It is now virtually certain that the Senate will pass the health care reform bill currently before it. We must still suffer through the agonies of the Senate-House conference, but the odds are very great that sometime before his State of the Union address to the assembled members of Congress, the President wll sign a final bill, with as much in the way of bells and whistles, flourishes and furblows, as the White House staff can manage.
When this happens, it will be an enormous political victory for Obama, regardless of the details of the bill, and a terrible defeat for the Republicans. It did not have to be this way, of course. Had the Republicans accepted Obama's offer of bipartisanship, they could have won a bill much closer to what they say they are in favor of, and they would have shared the credit, going into the off-year elections.
But that is not what they wanted. No sooner had Obama taken the oath of office than Republicans began to say, openly and unashamedly, that their primary goal was to make Obama's presidency a failure. Gambling that at least one Democratic senator would break ranks, despite Harry Reid's best efforts, and, in all likelihood, privately hoping that Robert Byrd would expire before the final vote [a hope that devoutly Christian, born-again, but terminally stupid Tom Coburn actually gave voice to on the floor of the Senate], they dug in their heels, doubled down, bullied Olympia Snowe into behaving herself, and went for broke.
The victory, should it occur, will give Obama tremendous momentum going into 2010, just in time to throw his entire administration behind an effort to create jobs.
There is no evidence of which I am aware that the majority of Republicans care two cents about health care. Some of them are in the bag to the health industry lobbies, no doubt, but that is as true of the Democrats as of the Republicans. No one is more beholden to the health care insurance industry than Joe Lieberman, the "Senator from Hartord," as he is referred to, but even he, in the end, has gotten on board, after extracting some concessions for the industry that owns him.
If it comes to pass [he says, crossing the eight fingers with which he is not typing], it will be an extraordinary vindication for Obama's style of governing. And the Republiocans will have given it to him.
Historically, it has been conservatives, not radicals, who cherished ironies, but these days, one must get one's pleasures where one can.
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
OLD TRUTHS REPEATED
As we close in on a Senate health care reform bill, Howard Dean and a number of other voices on the left have suddenly started calling for the bill to be defeated. Moveon.org has launched a campaign to attack the most liberal senators for failing to fight more vociferously for the public option. This is just madness, a petty pouting at the compromises that had to be made to overcome a Republican filibuster.
I have said this before, and I will say it again. If you are looking for a target for your anger, aim it at the drug companies, at the health care industry, or -- most appropriately -- at the American people. If they were willing to elect sixty Bernie Sanders and Russ Feinbergs, we would live in a socialist paradise. The liberals in the Senate have been fighting a rearguard action since they stepped onto the field of battle. Those forty Republican senators pretty accurately represent perhaps forty percent or more of the American people. Barack Obama won less than 53% of the popular vote. Almost 47% of those voting chose John McCain and Sarah Palin. That is the reality of the American political landscape. Obama positioned himself only moderately to the left of center on the issues, and still only pulled less than 53% of the vote. What is going on in the Senate right now is a complex, messy, infuriating, excruciating, but quite accurate reflection of that reality.
You want Bernie Sanders to call the tune? So do I. Fine. Don't hold protest meetings in Greenwich Village, or Cambridge, Mass, or Berkeley, California, or Hyde Park, Chicago. Hold them in Ogden, Utah or Charleston, South Carolina. Never been to Ogden or Charleston? Wouldn't go on a bet, because they are not your kind of people? Then stop complaining and take what you can get!
I have said this before, and I will say it again. If you are looking for a target for your anger, aim it at the drug companies, at the health care industry, or -- most appropriately -- at the American people. If they were willing to elect sixty Bernie Sanders and Russ Feinbergs, we would live in a socialist paradise. The liberals in the Senate have been fighting a rearguard action since they stepped onto the field of battle. Those forty Republican senators pretty accurately represent perhaps forty percent or more of the American people. Barack Obama won less than 53% of the popular vote. Almost 47% of those voting chose John McCain and Sarah Palin. That is the reality of the American political landscape. Obama positioned himself only moderately to the left of center on the issues, and still only pulled less than 53% of the vote. What is going on in the Senate right now is a complex, messy, infuriating, excruciating, but quite accurate reflection of that reality.
You want Bernie Sanders to call the tune? So do I. Fine. Don't hold protest meetings in Greenwich Village, or Cambridge, Mass, or Berkeley, California, or Hyde Park, Chicago. Hold them in Ogden, Utah or Charleston, South Carolina. Never been to Ogden or Charleston? Wouldn't go on a bet, because they are not your kind of people? Then stop complaining and take what you can get!
Friday, December 18, 2009
KRUGMAN AND HEALTH CARE REFORM
I am not an enormous fan of Paul Krugman, perhaps because he was an early and fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary. But his column today in the NY TIMES on health care is exactly right. If I were technologically more sophisticated, I would put an link right here on which you could click, but you can simply go to http://www.nytimes.com and find his column on the front page. I recommend it.
Meanwhile, I am engaged in the far more important mission of locating somewhere that I can buy the one brand of cat food that Murray is willing to eat. Were I religious, I would conclude that God is testing me.
Meanwhile, I am engaged in the far more important mission of locating somewhere that I can buy the one brand of cat food that Murray is willing to eat. Were I religious, I would conclude that God is testing me.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
THE HEALTH CARE REFORM PROCESS, YET AGAIN
While Harry Reid and his Gang of Ten await the CBO scoring on the latest complex compromise proposal, it might be well to pause for a moment and reflect on how this enormously important debate has developed in the past eight months or more.
It was obvious to virtually everyone, when it began, that the process would be lengthy, contentious, tedious, complex, and fraught with political manoeuvres and dangers. Five House committees, two or three Senate committees, all debating a fundamental reorientation of one seventh of the entire American economy. Nothing this complex has been attempted in generations.
At the very beginning of the process, the Republicans made a decision. Since they are not stupid -- vicious, perhaps, despicable, undoubtedly, deeply in debt to special corporate interests, inevitably, but not stupid -- I assume the decision was conscious, calculated, deliberate, and much debated in Republican circles. The decision was to try to destroy the Obama presidency by doing everything in their power to defeat any attempt at health care reform, virtually regardless of its content. They knew that they could muster forty votes in the Senate, and it was quite unclear whether Harry Reid could hold a fractious coalition of fifty-eight Democrats and two Independents. [Remember that at this point, it was not yet clear whether Al Franken would prevail in his Senate contest].
