Friday, September 25, 2009

The Politics of Panic

One thing that annoys me about politics is that every little thing seems to get blown out of proportion and presented as if it were the Most Important Thing Ever. Only one thing can possibly be the Most Important Thing Ever so there's clearly some hyperbole going on. I suppose it's a consequence of having a representative government theoretically accountable to the people -- special interest groups, corporations, and members of the government themselves all want to win the people over to their side. If they have to overstate a problem or two, they'll do it...it's the price they have to pay for Victory.

Unfortunately, the problem seems to have gotten worse in the United States since September 11th, a panic-inducing event if we ever had one. The American public was undoubtedly mislead into thinking Iraq presented a clear and present danger to their country -- I think OJ is still out looking for the REAL weapons of mass destruction from prison. I'm perfectly willing to believe the Bush administration were merely following poor intelligence...deliberate manipulation isn't always necessarily the problem. However, the shortage of skeptics was a problem -- why wasn't the administration more circumspect about the very idea of going to war again? Didn't they consider that their basic thesis might be wrong? Didn't they worry that they might be deceiving people and thus would tarnish their place in history? Unfortunately, I think they just saw their panic mongering as a means to a desired end -- I'm sure they realized from the very start that they were exaggerating the threat, but they'd already decided war with Iraq was necessary so it was just part of the process for them. The administration didn't ask the right questions, the Congress didn't question the administration closely enough, and the public was too trusting.

The politics of panic may have reached its zenith during the financial crisis of 2008. "Too big to fail" ranks right up there with WMDs in the lexicon of classic panic terms. In this case, I think the financial industry stirred up much of the panic themselves. At the end of the day, what these oversized institutions were arguing is that they deserved to be treated better than all other institutions. Most banks that are in danger of failure get closed down by the government -- I mean that literally. Banks don't really go bankrupt in our system, and oftentimes all deposits get saved (even beyond the FDIC insurance limits) as long as another bank can be found to take them over. What Citigroup and Bank of America and the other recipients of bank bailout funds argued was, "You can't treat us like other banks." They were able to convince the government of that, and as a result they're still in operation today and still too big to fail. Essentially, the bank bailout was all about preserving bad institutions as they were -- I see no reason why the big, bad banks couldn't have been split up and shrunk dramatically instead of saved intact. It's not like they were in a position to bargain...in a pure capitalistic system, they'd all have failed completely. It was blatantly unfair to treat the bigger banks so much better than the smaller banks (which are still being closed weekly by the government), but the bigger banks were able to use their bigger voice to incite fear, an option the smaller banks just didn't have. Was there an element of truth to "too big to fail"? Of course. But failure wasn't really an option -- the thing is we didn't have to preserve Citi, BOA, etc as they were. They could have been punished and better (or at least less risky) institutions could've taken their place with the assistance of the government. A bank bailout of some kind was probably unavoidable, but it didn't need to take the form it did in my view...it improperly rewarded the banks that cried wolf. For now, at least it does look like the government will make money on those bailouts, if that was the object. (Maybe governments should drop that whole taxation thing and just become moneylenders full-time!)

The health care debate has brought a new burst of public panic. The critics warned of death panels and a government takeover of health care. You could make a slippery slope argument that the current health care reforms being debated could lead to those things down the line (many reform advocates see the public option as a road to single payer, which is definitely a government takeover), but the common argument seemed to be that proposed reforms would lead to that immediately. Definitely panic-mongering...and definitely misleading. On the other hand, proponents of health care reform aren't opposed to a little rabble-rousing of their own -- the way some speak it's a wonder that there's still anyone hasn't been dropped by their health insurer for having some mild health problem. The truth is health insurers pay for an awful lot of health care...the problem with them is they haven't delivered a universal solution that works for everyone who needs care and they haven't always behaved ethically.

