Buon Ma Thuot for the last 34 years had been deliberately closed by Vietnam's security police, and yet, all those years, the church remained a powerful symbol to the local indigenous Christians. Unfortunately, the church was also an unwelcome reminder for the communists who had murdered a number of Christian missionaries near the grounds in 1968, and a reminder of the very movement the government is trying to eliminate. This movement, so hated by Hanoi, is nothing other than "independent" Christian house churches.
The story also reminds us that our abandonmnt of South Vietnam meant abandonment of our Montagnard allies to the tender mercies of the victorious North Vietnamese.
Vietnam's "hidden" war on Christianity just rumbles along, and on March 13, the communist authorities demolished one of the first Christian churches built in Vietnam's Central Highlands. While religious persecution is nothing new to Vietnam, the significance of this demolition is particularly symbolic because the church was more than a historical landmark. The large stone Church at Buon Ma Thuot for the last 34 years had been deliberately closed by Vietnam's security police, and yet, all those years, the church remained a powerful symbol to the local indigenous Christians. Unfortunately, the church was also an unwelcome reminder for the communists who had murdered a number of Christian missionaries near the grounds in 1968, and a reminder of the very movement the government is trying to eliminate. This movement, so hated by Hanoi, is nothing other than "independent" Christian house churches.
The story also reminds us that our abandonmnt of South Vietnam meant abandonment of our Montagnard allies to the tender mercies of the victorious North Vietnamese.
25/06: Michael Jackson Dead
He could dance. He could sing. He could do both at the same time and make it look effortless.
But, he has been dead only a few hours and already I am sick of the eulogizing.
The dude had serious problems.
He did not want to be a black man. He spent umpteen dollars on surgery and treatment to look more and more white, and more and more feminine. He lived in a theme park like a 12-year-old who became rich.
He preferred the playtime company of children. Was it all none-sexual? Hard to believe.
He made the artist formerly, and now again known as Prince seem normal.
But, he has been dead only a few hours and already I am sick of the eulogizing.
The dude had serious problems.
He did not want to be a black man. He spent umpteen dollars on surgery and treatment to look more and more white, and more and more feminine. He lived in a theme park like a 12-year-old who became rich.
He preferred the playtime company of children. Was it all none-sexual? Hard to believe.
He made the artist formerly, and now again known as Prince seem normal.
Joke, from Theo.
Amazing if true. According to this news report, the Ethiopian Patriarch will allow public viewing of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ethiopian Church has long claimed to be hiding the Ark, formerly kept in the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Link from Breitbart.
I've posted before on the Ark in Ethiopia.
I've posted before on the Ark in Ethiopia.
24/06: For Freedom
Brits at Their Best reminds us that today is the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.
On June 24th 1314, Robert the Bruce and the forces of Scotland defeated the forces of Edward II at Bannockburn and established Scottish independence. Six years later, on April 6th 1320, in the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scots said exactly why they had fought -
"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
Freedom.
The American Revolution did not spring fully-formed from the earth. Our ancestors stood in a long line of those seeking to live by their own laws and customs, not under those of an arbitrary tyranny.
Farmer wondered if Obama tears up during Casablanca. I wonder if he is moved during Braveheart.
On June 24th 1314, Robert the Bruce and the forces of Scotland defeated the forces of Edward II at Bannockburn and established Scottish independence. Six years later, on April 6th 1320, in the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scots said exactly why they had fought -
"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
Freedom.
The American Revolution did not spring fully-formed from the earth. Our ancestors stood in a long line of those seeking to live by their own laws and customs, not under those of an arbitrary tyranny.
Farmer wondered if Obama tears up during Casablanca. I wonder if he is moved during Braveheart.
24/06: What Price Health Care?
I agree with the President on the basics:
"Health care reform is no longer just a moral imperative, it's a fiscal imperative."
"When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform is not a luxury. It's a necessity...."
So far so good.
Where we part company. Why I cannot support his current plan.
The President often engages in sloppy thinking and lazy rhetoric in pursuit of his political goals. Perhaps he does this because he holds his audience in low esteem. Perhaps he does this because he can. Perhaps there are other more compelling explanations.
No matter, the President loves the straw man, and he loves the false choice.
Quoting the President:
"We also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what - who will use the same scare tactics and fear-mongering that's worked in the past. They'll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors."
I hate it when those guys show up. They are always up to no good. Their goal is always the same: work against the public weal for the special interests. Seriously, and forgive me for the repetition, this president engages in this brand of straw man sophistry way too much. This is a continuing disappointment for me. He should abandon this low road of public discourse.
Does he have a point?
True, conservatives worry that this massive government intervention into health care is the first step to socialized medicine (better known under the euphemistic umbrella of a "single-payer system").
Is this just another example of the paranoid strain of American politics? Are conservatives merely blurring the real issue with scare tactics concerning an unlikely eventuality?