So, despite the exhausting efforts of MaxBaucus to secure a bi-partisan coalition in his committee, the Republicans steadfastly voted against everything.
And the result? They have rendered themselves completely irrelevant to the process of negotiating a final bill. Despite their endless posturing on the floor of the Senate, despite the Tea Baggers and the disruptions in summer town hall meetings, they have completely closed themselves out of the crafting of the final bill. There is no doubt that, had they chosen to engage in genuine bi-partisan negotiations, they could have played an important role in writing the bill. But they chose instead to gamble on bringing Obama down.
Now, all of this is rather new even to folks like myself who are obsessed with politics. But it cannot have been at all new to the senior members of the Republican Senate caucus. They must have been quite well aware that their chosen strategy guaranteed them no input into the bill finally brought to a vote before the two houses of Congress. They were even willing to desert their corporate patrons, who may have been counting on them to make the final bill friendlier to corporate interests. Their lust for the kill, for destroying the Obama presidency in its first year, took precedence over everything else.
And so we have the spectacle, now, of intense negotiations being conducted entirely among -- Democrats. To be sure, corporate interests are hardly unrepresented in those closed meetings. But the absence of any Republicans at the table tilts the balance of forces markedly leftward of where it would have been otherwise.
Will the Republican gamble pay off? Will they, at the last moment, peel away Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh or Mary Landrieu? I think it is clear that the answer is no. The momentum is so great now to pass something that the most those people can do is to push the bill marginally to the right.
Think what this will mean. First, it will be, and will be seen as, an enormous victory for Obama. Hence, the Republicans will have lost. Second, a wide variety of extremely important reforms and changes will have been enacted, whatever the final shape of the bill. Everyone has agreed to stop insurance companies from denying insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. Everyone has agreed that thirty million or more Americans now uninsured will become insured. There are countless other good things in the proposed legislation that are not even in dispute.
Fascinating.
It was obvious to virtually everyone, when it began, that the process would be lengthy, contentious, tedious, complex, and fraught with political manoeuvres and dangers. Five House committees, two or three Senate committees, all debating a fundamental reorientation of one seventh of the entire American economy. Nothing this complex has been attempted in generations.
At the very beginning of the process, the Republicans made a decision. Since they are not stupid -- vicious, perhaps, despicable, undoubtedly, deeply in debt to special corporate interests, inevitably, but not stupid -- I assume the decision was conscious, calculated, deliberate, and much debated in Republican circles. The decision was to try to destroy the Obama presidency by doing everything in their power to defeat any attempt at health care reform, virtually regardless of its content. They knew that they could muster forty votes in the Senate, and it was quite unclear whether Harry Reid could hold a fractious coalition of fifty-eight Democrats and two Independents. [Remember that at this point, it was not yet clear whether Al Franken would prevail in his Senate contest].
So, despite the exhausting efforts of MaxBaucus to secure a bi-partisan coalition in his committee, the Republicans steadfastly voted against everything.
And the result? They have rendered themselves completely irrelevant to the process of negotiating a final bill. Despite their endless posturing on the floor of the Senate, despite the Tea Baggers and the disruptions in summer town hall meetings, they have completely closed themselves out of the crafting of the final bill. There is no doubt that, had they chosen to engage in genuine bi-partisan negotiations, they could have played an important role in writing the bill. But they chose instead to gamble on bringing Obama down.
Now, all of this is rather new even to folks like myself who are obsessed with politics. But it cannot have been at all new to the senior members of the Republican Senate caucus. They must have been quite well aware that their chosen strategy guaranteed them no input into the bill finally brought to a vote before the two houses of Congress. They were even willing to desert their corporate patrons, who may have been counting on them to make the final bill friendlier to corporate interests. Their lust for the kill, for destroying the Obama presidency in its first year, took precedence over everything else.
And so we have the spectacle, now, of intense negotiations being conducted entirely among -- Democrats. To be sure, corporate interests are hardly unrepresented in those closed meetings. But the absence of any Republicans at the table tilts the balance of forces markedly leftward of where it would have been otherwise.
Will the Republican gamble pay off? Will they, at the last moment, peel away Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh or Mary Landrieu? I think it is clear that the answer is no. The momentum is so great now to pass something that the most those people can do is to push the bill marginally to the right.
Think what this will mean. First, it will be, and will be seen as, an enormous victory for Obama. Hence, the Republicans will have lost. Second, a wide variety of extremely important reforms and changes will have been enacted, whatever the final shape of the bill. Everyone has agreed to stop insurance companies from denying insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. Everyone has agreed that thirty million or more Americans now uninsured will become insured. There are countless other good things in the proposed legislation that are not even in dispute.
Fascinating.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
TWISTS AND TURNS IN HEALTH CARE REFORM
I think my blog posts have made it abundantly clear that I am not shy about offering opinions on a wide range of matters, about many of which I know virtually nothing. See, for example, my strong dissent from Obama's Afghanistan policy. But the latest turn in the health care reform story has me puzzled, and I welcome all the help I can get in understanding it.
As many of you will have heard, late yesterday a group of ten Democratic Senators convened by Harry Reid reached agreement on a totally new direction for health care reform. According to reports, which are fragmentary, the so-called public option will be scrapped or set aside, and instead several new components of reform will be introduced, most notably lowering the age for a Medicare buy-in to 55 for persons who are not now covered by health insurance.
My head snapped up when I read that, because it seemed to me that this was far and away the most revolutionary proposal with any serious hope of being adopted. But maybe I am wrong. This is where I need some guidance from those wiser and more knowledgeable than myself.
Let me explain. Since the end of World War II, the foundational premise of the American health care system has been that families will obtain health insurance through the employer of the family's principal wage earner, assumed to be the father of a two parent family. That assumption fit the facts for a large number of working class or middle class families whose principal wage earner worked in a large industrial firm [U. S. Steel, General Motors, etc.] or for a branch of state, local, or the federal government. Workers generally retired at age 65 [or earlier in industries with very strong unions], leaving all but the workers with the best union contracts without health care coverage in their senior years.