The politics of panic makes it harder for anyone to find the truth, unfortunately. You have go past all the noise, all the loud voices, and all the fear-inducing catchphrases to look at the fundamental issues involved. It's rare that there isn't a grain of truth in what the fearmongers say -- failing institutions do pose a threat to the financial system, Saddam Hussein wasn't a very nice guy, government health care does tend to lead to more rationing, etc -- but they never give you the whole story. They have a slanted view of the issues and want you to have a slanted view of them as well. It's a mistake to ever made a decision solely based on panic...even in life-threatening situations calmness and thoughtfulness are assets. To preserve representative democracy and maintain the dignity of the voter, we must fight against the fear that supercedes thought.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Lingering in Afghanistan

According to General Stanley McMcrystal, more American troops are urgently needed in Afghanistan if the Taliban's attempts to regain power are to be thwarted. While President Obama has long wanted to put more troops in Afghanistan, McCrystal wants as many as 40,000 more boots on the ground. As Americans focus more on cares closer to home due to the bad economy, support for continuing the seemingly neverending wars begun during the Bush administration is running low. Many would like to see a complete withdrawal even from Afghanistan despite the possibility that the Taliban could retake the country and again provide a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

In a sense, we can say the Afghan war was a success if we retroactively define its goals narrowly. It was a war launched directly in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks; the Afghan government of the time provided Al-Qaeda with a base from which to operate and coordinate attacks against the United States and its allies. Defeating the Taliban per se was never the object of the war...it was principally about uprooting Al-Qaeda and making it more difficult for them to launch more attacks. The Taliban were only an enemy because they sheltered Al-Qaeda. While the United States and its allies have failed to bring peace to Afghanistan, they have succeeded in disrupting Al-Qaeda, their basic mission. Why, then, do we need more troops? It is merely because the Taliban have proven to be a more resilient enemy than was bargained for, and this is because they, much more so than Al-Qaeda, still have some popular support and are able to recruit a seemingly endless number of impoverished local fighters. Unfortunately, I think if we take the Taliban's bait we'll just be further enmeshed in a war that has no real end in sight. Every time an Afghan civilian is caught in the crossfire, another family turns against the "foreign invaders." It honestly could go on forever, and that's what really scares me.

I think the main military mission in Afghanistan has already been achieved though perhaps not permanently. Our problems right now are with the nation-building aspect of the mission that we've never really wanted to take on. We're stuck propping up a government that, if the recent indications of electoral fraud are any sign, appears to be corrupt and can't be counted on to win hearts and minds. Putting more troops in won't make the government honest and it won't make Taliban supporters give up on an idea of an Islamic state which is as old as Islam itself. Muhammad was himself a military leader, and the first leaders of the Caliphate were among his closest personal associates. There will ALWAYS be people in Afghanistan who are sympathetic to the idea of a Taliban-type government...always. It really doesn't matter how many troops there are unless the intent is slaughter on a massive scale, a morally indefensible mission. The alternative to depopulating Afghanistan is to try to help the Afghans build up something they can't bear to lose, and that's what I favor.

Right now, the main reason Afghans have for opposing the Taliban is the Taliban's own abuses and their oppressive governance. Even if the United States and NATO left the country entirely, the Taliban would still have a lot of fighting to do within Afghanistan. However, the Taliban also have made plenty of friends, particularly among religious Pashtuns who appreciated the relative stability the Taliban brought. To truly win in Afghanistan, the US needs to help make Afghanistan a better nation even as it is in chaos; the new Afghanistan has to be thoroughly better than the old Afghanistan to discredit the former regime. You can kill Taliban all day and still not accomplish that. What is sorely needed in the country is a social and economic revolution: modernizing agriculture, building schools and hospitals, expanding access to electricity, providing support for entrepreneurs, and other things of that nature are sorely required. I would try to first build up the areas of the country that have the LEAST support for the Taliban. Let those areas be an example to the rest of the country that life really can be better. Afterwards, expand into the more dangerous areas with the assistance of the military...you can guarantee that the new infrastructure and social projects will be targeted by militants. It's not a surefire solution, but it attacks the root of the problem and is, in my view, more likely to yield long-term results if done on a grand enough scale than simply bringing in more troops is. The more subtle the approach, the better -- ideally, you don't want the Afghans to see what we would consider progress to be a threat to their civilization. That might mean helping to build a few mosques and even focusing on education for boys ahead of education for girls. That's not the ideal way to go, but we're talking about a war-torn and conservative country here...this is not the time for social activism. All Afghans have a vision for what they would like their country to be; our best shot at winning peace is trying to build that country closer to THEIR collective vision than to ours for now.