Here is one very personal reason I think not: EVERY thoughtful liberal I have ever met has eventually admitted to me that European-style or Canadian-style national health care is exactly what they wanted--if not now, eventually.
Why? In general, my liberal friends tend to see government-guaranteed universal health care as the "smart" and humane solution. In fact, I hear plenty of discontent that the President is not asking for the "whole enchilada" right now. The grousing is often tempered by the consolation that this half-measure is merely what is politically possible at this moment. But, rest assured, they tell one another, we're gonna get there eventually. This is no secret. National Health Care has been a staple for Democratic Party platforms and public policy since FDR.
The President, who fancies himself an honest man steeped in nuance, ought to deal with this question more frankly. But don't blame conservatives for viewing this latest installment of a long running national drama in the context of a much larger philosophical-political discussion.
President False Choice.
"So the notion that somehow we can just keep on doing what we're doing, and that's OK, that's just not true. We have a long-standing critical problem in our health care system that is pulling down our economy. It's burdening families. It's burdening businesses. And it is the primary driver of our federal deficits. All right?
"So -- so if we start from the premise that the status quo is unacceptable, then that means we're going to have to bring about some serious changes."
Translation: either you are FOR my plan or you are against reforming health care. My way or the highway.
Sound familiar?
Either you are for my $787 billion stimulus bill or you are for doing nothing to combat this recession.
These are false choices. There are other options.
True enough, we are in a health care crisis--and it is a crisis of sustainability. True enough, the health care debate has shifted beneath our feet.
Why? The Party is Over.
One day, we will look back wistfully on this moment and recall our privileged status regarding health care in America. Although we have NOT spent a lot of time appreciating the wonder of the current system, the vast majority of us have been privy to the best-trained physicians, the most advanced medical technologies, and the most comprehensive network of doctors and facilities ever assembled in the annals of medical history.
Those days are necessarily coming to a close. WHY?
Not because of the humanitarian impulse. For decades, we have been very close to totally deaf to the sad refrain of "forty-something million uninsured" fellow citizens. Why so unresponsive?
Two Reasons: the claim is mostly a distorted and transparent political manipulation; and, more importantly, the vast majority of us were thriving under the status quo. We are not a blindly utilitarian society, but when the great bulk of the citizenry are prospering under a given regime, they are loath to sacrifice their advantage for a disadvantaged minority. In that regard, nothing has changed. Collective compassion will not be the impetus for the massive change in the offing.
What is different this time?
The UNSUSTAINABLE rising costs.
Ironically, we are victims of our own success. The wonders of medical research and development and production have outdistanced our financial resources. Most of us assume we are inherently deserving of the very best and most-advanced medical care. Ironically, conservatives even more than liberals seem to have swallowed this sense of entitlement when it comes to health care. Unlike products in our consumer culture where we make choices commensurate with our ability to pay, most of us assume that we are due the very best health care available regardless the cost.
In this way, the one-payer system is completely disingenuous. As a society, we CANNOT afford to pay for health care through government agency anymore than we can afford our current system of health care as an employee benefit. It is just not credible to believe that we are going to provide coverage to fifty million extra people and pay less money through the magic of bureaucratic streamlining. Something has to give. The obvious solution is cost control, which means rationing care, which means the Golden Age of carte blanche health care is concluding--no matter which road we take.
How we get there remains undetermined, but the ultimate destination is certain.
We can no longer enjoy unlimited health care regardless of our ability to pay. Socialized medicine is one way to combat this economic problem. In fact, socialized medicine is probably a less painful way to inaugurate the era of limits than doing nothing. Socialized medicine means a lot of changes that we will not view as positive--but this may be unavoidable. However, it would be nice if Democrats would be straight with us about the real problems and their actual proposed solution.
Having said that, I still cannot support this framework at this time. The planned Obama-Pelosi cram-down is an impending disaster; it is bad politics for them and for us. It is a drastic and irrevocable step. We would be better off defeating this attempt at social revolution and waiting for a moment when there is more political equity and, therefore, more honesty and more bipartisan buy-in. Also, the crisis may not be at a point in which the sense of urgency is such that partisans are actually willing to come together for the common good. This is one of those cases in which both parties need to come to terms and go forward with a compromise solution. There are better ideas out there. We need to wait for an atmosphere more conducive to positive change.
"Health care reform is no longer just a moral imperative, it's a fiscal imperative."
"When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform is not a luxury. It's a necessity...."
So far so good.
Where we part company. Why I cannot support his current plan.
The President often engages in sloppy thinking and lazy rhetoric in pursuit of his political goals. Perhaps he does this because he holds his audience in low esteem. Perhaps he does this because he can. Perhaps there are other more compelling explanations.
No matter, the President loves the straw man, and he loves the false choice.
Quoting the President:
"We also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what - who will use the same scare tactics and fear-mongering that's worked in the past. They'll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors."