As the numbers of people living well beyond sixty-five soared, a crisis of poverty among the aged developed, and the government's response [fought bitterly by the Republicans, of course] was Medicare. The crisis of health care for the poor was met with the response of Medicaid.
Medicare is a single-payer government run health care insurance plan, and it is the foundation on which is built the relatively secure economic condition of the nation's very large number of senior citizens. My wife and I are now enrolled in Medicare, and I have a very good worm's eye view of how it works. When either of us needs medical attention, we go to the doctor or medical group of our choice [UNC or Duke Health, in our case, for the most part], present a Medicare card, and without co-pays or hassles, receive good care. We pay each month for Medicare Part B, the premium for which is deducted from our Social Secutiry checks, and through my former employer, I purchase a supplementary plan that covers, among other things, prescription drugs. The Federal Government sets the amounts that it will pay to reimburse medical care providers, and periodically I receive a form in the mail that shows how much the doctor or hospital charges for the service [usually an enormous amount], how much Medicare will pay [much, much less], and how much I owe [nothing, because, as the form says, the provider has agreed to accept the Medicare payment as full reimbursement for the service.]
The new proposal being hammered out opens Medicare to some people who are still of working age -- 55. Now, here is what has me astonished. This proposal, though at first it would affect a relatively small number of people, undermines the premise on which the entire American health care system is founded. Once those 55 to 64 whose employers do not offer health insurance are given the option of buying into Medicare, how long will it be before employers stop offering health insurance? How long will it be before there is a demand to lower the cost of the buy-in to the level now charged for seniors? How long will it be before the cry goes up to lower the age to 53, 50, 45?
Am I simply all wrong, or does this look like the first hesitant step toward a single payer national health care system? The insurance industry will of course fight it tooth and nail, because it is a death sentence for them. Republicans, if they have their wits about them, should go ballistic. But employers who see the possibility of shedding the burden of offering health insurance should love it.
I welcome comments. I am really mystified about this one.
As many of you will have heard, late yesterday a group of ten Democratic Senators convened by Harry Reid reached agreement on a totally new direction for health care reform. According to reports, which are fragmentary, the so-called public option will be scrapped or set aside, and instead several new components of reform will be introduced, most notably lowering the age for a Medicare buy-in to 55 for persons who are not now covered by health insurance.
My head snapped up when I read that, because it seemed to me that this was far and away the most revolutionary proposal with any serious hope of being adopted. But maybe I am wrong. This is where I need some guidance from those wiser and more knowledgeable than myself.
Let me explain. Since the end of World War II, the foundational premise of the American health care system has been that families will obtain health insurance through the employer of the family's principal wage earner, assumed to be the father of a two parent family. That assumption fit the facts for a large number of working class or middle class families whose principal wage earner worked in a large industrial firm [U. S. Steel, General Motors, etc.] or for a branch of state, local, or the federal government. Workers generally retired at age 65 [or earlier in industries with very strong unions], leaving all but the workers with the best union contracts without health care coverage in their senior years.
As the numbers of people living well beyond sixty-five soared, a crisis of poverty among the aged developed, and the government's response [fought bitterly by the Republicans, of course] was Medicare. The crisis of health care for the poor was met with the response of Medicaid.
Medicare is a single-payer government run health care insurance plan, and it is the foundation on which is built the relatively secure economic condition of the nation's very large number of senior citizens. My wife and I are now enrolled in Medicare, and I have a very good worm's eye view of how it works. When either of us needs medical attention, we go to the doctor or medical group of our choice [UNC or Duke Health, in our case, for the most part], present a Medicare card, and without co-pays or hassles, receive good care. We pay each month for Medicare Part B, the premium for which is deducted from our Social Secutiry checks, and through my former employer, I purchase a supplementary plan that covers, among other things, prescription drugs. The Federal Government sets the amounts that it will pay to reimburse medical care providers, and periodically I receive a form in the mail that shows how much the doctor or hospital charges for the service [usually an enormous amount], how much Medicare will pay [much, much less], and how much I owe [nothing, because, as the form says, the provider has agreed to accept the Medicare payment as full reimbursement for the service.]
The new proposal being hammered out opens Medicare to some people who are still of working age -- 55. Now, here is what has me astonished. This proposal, though at first it would affect a relatively small number of people, undermines the premise on which the entire American health care system is founded. Once those 55 to 64 whose employers do not offer health insurance are given the option of buying into Medicare, how long will it be before employers stop offering health insurance? How long will it be before there is a demand to lower the cost of the buy-in to the level now charged for seniors? How long will it be before the cry goes up to lower the age to 53, 50, 45?
Am I simply all wrong, or does this look like the first hesitant step toward a single payer national health care system? The insurance industry will of course fight it tooth and nail, because it is a death sentence for them. Republicans, if they have their wits about them, should go ballistic. But employers who see the possibility of shedding the burden of offering health insurance should love it.
I welcome comments. I am really mystified about this one.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
WELL, THAT'S HALF OF IT
Murray, the Shadkhan, was tired. [shadkhan -- Jewish marriage broker]. For three months, he had been trying to find a wife for Mrs. Shapiro's precious son, Bernard. The butcher's daughter? Not refined enough. The baker's daughter? Too fat. The moyle's daughter? Too dull. The rabbi's daughter? Not sufficiently devout. Truth be told, Bernard was no great catch, but in Mrs. Shapiro's eyes, he was a Prince of the Realm, and only the perfect girl would do. As he sat in his kitchen drinking tea from a glass and listening to reports of the elevation of Crown Princess Elizabeth to the English throne, a thought crossed Murray's mind. The Princess Margaret Rose was still single. Could this be the solution to his problem? To be sure, she wasn't Jewish, but she was rich as Croesus, and a princess to boot! He put on his hat and his best coat, and rushed off to talk to Mrs. Shapiro.
It was not easy. Was she pretty? Mrs. Shapiro wanted to know. As beautiful as Queen Nefertiti! Good manners? She is a PRINCESS, he protested. But she isn't Jewish. She'll convert, I'm sure of it. Murray was desperate, and even Mrs. Shapiro was growing restive. Finally, after one last rehearsal of her objections, reluctantly, she agreed to allow Bernard to marry the Princess Margaret Rose of England, but only if the wedding was held here in town so that her friends could come and burn with envy.