Now, for the tricky part...finances. Continuing the Bush wars as they are conducted now is expensive enough; to expand them further is prohibitively expensive in my view since a complete victory can't be assured. Building up Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy is going to be quite expensive as well, though, which is why the most fiscally prudent among us would like to cut and run. What I would do to start off with is reorient American foreign aid towards Afghanistan for the near future. Israel and Egypt currently get huge amounts of American aid far in excess of their importance, in large part because we want them to buy weapons from us. Bringing stability to Afghanistan is more important than propping up our defense industry, I think, so aid to Israel and Egypt should be at least halved and those savings used to build up Afghanistan instead. In fact, cutting aid and moving the savings to Afghanistan across the board would be a wise strategy if we can do it without stepping on too many toes. The many NGOs that operate in the country can also be of some assistance with these new projects, particularly in more peaceful areas of Afghanistan. Other foreign governments will likely also continue to offer aid; if they can be made interested in assisting particular infrastructure or humanitarian projects, that would be excellent. However, we have to be careful that the money goes to the right places and projects that employ and help Afghans. We can't help but continue to spend some money maintaining a military presence and helping the Afghan security forces, but that's all needed just to stymie the Taliban; investing in Afghanistan is the best way I can see to actually achieve a lasting victory.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Is the Republican Party in Crisis?

After every change in power, members of the losing party tend to wring their hands and ask one another, "Is there no hope for this country?" What they really mean is, "Is our party sunk this time...for good?" Despite many ups and downs, the Democratic and Republican parties have proven to be most resilient political parties and both have bounced back from humbling defeats in the past. Their longevity has been closely tied with their willingness to change their platform in response to changing times. Few Democrats advocate for Free Silver these days and few Republicans would call themselves non-interventionists. If history is our guide, in all likelihood the Republicans will survive their electoral losses in 2006 and 2008. However, parties do sometimes fizzle out of existence, and I think there are two major threats to the Republicans' long-term future.

The Achilles' heel for the Republicans is their insincerity. George W. Bush promised a humble foreign policy and delivered two wars. Virtually every Republican plays lip service to the idea of smaller government but while in power they have tended to expand the federal government. Somehow or other they've gotten the idea that fiscal conservatism just means lower taxes -- as long as you lower taxes, it doesn't matter if you spend more or accumulate huge deficits. Genuine fiscal conservatives, though, want the government to not just earn less but also to spend less; they recognize that an indebted nation is just as in danger of bankruptcy as an indebted company or individual but that the consequences of a national bankruptcy tend to be far worse and affect millions of people. While fiscal conservatives are unlikely to become Democrats, they will find it increasingly difficult to support Republicans who continually say one thing and deliver another. As I see it, sooner or later the Republicans will have to make a choice. Do they stand for smaller government even if that might damage America's ability to intervene politically and militarily in her interests worldwide? Are they willing to make the hard choices -- yes, even the politically damaging ones in the short-term -- that restoring the country's fiscal fitness will require? I don't think the Republicans can count on the votes of fiscal conservatives permanently...rhetoric can only go so far when it is not backed up by policy.