I hate it when those guys show up. They are always up to no good. Their goal is always the same: work against the public weal for the special interests. Seriously, and forgive me for the repetition, this president engages in this brand of straw man sophistry way too much. This is a continuing disappointment for me. He should abandon this low road of public discourse.
Does he have a point?
True, conservatives worry that this massive government intervention into health care is the first step to socialized medicine (better known under the euphemistic umbrella of a "single-payer system").
Is this just another example of the paranoid strain of American politics? Are conservatives merely blurring the real issue with scare tactics concerning an unlikely eventuality?
Here is one very personal reason I think not: EVERY thoughtful liberal I have ever met has eventually admitted to me that European-style or Canadian-style national health care is exactly what they wanted--if not now, eventually.
Why? In general, my liberal friends tend to see government-guaranteed universal health care as the "smart" and humane solution. In fact, I hear plenty of discontent that the President is not asking for the "whole enchilada" right now. The grousing is often tempered by the consolation that this half-measure is merely what is politically possible at this moment. But, rest assured, they tell one another, we're gonna get there eventually. This is no secret. National Health Care has been a staple for Democratic Party platforms and public policy since FDR.
The President, who fancies himself an honest man steeped in nuance, ought to deal with this question more frankly. But don't blame conservatives for viewing this latest installment of a long running national drama in the context of a much larger philosophical-political discussion.
President False Choice.
"So the notion that somehow we can just keep on doing what we're doing, and that's OK, that's just not true. We have a long-standing critical problem in our health care system that is pulling down our economy. It's burdening families. It's burdening businesses. And it is the primary driver of our federal deficits. All right?
"So -- so if we start from the premise that the status quo is unacceptable, then that means we're going to have to bring about some serious changes."
Translation: either you are FOR my plan or you are against reforming health care. My way or the highway.
Sound familiar?
Either you are for my $787 billion stimulus bill or you are for doing nothing to combat this recession.
These are false choices. There are other options.
True enough, we are in a health care crisis--and it is a crisis of sustainability. True enough, the health care debate has shifted beneath our feet.
Why? The Party is Over.
One day, we will look back wistfully on this moment and recall our privileged status regarding health care in America. Although we have NOT spent a lot of time appreciating the wonder of the current system, the vast majority of us have been privy to the best-trained physicians, the most advanced medical technologies, and the most comprehensive network of doctors and facilities ever assembled in the annals of medical history.
Those days are necessarily coming to a close. WHY?
Not because of the humanitarian impulse. For decades, we have been very close to totally deaf to the sad refrain of "forty-something million uninsured" fellow citizens. Why so unresponsive?
Two Reasons: the claim is mostly a distorted and transparent political manipulation; and, more importantly, the vast majority of us were thriving under the status quo. We are not a blindly utilitarian society, but when the great bulk of the citizenry are prospering under a given regime, they are loath to sacrifice their advantage for a disadvantaged minority. In that regard, nothing has changed. Collective compassion will not be the impetus for the massive change in the offing.
What is different this time?
The UNSUSTAINABLE rising costs.
Ironically, we are victims of our own success. The wonders of medical research and development and production have outdistanced our financial resources. Most of us assume we are inherently deserving of the very best and most-advanced medical care. Ironically, conservatives even more than liberals seem to have swallowed this sense of entitlement when it comes to health care. Unlike products in our consumer culture where we make choices commensurate with our ability to pay, most of us assume that we are due the very best health care available regardless the cost.
In this way, the one-payer system is completely disingenuous. As a society, we CANNOT afford to pay for health care through government agency anymore than we can afford our current system of health care as an employee benefit. It is just not credible to believe that we are going to provide coverage to fifty million extra people and pay less money through the magic of bureaucratic streamlining. Something has to give. The obvious solution is cost control, which means rationing care, which means the Golden Age of carte blanche health care is concluding--no matter which road we take.
How we get there remains undetermined, but the ultimate destination is certain.
We can no longer enjoy unlimited health care regardless of our ability to pay. Socialized medicine is one way to combat this economic problem. In fact, socialized medicine is probably a less painful way to inaugurate the era of limits than doing nothing. Socialized medicine means a lot of changes that we will not view as positive--but this may be unavoidable. However, it would be nice if Democrats would be straight with us about the real problems and their actual proposed solution.
Having said that, I still cannot support this framework at this time. The planned Obama-Pelosi cram-down is an impending disaster; it is bad politics for them and for us. It is a drastic and irrevocable step. We would be better off defeating this attempt at social revolution and waiting for a moment when there is more political equity and, therefore, more honesty and more bipartisan buy-in. Also, the crisis may not be at a point in which the sense of urgency is such that partisans are actually willing to come together for the common good. This is one of those cases in which both parties need to come to terms and go forward with a compromise solution. There are better ideas out there. We need to wait for an atmosphere more conducive to positive change.