A great weight lifted from his shoulders, Murray put on his coat and hat and stepped out into the street. His eyes lifted heavenward, he said a silent prayer. Then, with a shrug, he pulled himself together, and said, aloud: "Well, that's half of it."
It was not easy. Was she pretty? Mrs. Shapiro wanted to know. As beautiful as Queen Nefertiti! Good manners? She is a PRINCESS, he protested. But she isn't Jewish. She'll convert, I'm sure of it. Murray was desperate, and even Mrs. Shapiro was growing restive. Finally, after one last rehearsal of her objections, reluctantly, she agreed to allow Bernard to marry the Princess Margaret Rose of England, but only if the wedding was held here in town so that her friends could come and burn with envy.
A great weight lifted from his shoulders, Murray put on his coat and hat and stepped out into the street. His eyes lifted heavenward, he said a silent prayer. Then, with a shrug, he pulled himself together, and said, aloud: "Well, that's half of it."
Saturday, November 7, 2009
THE REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT
For what seems an eternity, I have been obsessed with the struggle to reform health care, following the death and resurrection of the public option, anguishing over Joe Lieberman's threatened defection, second guessing the strategy of the Obama White House. In the background has been the constant drumbeat of hysterical warnings from the Republicans that passage of the bill will destroy American democracy, ensconce Hitlerian policies in American law, and bring the Republic to an end.
Today, I have been spending a good deal of time watching the proceedings in the House of Representatives, listening to speakers from both sides echo talking points long since reduced to bumper sticker slogans. And slowly, very slowly, it has been dawning on me that the Republicans are right! This IS an historic bill. It WILL fundamentally change what goes on in the United States. It IS an expansion of the federal role in the life of the country surpassed perhaps only by the militarization of America over the past half century.
The Republicans are right to be desperately fearful. This bill, if something very like it can get through the Senate, will alter the lives of countless Americans, just as did Social Security and Medicare. And their united opposition to it will be an albatross around their necks for a long time to come. One of the many clauses in the bill stands out in my mind for its revolutionary impact: No longer will insurance companies be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. That change alone is worth all the sturm und drang.
We have been waiting for this since I was in elementary school, sixty-five years ago, and now, it very much appears, it is going to happen. When we take the measure of Barack Obama's first year, let us remember to place this accomplishment in a place of honor.
Today, I have been spending a good deal of time watching the proceedings in the House of Representatives, listening to speakers from both sides echo talking points long since reduced to bumper sticker slogans. And slowly, very slowly, it has been dawning on me that the Republicans are right! This IS an historic bill. It WILL fundamentally change what goes on in the United States. It IS an expansion of the federal role in the life of the country surpassed perhaps only by the militarization of America over the past half century.
The Republicans are right to be desperately fearful. This bill, if something very like it can get through the Senate, will alter the lives of countless Americans, just as did Social Security and Medicare. And their united opposition to it will be an albatross around their necks for a long time to come. One of the many clauses in the bill stands out in my mind for its revolutionary impact: No longer will insurance companies be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. That change alone is worth all the sturm und drang.
We have been waiting for this since I was in elementary school, sixty-five years ago, and now, it very much appears, it is going to happen. When we take the measure of Barack Obama's first year, let us remember to place this accomplishment in a place of honor.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
THE HIDDEN PERILS OF METAPHOR
There are two great issues now before the country -- the reform of health care, and the future of America's involvement in Afghanistan. The discussions of both are being confused and distorted by metaphors that badly represent the realities of the issues.
[A curious aside. Some years ago, Susie and I took a Dalmatian cruise that started in Athens. We were standing on a street corner in downtown Athens, idly watching traffic go by, when I noticed a panel truck attempting to back out of a driveway into the flow of traffic. I can read the Greek alphabet, but not the Greek language, so I spelled out what was written on the side of the truck. It was "Metaphoros." With a start, I realized that in Greek, "metaphoros" means "moving." It was a moving van. A metaphor is a literary trope that moves one meaning to another. "Metaphor" is a metaphor! Isn't that neat?]
In the discussion of health care, the dangerous metaphor is "a machine with many moving parts." In the Afghanistan discussion, and the discussion of many other foreign policy issues as well, the metaphor is "nation building." Both metaphors are totally inappropriate, and conceal rather than reveal the nature of the issues. [Another even more widespread and dangerous metaphor is "problem," which implies the existence of a "solution,"but let us leave that to one side for the moment.]
The characterization of the extremely complex health care reform proposals as "machines with many moving parts" is intended to compare them to Rube Goldberg machines [an obscure reference for you younger readers -- Google it] or old fashioned timepieces in which a mechanical complex of wheels and gears and springs and pointers whirrs and turns and uncoils and makes ticking noises, producing a display that tells the time, or --in the case of a typical Rube Goldberg machine -- delivers a biscuit to a pet dog. The clear implication of the metaphor is that if any one thing goes wrong -- a cog slips, a spring uncoils too soon, a gear fails to mesh -- the entire machine will come to a halt and jam up. But the complicated health care reform proposals are not like this at all. They are assemblages of proposed changes to a very large number of institutional arrangements involving the pricing of health insurance, the reimbursement of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers for services, the imposition or removal or alteration of taxes, and hundreds of other things. The proposals are lengthy and complex because health care in America is vast and complex, absorbing up to 15% of the nation's annual gross domestic product. If one or several provisions of one of the proposals fails to produce the intended changes, or produces unintended consequences, there is no reason at all to suppose that that will jam up the other components of the proposal or result in a systemic failure of the entire undertaking. And yet, bolstered by the false metaphor, Republican opponents of reform have made precisely that claim in the past few days.