The Republicans' second great weakness is demographics. A century ago, the Democratic Party, particularly in the South, was THE racist party. That's simply what they were...the Republicans were the party of Lincoln, after all. Chameleons as always, the parties changed sides in the Civil Rights Era. The Republican Party welcomed former Democrat segregationists like Storm Thurmond into their midst. Republicans cynically pursued the Southern Strategy which sought to capitalize on lingering racist attitudes among whites at the expense of the black vote. Nowadays, racist rhetoric from national politicians is exceedingly rare, but the damage has been done. The Republicans still get the majority of the white vote, but the Democrats are heavily favored amongst blacks and to a lesser extent among Hispanics yet still get a big chunk of the white vote themselves. For the Republicans to change this now will be difficult because they are simply not trusted by minority voters. Frankly, why would they be? You can't embrace Storm Thurmond one day and then pretend it all didn't happen the next...it'll probably take at least another generation for Republican flirtations with racists to be forgotten. Meanwhile, the Democrats are going to fiercely try to defend the minority vote. The crazy thing is that minorities that don't necessarily approve of Democratic policies will still vote for Democrats simply because they don't feel they can trust Republicans. The Republicans are continually losing votes from fiscal conservatives, from pro-lifers, from tax cutting advocates, from supporters of the War on Terror, and from other groups whose interests they claim to represent simply because of the party's past racial strategies. As I see it, this is the most dangerous long-term threat to the Republican Party and it could very well lead to the formation of new conservative parties that don't carry the race-related baggage of the GOP.

An alternative possibility is that the Republican Party will be reformed from within. That's essentially what libertarian-leaning Republicans are trying to do. Peter Schiff and Rand Paul are both Republicans campaigning for Senate seats in 2010, Schiff in Connecticut and Paul in Kentucky. I find their candidacies interesting because they spend most of their time talking about economics and don't mind getting specific about how they hope to cut costs. Schiff's take on America's wars is devastatingly to the point: We can't afford them any longer. Eschewing moral and foreign policy arguments, Schiff rarely takes his eyes off the bottom line. Even those who support the War on Terror in theory have to admit it's been an expensive affair in practice. How well Schiff and Paul will do provides a good window into the attitudes of the electorate: if the voters really are bothered by the debt, by the bailouts, and by general fiscal irresponsibility, they'll do well and the whole party may start taking fiscal conservatism more seriously. On the other hand, if they bomb, that suggests Republican voters are still concerned more with other things than they are with fiscal matters which may make fiscal conservatives more inclined to jump ship rather than keep fighting for representation within the party.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Could Health Insurers Do Things Differently?

I'm going to hazard a guess and say here that I think the health insurance industry would prefer not to have to spend millions of dollars lobbying politicians year after year in order to stay in business. I'm not entirely confident my guess is correct, especially considering that the Baucus health care plan wants to force people to buy health insurance even if they don't want it. There's no doubt the big insurers play the political game well and have become increasingly audacious in their attempts to use the system to their advantage. They're on a precipice, though -- the health care debate going on now might well be very different if the economy were in better shape and if the US government wasn't so deeply in debt. Denying coverage to Americans in desperate need for medical care and rescinding policies for frivolous reasons may have made good business sense, but it was a terrible public relations policy for the insurance industry.

Ideally, health insurance companies really ought to be looking out for people's health for the simple reason that they make more money when people don't get sick. While rising health care costs have coincided with rising premiums, that's ultimately a path to oblivion. At some point, most people won't be able to afford either health care or health insurance the way things are going. Cutting the costs of health care and creating a healthier country is actually in the insurance companies' best interest. Apart from embracing preventative care and spreading health information, though, I'm not sure the insurers have really tried to play an active role in trying to fix the underlying problems with health care in the United States. If their industry survives health care reform (and it certainly looks like it will considering the level of resistance to the public option, let alone single payer) intact, they should start doing some things differently in my view. Differently in what way? Thanks for asking; I do happen to have a few ideas...

#1. Branch off into the medical devices business.

I've done a little studying of public health insurance companies' income statements and noticed they're consistently quite profitable, but not quite making Exxon profits either. Insurance companies (well, apart from AIG) tend to be somewhat conservative -- after all, they have to always consider the worst case scenario. For a health insurance company, there are some scary worst case scenarios, like epidemics. Right now the big insurers have money, but I don't think it's realistic to expect them to directly enter the hospital or pharmaceuticals business in a notable way due to the sheer costs involved. It probably wouldn't even be desirable for them to do so; it's scary to have one entity controlling health care. If you don't want the government in charge of your health from cradle to the grave, you definitely don't want insurers to have that level of control, either.

What I think the insurers might be able to do, though, is enter the medical devices industry as a side business. High tech medicine is expensive. It's undoubtedly true that some technologies are overused and that that overuse plays a big part in increasing health care costs, but we definitely don't want technology to go away from medicine...it's still saving lives every day even if it isn't always used efficiently or wisely. The insurers could try to fill niches in the medical devices business, probably through acquisitions. At the very least, a medical devices side business can be used as a hedge against rising health care prices (if insurance profits go down, there's a good chance medical device income will go up so maybe premiums won't need to be raised so much). What would be better is if the insurers used the medical devices business as a loss leader for their core business. They wouldn't need to count on medical device profits so they could sell at lower prices, bringing the costs of this aspect of health care down and in turn making their insurance business more profitable. However, to remain competitive in their new sector, they'd have to invest in R&D as well so it'd be rather a delicate balancing act for them.

#2. Invest in research.

I think insurers might be able to work with smaller universities and pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs. Here, the insurers should try to be financiers rather than overseers and try to work with other organizations that also want drug costs reduced, but there should be strings attached to their funding which will in some way lead to reduced drug costs. I'm not entirely sure how to go about that myself -- I'm not in the health care business, I just pretend to be someone who knows what he's talking about online -- but I think there ought to be a way that the insurance companies could help new players emerge in the pharmaceutical market who would have been held back by the costs of doing business. (The insurers could also lobby the government to change its regulatory methods and make developing drugs less expensive, I suppose, but I tend to think we need tight drug regulation...medicine is useless if it isn't safe to use. However, it is very scary that it costs nearly a billion dollars to develop a new prescription drug, though that isn't solely because of regulation.)

#3. Increase supply.

One way to reduce health care costs is to try to reduce how much medical professionals make. That sounds mean, but there are a couple of reasons why entering health care is lucrative that aren't such good things at all: first of all, there is a shortage of personnel in some areas (right now we're hearing a lot about the lack of general practitioners) and secondly education is expensive. Insurers should want more nurses, more X-ray technicians, more general practitioners, more nurse practitioners...more of everything...to bring costs down and help create a healthier population. They can help make this happen through scholarships among other things. I would particularly like them to look into helping universities start new medical schools, typically a very expensive undertaking, and also helping to fund additional residencies for doctors beyond what is funded by Medicare where possible.

#4. Let people help.

The uninsured as a group are not viewed with a friendly eye by the health insurance industry. They're potential customers who are refusing to pay up. That attitude is embodied in the idea of a mandate on individuals to buy health insurance. That attitude is flawed, though, because it overlooks the possibility that people really cannot afford insurance even though they may not be eligible for Medicaid. Every person, every family, and every household has a unique financial situation -- just looking at annual income doesn't always give the whole story. I would like to see the health insurers team up and let their customers voluntarily help fund the premiums of those who cannot afford the costs yet aren't being covered by Medicaid (I would suggest that the goal be to extend catastrophic coverage so more people can be covered. This also gives people a motivation to get more comprehensive coverage down the line instead of just accepting freebies). Let people help tackle the problem of the uninsured themselves if they want to do so. This shouldn't cost the health insurers much at all...the tricky part would be setting it up in accordance with state and federal law. The undertaking could even take the form of an Internet site like Microplace or Kiva which would allow people to read about the circumstances of the uninsured whose health insurance they are funding. Each individual donor might only fund part of a premium on average; the wealthy or organizations might put a lot more money in. The important thing, though, is that there would be fewer uninsured. That would be a good thing. It won't solve the problem, but it would help at least a little bit.