The metaphor of "nation building" is much, much more dangerous. The implication of the metaphor is that bringing a modern viable nation state into existence is a problem in "social engineering" [another totally illegitimate metaphor.] The Manhattan Project [the World War II effort to make the first atomic bomb] was an engineering problem. All of the basic science was well known among the world's leading nuclear physicists, and what remained was to solve a series of very difficult engineering problems so as to be able to produce the explosive nuclear fission chain reaction that theory said would occur under the right conditions. The effort to send a manned capasule to the surface of the moon was also an engineering problem. Once again, the theoretical science was quite well known -- so well known that writers like Jules Verne were able to anticipate the space flight in their fictions by more than a century. But there is no such thing as "building a nation." The emergence of modern nation-states, now only four centuries or so old, has been a complicated historical succession of events much studied by historians, economists, political scientists, and anthropologists. I am not aware of a single case in which one nation state has actually created another viable nation state through deliberate, intentional state action. The closest examples, I suppose, are the artificial creation of states by imperial powers in Africa and the Middle East through the imposition of boundaries and the setting up of puppet regimes. Much of the present turmoil in the world is the aftermath of these misbegotten schemes. The question facing us in Afghanistan is not whether we are willing to expend the resources and suffer the casualties that would be required to build a successful Afghani nation. The question we face is whether, since that is an impossible and even meaningless project, we can find any national interest that will justify the expenditure of resources and lives. My own view is that the answer is No. But quite apart from what one thinks about that real question, we must all stop talking as though one possible, albeit expensive. option, is to engage in "nation-building."
[A curious aside. Some years ago, Susie and I took a Dalmatian cruise that started in Athens. We were standing on a street corner in downtown Athens, idly watching traffic go by, when I noticed a panel truck attempting to back out of a driveway into the flow of traffic. I can read the Greek alphabet, but not the Greek language, so I spelled out what was written on the side of the truck. It was "Metaphoros." With a start, I realized that in Greek, "metaphoros" means "moving." It was a moving van. A metaphor is a literary trope that moves one meaning to another. "Metaphor" is a metaphor! Isn't that neat?]
In the discussion of health care, the dangerous metaphor is "a machine with many moving parts." In the Afghanistan discussion, and the discussion of many other foreign policy issues as well, the metaphor is "nation building." Both metaphors are totally inappropriate, and conceal rather than reveal the nature of the issues. [Another even more widespread and dangerous metaphor is "problem," which implies the existence of a "solution,"but let us leave that to one side for the moment.]
The characterization of the extremely complex health care reform proposals as "machines with many moving parts" is intended to compare them to Rube Goldberg machines [an obscure reference for you younger readers -- Google it] or old fashioned timepieces in which a mechanical complex of wheels and gears and springs and pointers whirrs and turns and uncoils and makes ticking noises, producing a display that tells the time, or --in the case of a typical Rube Goldberg machine -- delivers a biscuit to a pet dog. The clear implication of the metaphor is that if any one thing goes wrong -- a cog slips, a spring uncoils too soon, a gear fails to mesh -- the entire machine will come to a halt and jam up. But the complicated health care reform proposals are not like this at all. They are assemblages of proposed changes to a very large number of institutional arrangements involving the pricing of health insurance, the reimbursement of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers for services, the imposition or removal or alteration of taxes, and hundreds of other things. The proposals are lengthy and complex because health care in America is vast and complex, absorbing up to 15% of the nation's annual gross domestic product. If one or several provisions of one of the proposals fails to produce the intended changes, or produces unintended consequences, there is no reason at all to suppose that that will jam up the other components of the proposal or result in a systemic failure of the entire undertaking. And yet, bolstered by the false metaphor, Republican opponents of reform have made precisely that claim in the past few days.
The metaphor of "nation building" is much, much more dangerous. The implication of the metaphor is that bringing a modern viable nation state into existence is a problem in "social engineering" [another totally illegitimate metaphor.] The Manhattan Project [the World War II effort to make the first atomic bomb] was an engineering problem. All of the basic science was well known among the world's leading nuclear physicists, and what remained was to solve a series of very difficult engineering problems so as to be able to produce the explosive nuclear fission chain reaction that theory said would occur under the right conditions. The effort to send a manned capasule to the surface of the moon was also an engineering problem. Once again, the theoretical science was quite well known -- so well known that writers like Jules Verne were able to anticipate the space flight in their fictions by more than a century. But there is no such thing as "building a nation." The emergence of modern nation-states, now only four centuries or so old, has been a complicated historical succession of events much studied by historians, economists, political scientists, and anthropologists. I am not aware of a single case in which one nation state has actually created another viable nation state through deliberate, intentional state action. The closest examples, I suppose, are the artificial creation of states by imperial powers in Africa and the Middle East through the imposition of boundaries and the setting up of puppet regimes. Much of the present turmoil in the world is the aftermath of these misbegotten schemes. The question facing us in Afghanistan is not whether we are willing to expend the resources and suffer the casualties that would be required to build a successful Afghani nation. The question we face is whether, since that is an impossible and even meaningless project, we can find any national interest that will justify the expenditure of resources and lives. My own view is that the answer is No. But quite apart from what one thinks about that real question, we must all stop talking as though one possible, albeit expensive. option, is to engage in "nation-building."
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
OBAMA 14 REPUBLICANS 9
I spent a good deal of time yesterday tuned in to the Baucus Committee hearings leading up to the vote to report out the version of health care reform drafted and negotiated by the members of the committee. As I watched the grim, twitching faces of the visibly distressed Republicans casting their futile "nay" votes, I thought again of the many ways in which modern societies have managed to sublimate the blood lust of battle. Many commentators have observed that the language of early modern science, with its talk of "putting nature to the question" [i.e., torturing it to force it to reveal its secrets], draws on a much older and darker discourse. Mathematicians, the meekest and least martial of academics, routinely speak of "forcing an argument through" or "compelling a conclusion." The covert mayhem of chess was brought forcibly to my attention by my son Patrick when he was nine or ten. Patrick was a chess prodigy, and went on to become a very famous International Grandmaster, twice winning the U. S. Chess Championship. [You can look him up on Wikipedia.] One day, when he was still a little boy, we were driving by a cemetary on the road between our home and the university where I taught. Patrick asked me what the building-like structures were, and I explained that they were mausoleums or tombs. People erected them to hold the coffins of the departed, and then sometimes put little statues on top to commemorate them. Patrick mulled over this bit of information for a mile or two and then said, with that unselfconscious excitement that only children and artists can manage, "I know what would be a good mausoleum for you, Daddy!" I gripped the steering wheel so tightly I thought I might bend it, and replied in as measured a voice as I could muster, "Oh, yes. What would that be, Patrick?" "Well," he explained, clearly warming to the idea, "it would be laid out like a chess board and the white king would be turned over on its side, showing it had been defeated." Not for nothing did the Germans originally call chess "vatermorder."