I don't know how realistic any of my propositions really are individually, but I do think the insurers need to either take a more proactive role in the process beyond protecting their own skin or slash premiums and at least try to stop being part of the problem. The best argument I can think of against the insurers taking several of the steps I suggested is the expense of it all -- rather than reinvesting in other areas of health care, the insurers could just reap less profits and pass the savings to the consumer. The problem with that argument, though, is that health insurance can't be decoupled from the larger costs of health care...they're as directly related as two businesses can be. We certainly can't expect the insurers to solve everything on their own -- they have definite financial limits, and I think some of my ideas would be difficult to implement due to legal requirements. They can play a very important role in the process, however, and I think they've been shirking that role in favor of maintaining the status quo and lobbying the government for gifts.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Global Warming and the Consumer

While the debate on global warming is a contentious one, with some people claiming the whole thing is a fabrication, I do personally believe it is a serious problem. Weather is certainly complicated and affected by many factors. Even though some of the warmest years on record have occurred very recently, it's not unusual for temperatures to drop on a year to year basis -- because the trend isn't always consistent, global warming doubters often dismiss the whole thing as some sort of grand conspiracy. I personally like how the temperature graphs on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies web site's paints the global warming picture; both sides could find fuel for an argument in the data provided there, but it reinforces my feeling that we can't ignore rising temperatures. What is uncontroversial is that greenhouse gases trap heat and thus that increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases caused by human activities will trap more heat. The ultimate question of the global warming debate is a matter of timing: is there really a crisis NOW that must be dealt with immediately or has the issue been overstated by those with political and economic agendas of their own?

Those who see the world as running out of time are pushing for climate change legislation such as the cap and trade bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. It's fair to call cap and trade a tax on emissions, designed to make polluting more expensive and "going green" less expensive. So long as burning fossil fuels is less expensive than investing in alternative forms of energy, fiscal prudence limits the number of companies that will actively choose to pollute less. Cap and trade creates an incentive to reduce emissions and punishes those who continue to pollute. However, even if over the long-term companies will cut back on emissions in response to the legislation, in the short-term they will likely try to place as much of the financial burden of cap and trade as they can on the consumer. That's not ever going to be good for the economy, though it's reasonable to hope the economic situation in the country will be much better before the effects of cap and trade will really be felt.

What bothers me about cap and trade the most is that it will certainly hurt the consumer to a certain extent even though the consumer hasn't had that much chance to change things on his or her own yet. Fluorescent bulbs have become common place, it's true, but electric cars aside from the expensive dream machines sold by Tesla Motors are still on the way. In the next few years, there'll be more choice in the car market in terms of low emission vehicles as several automakers are planning to unveil electric vehicles...the Nissan Leaf is one that's getting a lot of attention now. Many consumers leaped ahead of the trend by buying hybrids like the Toyota Prius, but electric vehicles are emission free and represent another big step forward for green autos. How green they truly are depends on how your electricity is produced, but even in the worst case scenario they're far greener than the best gas-powered car. Another emerging technology is solar power for small scale uses, such as for recharging cell phone batteries or powering a netbook. There are a number of advantages to these emerging technologies that aren't even environmental. For instance, electric vehicles should require considerably less maintenance than their gas guzzling cousins and they can be fueled at home -- while there are concerns over the lack of a charging infrastructure (this limits long range travel) and the longevity and expense of EV batteries, electric vehicles are a triumph for convenience. The new breed of solar power uses makes it easier than ever to go off the grid but still stay connected to the world. It's a bit more controversial about whether you'll actually save money by going green (no more gas bills for electric cars, reducing your electricity bills by using solar power) but in some cases you certainly will. My solar calculator definitely saved me money on batteries during my college years (and it's still my favorite calculator to this day)!