As the clerk of the committee called the role, I reveled in the discomfort of the Republicans, mentally slamming each vote home like another nail in their collective coffin. There is still a long way to go before Obama has his little signing ceremony, and it is still unclear just what the final bill will contain. But none of that could diminish the sadistic pleasure I felt as Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyle, John Ensign and the rest were forced to sit there silently and see their efforts at destruction turned into ashes. Winning really beats losing every time.
As the clerk of the committee called the role, I reveled in the discomfort of the Republicans, mentally slamming each vote home like another nail in their collective coffin. There is still a long way to go before Obama has his little signing ceremony, and it is still unclear just what the final bill will contain. But none of that could diminish the sadistic pleasure I felt as Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyle, John Ensign and the rest were forced to sit there silently and see their efforts at destruction turned into ashes. Winning really beats losing every time.
Friday, October 2, 2009
ODDS AND ENDS
I. My big sister, Barbara, who will be eighty next year, has had an extraordinarily distinguished career. After winning the Westinghouse Science Talent Search and graduating summa cum laude from Swarthmore, she went on to earn a doctorate in Biochemistry at Harvard. She then worked for a while on a project headed up by the Stanford Philosopher and logician Patrick Suppes to teach mathematics to Central American children by radio, before joining the Education Department of the World Bank. Having served on projects in such places as The People's Republic of China, South Yemen, and the Central African Empire, she was elevated to the position of Ombud of the entire World Bank, a post from which she retired some years ago. She radiates a focused, practical intelligence that is enormously impressive.
When Barbara was a teenager, she took a test to see what she might have an aptitude for. After reviewing the results, the psychologist administering the test gave her one piece of advice: "Don't ever become a secretary!"
I thought of that this morning as I struggled with my computer to merge print the letters that will form this year's fund-raising appeal for the scholarship organization I run, University Scholarships for South African Students. I have been doing this for twenty years now, and Microsoft Word has all manner of mail merge wizards and little drop down menus to take you through the process. Since I break my donor list into eight sub-groups for mailing purposes [different address structures, different degree of personal touch in the salutation, etc.], I have to go through the mail merge process over and over before the letters are ready to be folded and stuffed into the envelopes [which have already been merge printed]. This is, you understand, pure rote work, requiring nothing more than patience and a modicum of intelligence. And yet, I find it the most stressful and tiring thing I do all year. Teaching a class, which I did yesterday, is by comparison a breeze. I suspect had I taken that test, I would have received the same advice.
II. The NY TIMES has a long story this morning detailing the scrimy doings of that perfectly coiffeured, Hollywood handsome scumbag, Senator John Ensign. If you follow the story to an inside page, you will find a photo of Ensign and his wife, his top aide and his wife [with whom Ensign had the affair], and Ensign's chief fund raiser. Look at Ensign's wife and the woman with whom he strayed. They could be twins! It is creepy.
III. I spent some time yesterday watching the Baucus committee's debates and votes on the health care reform proposals. [C-Span 3, if you get it]. Washington Senator Maria Cantwell is really impressive. The contrast between her manifest intelligence and decency, and the appalling inadequcies of Kyl, Hatch, and the other Republicans on the committee is a sight to behold.
IV. As I predicted, health care reform is alive and well and will almost certainly include some form of a public option. When this is all over, I will explain how I know these things.
When Barbara was a teenager, she took a test to see what she might have an aptitude for. After reviewing the results, the psychologist administering the test gave her one piece of advice: "Don't ever become a secretary!"
I thought of that this morning as I struggled with my computer to merge print the letters that will form this year's fund-raising appeal for the scholarship organization I run, University Scholarships for South African Students. I have been doing this for twenty years now, and Microsoft Word has all manner of mail merge wizards and little drop down menus to take you through the process. Since I break my donor list into eight sub-groups for mailing purposes [different address structures, different degree of personal touch in the salutation, etc.], I have to go through the mail merge process over and over before the letters are ready to be folded and stuffed into the envelopes [which have already been merge printed]. This is, you understand, pure rote work, requiring nothing more than patience and a modicum of intelligence. And yet, I find it the most stressful and tiring thing I do all year. Teaching a class, which I did yesterday, is by comparison a breeze. I suspect had I taken that test, I would have received the same advice.
II. The NY TIMES has a long story this morning detailing the scrimy doings of that perfectly coiffeured, Hollywood handsome scumbag, Senator John Ensign. If you follow the story to an inside page, you will find a photo of Ensign and his wife, his top aide and his wife [with whom Ensign had the affair], and Ensign's chief fund raiser. Look at Ensign's wife and the woman with whom he strayed. They could be twins! It is creepy.
III. I spent some time yesterday watching the Baucus committee's debates and votes on the health care reform proposals. [C-Span 3, if you get it]. Washington Senator Maria Cantwell is really impressive. The contrast between her manifest intelligence and decency, and the appalling inadequcies of Kyl, Hatch, and the other Republicans on the committee is a sight to behold.
IV. As I predicted, health care reform is alive and well and will almost certainly include some form of a public option. When this is all over, I will explain how I know these things.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
HEALTH CARE DOWN TO THE WIRE
A while back, I made a prediction, and promised to eat crow publicly [or as publicly as one can on this obscure bog] if I was wrong. The prediction was that a health care reform package would pass, that it would not be everything we on the left hoped for, and that it would not be the end of the story. As we come down to the wire on health care reform, it is time to make this prediction more precuise, and to assess where we are.
I think it is fair to equate a public option with "everything we on the left hoped for." To be sure, many of us would prefer a single-payer national health care system, but this was never a realistic possibility, given the constellation of forces in the United States. A single-payer system could more accurately be described as "everything we on the left dream of." I also dream of an egalitarian society in which everyone acknowledges the truth of evolution and is even willing to grant that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but there are limits!
So, where are we, now that the Baucus committee has rejected the public option? First of all, it is clear that a bill will pass, and that it will be a major step in the direction of reform. No one anymore doubts that. Pause for a moment to consider what this means. Truman couldn't do it. Nixon couldn't do it. Clinton couldn't do it. But Obama will do it. That is a triumph by itself.
Secondly, the public option is not dead. The Baucus committee was always the most conservative of the five committees struggling with health care, and three of the others have already voted out bills that include a public option,. With the appointment of Paul Kirk, the Democrats are up to sixty, finally, and it remains genuinely uncertain whether they can block a filibuster, the statements of Nelson and others notwithstanding.
So I would say that my prediction is looking good, very good. What about the third part of the prediction? Is this all we are going to get, for at least another generation? That is truly harder to predict. So I will now venture another prediction, one that can be tested relatively soon. I predict that once a health care reform bill is signed into law, Obama will emerge from this struggle dramatically strengthened. He will have shown that against the most violent, concerted, massively funded opposition, he can prevail, and secure the fulfilment of a major campaign pledge. The decks will be cleared for other plans and proposals that have necessarily been put on hold while this health care battle is waged.
One more thing, more a prayerful hope than a prediction: Once health care is passed, Obama will be free to make a major reversal in Afghanistan policy without losing one or two crucial votes in the Senate. I think it is at least possible that we shall see that reversal shortly after health care passes.
Check back with me in a while to see whether my crystal ball is clear or cloudy.
I think it is fair to equate a public option with "everything we on the left hoped for." To be sure, many of us would prefer a single-payer national health care system, but this was never a realistic possibility, given the constellation of forces in the United States. A single-payer system could more accurately be described as "everything we on the left dream of." I also dream of an egalitarian society in which everyone acknowledges the truth of evolution and is even willing to grant that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but there are limits!
So, where are we, now that the Baucus committee has rejected the public option? First of all, it is clear that a bill will pass, and that it will be a major step in the direction of reform. No one anymore doubts that. Pause for a moment to consider what this means. Truman couldn't do it. Nixon couldn't do it. Clinton couldn't do it. But Obama will do it. That is a triumph by itself.
Secondly, the public option is not dead. The Baucus committee was always the most conservative of the five committees struggling with health care, and three of the others have already voted out bills that include a public option,. With the appointment of Paul Kirk, the Democrats are up to sixty, finally, and it remains genuinely uncertain whether they can block a filibuster, the statements of Nelson and others notwithstanding.
So I would say that my prediction is looking good, very good. What about the third part of the prediction? Is this all we are going to get, for at least another generation? That is truly harder to predict. So I will now venture another prediction, one that can be tested relatively soon. I predict that once a health care reform bill is signed into law, Obama will emerge from this struggle dramatically strengthened. He will have shown that against the most violent, concerted, massively funded opposition, he can prevail, and secure the fulfilment of a major campaign pledge. The decks will be cleared for other plans and proposals that have necessarily been put on hold while this health care battle is waged.
One more thing, more a prayerful hope than a prediction: Once health care is passed, Obama will be free to make a major reversal in Afghanistan policy without losing one or two crucial votes in the Senate. I think it is at least possible that we shall see that reversal shortly after health care passes.
Check back with me in a while to see whether my crystal ball is clear or cloudy.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
THE NEW CANDIDATE FOR DUMBEST SENATOR
The competition for the apparently much-coveted title of "Dumbest United States Senator," which for a long time was pretty well locked up by Jeff Sessions, has a new hopeful who will be hard to beat: Jon Kyle of Arizona. The following link comes to you courtesy of my son, Tobias, who apparently has enough time left in the day after his teaching duties at Harvard Law School to keep in touch with the ever more deeply plumbed depths of Republican stupidity. Just check out the follow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?3v=3Jj6pqajvB8& As Tobias observed to me, may we assume that Kyl has no female constituents?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
AN INNOCENT ABROAD
Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of Paris [my apologies to the Bard.] It was in the eighties today, sunny and lovely, and all Paris was in the streets and the cafes enjoying what may be the last such day before autumn. I decided to show the flag, and wore my Obama T-shirt, which drew approving nods and thumbs up from several passers-by. For those of you who are following this blog, I can report that the quail were a success, along with some delicious sauteed mushrooms. Julia Child was entirely correct in her profound observation that everything tastes better with butter.
And now for another of my Panglossian predictions. [I seem awash in literary allusions today -- a nod to culture.] The tide has turned. The Republican hysteria over Obama's anodyne talk to returning grade schoolers has made them laughing stocks. George Will has broken all precedent by writing the first true words of his entire career, about Afghanistan, no less. And with Congress returned to Washington from their long August encounters with the total crazies of the wingnut right, we are back to serious work on a large, history-making health care reform bill.
Herewith the prediction. A bill will pass. It will be imperfect. It will be a major step forward. And it will not be the last word on the subject.
Unlike the pundits of the mainstream media, I can actually remember what I say. Therefore, if I turn out to be wrong, I will eschew Dorade royale and quail and hazelnut encrusted rabbit and instead, in full view of my vast audience, consume a healthy portion of crow [without the blessings of butter.]
Meanwhile, we are off for dinner at La Rotisserie du Beaujolais -- across the street from Tour d'Argent, just en face the Seine, seated in our favorite window alcove, and -- if all works out well -- visited by the large, fat, lazy cat who graces the restaurant with his presence -- a cat appropriately named Beaujolais. Life truly does not get any better than this.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
IS OBAMA IN THE TANK TO THE HEALTH INDUSTRY?
Last evening, Susie and I went to her son's house for his 44th birthday celebration. While there, we watched a bit of Bill Maher's show. He interviewed Bill Moyers, who stated flatly that Rahm Emmanuel's anxiety about raising money from the pharmaceutical companies and other segments of the health care industry was standing in the way of meaningful reform. According to Moyers, Emmanuel has his eye on the 2012 election, to the exclusion of virtually everything else.
This is the sort of cynical insider information that we on the left live and die for. We are endlessly ready to feel betrayed by our false heroes, and happy to be made impotent by large forces outside our control.