Basically, there are plenty of reasons for consumers to lead the green revolution. They stand to benefit from green technologies. If they feel they can help save the world in the process, that's an added incentive at the very least...for some, it'll be the dominant reason for making the initial purchase. It will be harder to make companies to change their polluting ways without something like cap and trade(though the consumer can have a big impact here as well) , but at the end of the day even they have every reason to want to preserve the world, too. Black marketeers are the only ones who make money in an apocalypse. Cap and trade isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I think the government could promote energy alternatives more benignly by continuing to make green investments and evangelizing all the positives (not just environmental) emerging technologies that are just now becoming widely available bring to the table. Taxing consumers isn't exactly the best way to create a new breed of environmentally responsible citizens...it will spur resentment to one degree or another and create suspicion that the whole thing is a scam designed to draw big profits. Nobody wins if cap and trade is passed under the current administration and shut down under another. Ultimately, though, we must return to the issue of timing. Cap and trade supporters don't think we have time to let the country voluntarily go green. I personally think they just might be selling the consumer short, however.

Monday, September 7, 2009

In Search of a Reasonable Opposition

There are many reasons why someone might feel skeptical about Barack Obama's political agenda. Health care reform and cap and trade are not pedestrian measures -- they will change how this country works and affect everyone in it to some extent. I would frankly be concerned if everyone was on board with such dramatic change...they're the type of issues that we need to have a national debate about. Perhaps the largest issue facing the United States that both parties tend to pay only lip service to is our national debt which continues to balloon wildly. Truthfully, it has been huge for a long time -- as long as I've been alive certainly-- but recently there have been rumors of revolt by our foreign creditors, with China among other nations suggesting the need for a new reserve currency and overall less global dependence on the already battered American economy. To me, at least, the debt and our general economic situation is the main thing that prevents me from supporting health care reform enthusiastically. I loathe the failings of the present system, but sometimes I wonder what the point of reform is if our economy is in danger of a total collapse. How can we build a stronger country on an increasingly unsteady foundation? Don't we need to fix the foundation first?

My main point here is that I think the Obama administration should be questioned and challenged where it matters. Unfortunately, though, I can't help but feel dismayed at the way the political discourse over the past few months has been conducted. The fight for health care reform has by some been framed as a fight for or against "death panels", as if that is an outcome anyone in the administration really desires. Focusing on rationing is reasonable because that's a real consequence of the shortage of resources that government health care programs tend to run into. However, trying to make it seem like the president and other Democrats want to kill people -- to portray them as being essentially evil -- is a hideous distortion designed to scare rather than inspire thought. Even something as insignificant as Obama's speech tomorrow to school children -- basically a glorified pep talk -- has been blown out of proportion and portrayed as a form of intentional indoctrination. The critics were right that the suggested activity for teachers that involved asking students how they could help Obama was inappropriate, but the speech itself is harmless and uncontroversial and totally undeserving of such hype. I honestly don't really LIKE the idea of politicians making speeches directly to children myself. We shouldn't inject politics into the classroom. Still, we shouldn't act like words are poison that children need to be protected from, either. Obama is hardly the first president to address the nation's youth, and for many of the children listening to the president it will probably be a positive and encouraging experience. Hysterical reactions to a pretty innocent matter just make it seem like people will attack Obama for any reason...which they in fact will, for that's how the game of politics is played by both sides in 2009's America.

The most regrettable aspect of not having a reasonable opposition is that it allows hysteria to replace thoughtful debate. Reasonable people who've studied health care reform can't be blamed for deciding, "This death panel stuff isn't in the bill. The Republicans are just making stuff up." The core fiscal issues have been obfuscated by the exaggerations and the theatrics. It may be even worse that energy is being wasted on an issue like the school children speech for that just emboldens supporters of the president who will decry that the president is being unfairly targeted. I've noticed that many people simply see much of the criticism of Obama as being motivated by race -- that's what happens when you put forth silly arguments lacking in substance. What has really been accomplished if health care reform is defeated, the underlying problems with the present system remain unfixed, and the debt to GDP ratio continues to rise unabated due to other government spending (you know, the trillions that Democrats and Republicans can both agree on)? If the fundamental issues aren't addressed when they are most relevant, I doubt they ever will be.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

The Mystique of an Unbreached Republic

There's nothing quite like the unfiltered view of politics you can get through the Internet. No other medium lets you see how people actually feel about things better. Views brushed aside by the mainstream as inconsequential are loud and seemingly rampant online. The discourse can get a little crazy, but so can politics. One of the more fascinating trends I noticed online last year during the election was how paranoid some people were about the transfer of power from President Bush to his successor, especially when Barack Obama emerged as the leading presidential candidate. Bear in mind we've had an awful lot of peaceful transfers of power in the United States -- it's not like every now and then we elect some stick in the mud who refuses to vacate the office when he's voted out. It just hasn't happened, not even in times of crisis. Nonetheless, some of the Founding Fathers were extremely concerned that that just might occur, that a dictatorship would take the place of the democratic republic they were creating. I love the fact that there are people who are still concerned about the prospect of a dictator emerging despite America's history to this point...it's not like it's impossible for it to occur. Dictators have indeed been the death of many a democracy; just imagine how different Africa's modern political history might have been had its nations experienced more peaceful transitions of power.

Anyway, there were two main conspiracy theories I noticed emerging during the election. The first was that George W. Bush would NOT leave office. I think history will remember Bush as a not untypical wartime president in that he did trample on individual liberties (Lincoln and FDR did as well), but trampling on individual liberties is something dictators also do a lot of. The fear was that despite the election Bush would declare a state of emergency, hold on to power, and rule the country as president for life, perhaps in the name of fighting terrorism. The second theory emerged strongly once Barack Obama started dominating the polls. Suddenly people started to fear that, if elected, Obama would declare martial law and emerge as a tyrant like America had never seen before. Now, you might well wonder what Obama had done during the campaign or as a senator to incite such fear, but, to be perfectly honest, we should probably be afraid that any president we elect might try to do something of the kind no matter how cherub-faced their visage. So far, at least, these two conspiracy theories seem to have been without merit. The transfer of power went smoothly, George Bush trotted merrily off to Texas, and Barack Obama began the struggle of getting his agenda enacted. It's been business as usual so far -- no power grabs, no tyranny established. We can all breathe a sigh of relief...for now.

It's an interesting question, though: why hasn't America had a tyrant yet? The obvious answer might seem to be the firm foundation of the American republic. The balance of powers among the three branches of government is designed to prevent a single all-powerful leader from emerging. However, I think it's indisputable that we've had presidents who have overstepped their powers. From John Adams' attempts to silence political opposition to Andrew Jackson's support of Georgia over the Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia to FDR's unprecedented expansion of government intrusion into individual Americans' lives, we've had a lot of "strong presidents" who wielded power all too freely at times. Not one of them was a tyrant, though. Not one dissolved America's fundamental institutions or rewrote the Constitution to suit their whims. FDR did seem to be basically president for life, given that he was in office for longer than any other president and even died in office, but he was really popular and as far as I know won each of his elections fair and square. The checks and balances proscribed in the Constitution undoubtedly make it harder for a dictator to emerge, but I definitely don't think they are the only reason we haven't had one, especially considering how hard it's been to impeach presidents once they are elected. The fact that the United States is a well-armed nation with gun rights protected under the 2nd Amendment also makes establishing a tyranny more difficult, though I don't think it answers the question entirely either...after all, a popular dictator would have a lot of people with guns on his side as well.

Instead, I would say that the main reason America hasn't been ruled by a dictator yet is deceptively simple: no one in a strong enough position to try to seize that power has really wanted to do so. This doesn't mean that all our prominent political figures were saintly people, of course -- some might well have liked the idea of absolute power but just not wanted to risk everything to seize it. Still, I think there's a reason people generally don't grow up wanting to become the dictator of America. Simply put, if America ever has a dictator, it will cease to be America -- the United States is a very strange country in that our particular political system is uniquely tied to our identity. We're not like the Roman Republic, which acknowledged that dictators had their uses in times of crisis. For Americans, having a dictator in charge would be like the end of the country, the death of America. Dictators typically come to power much like democratically elected leaders, with promises of glorious days ahead. An American dictator couldn't say, "Well, I know I just killed America and all, but things are going to turn out GREAT for us!" When politicians in the United States want more power, they take it surreptitiously whilst piously proclaiming devotion to liberty.