But what Moyers said didn't make sense to me, so I spent a few moments on line checking some numbers. By October 19, 2008, three weeks before the election, the Obhama campaign had raised $605 million. So let us suppose that by election day the total was in the neighborhood of $650 million. This includes the enormously expensive primary campaign, of course, but never mind. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, as of September 25, 2008, the "health sector" [which presumably includes Big Pharma, HMOs, doctors, etc etc] had donated $17.7 million. The focus of the NEJM article, by the way, was on the fact that the health sector had donated more to the Democratic campaign than to the Republican campaign, reversing a long trend.
Now think about this for a moment. Health Care Reform is a centerpiece of Obama's presidency, along with energy reform and educational reform. Everyone understands that health care is far and away the biggest, hardest task the Obama White House will undertake. As I have noted before, health care gobbles up 15% of the total national GDP. It is HUGE. Obama's re-election chances depend on three things: First, pulling the economy out of its slump [already happening]; second, winding down the two wars in the Middle East; and third, accomplishing some sort of visibly significant health care reform. If he does these three things, he is a shoo-in. There is no one in the Republican camp who can stop him. If he fails to accomplish the third, he becomes vulnerable to attack.
IS IT PLAUSIBLE, IS IT CONCEIVABLE, THAT HE WOULD JEOPARDIZE HIS RE-ELECTION TO SECURE 2.7% OF THE ENORMOUS WAR CHEST HE WILL RAISE? GOOD GRIEF. HE WOULD LOSE FIFTY TIMES THAT MUCH FROM THE LIBERAL WING OF THE ELECTORATE SITTING ON ITS HANDS! AND HE KNOWS THAT.
There are many reasons why the reform of health care is so difficult, not hte least of which is the role that donations from the health sector play in the decisions of members of Congress. But it is simply not plausible thast the White House is being swayed by that consideration.
This is the sort of cynical insider information that we on the left live and die for. We are endlessly ready to feel betrayed by our false heroes, and happy to be made impotent by large forces outside our control.
But what Moyers said didn't make sense to me, so I spent a few moments on line checking some numbers. By October 19, 2008, three weeks before the election, the Obhama campaign had raised $605 million. So let us suppose that by election day the total was in the neighborhood of $650 million. This includes the enormously expensive primary campaign, of course, but never mind. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, as of September 25, 2008, the "health sector" [which presumably includes Big Pharma, HMOs, doctors, etc etc] had donated $17.7 million. The focus of the NEJM article, by the way, was on the fact that the health sector had donated more to the Democratic campaign than to the Republican campaign, reversing a long trend.
Now think about this for a moment. Health Care Reform is a centerpiece of Obama's presidency, along with energy reform and educational reform. Everyone understands that health care is far and away the biggest, hardest task the Obama White House will undertake. As I have noted before, health care gobbles up 15% of the total national GDP. It is HUGE. Obama's re-election chances depend on three things: First, pulling the economy out of its slump [already happening]; second, winding down the two wars in the Middle East; and third, accomplishing some sort of visibly significant health care reform. If he does these three things, he is a shoo-in. There is no one in the Republican camp who can stop him. If he fails to accomplish the third, he becomes vulnerable to attack.
IS IT PLAUSIBLE, IS IT CONCEIVABLE, THAT HE WOULD JEOPARDIZE HIS RE-ELECTION TO SECURE 2.7% OF THE ENORMOUS WAR CHEST HE WILL RAISE? GOOD GRIEF. HE WOULD LOSE FIFTY TIMES THAT MUCH FROM THE LIBERAL WING OF THE ELECTORATE SITTING ON ITS HANDS! AND HE KNOWS THAT.
There are many reasons why the reform of health care is so difficult, not hte least of which is the role that donations from the health sector play in the decisions of members of Congress. But it is simply not plausible thast the White House is being swayed by that consideration.
Friday, August 28, 2009
THE DOG DAYS OF SUMMER
August is winding down, and as we approach the resumption of the real world, after Labor Day, the Republican craziness is imploding. After riotous town meetings, death threats against Obama, birther bizarrerie, and even the egregious Michelle Bachman being booed at a constituent meeting, with cretinous creeps like Chuck Grassley fresh out of plausible pontifications [do you ever wonder how some of these people actually got elected?], with Ted Kennedy lying in state, and serious talk of reconciliation now to the fore -- with all of this, it looks as though we will get a health care reform bill that has a good deal, but by no means all, of what we dreamed of and hoped for and voted for. JUST AS I PREDICTED. This is not rocket science or brain surgery, folks, it is Congressional legislating, pretty much as it has always been.
Let us suppose that I am correct. As we approach the Thanksgiving/Christmas season, where will we be? Well, the economy will slowly, painfully, be turning around, having avoided a second Great Depression, but unemployment will still be unacceptably high -- although much of the Stimulus Bill spending will still lie before us. We will finally have significant health care reform, though muich will remain to be done. The first serious attempt at confronting global warming will be law. A Special Prosecutor will be investigating the Bush Justice Department. And the President will be able to ask himself and the country, "What shall we do in my second year?"
I mean, seriously, what more did you really expect? Gay rights remains to be addressed, though the first steps have been taken. Barney Frank will have to find a way to shepherd serious financial reform through Congress. And Obama will have to actually wind down the Iraq war and place realistic limits on the Afghanistan involvement. But Peace Talks will be restarted in the Middle East, and we may even see some sort of major change in Iran, though that is up to the Iranians, not us.
I think back again to the wisdom of Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse argued that all of us carry within us repressed infantile fantasies of immediate and effortless gratification -- fantasies to which an enormous amount of libidinous energy is attached, but which are, in their very nature, unrealizable. Combining the deepest ideas of Marx and Freud, Marcuse tells us [this in EROS AND CIVILIZATION] that the realistic goal of any revolution can only be to diminish the quantum of surplus repression imposed on men and women by the demands of capitalism and tyranny. But what fuels revolutionary fervor is the promise of LIBERATION, which is to say the fulfilment of those repressed fantasies. That is why those who have lived through revolutionary times, no matter how dangerous and uncomfortable, look back on them as the most glorious moments of their lives [rather like the way people think about tornados, hurricanes, wars, and floods, and for the same reason.]
Well, the election of Obama was no revolution, but for a moment it felt like one. Now we are seeing that the reduction of surplus repression, so to speak, still leaves us with repressed fantasies of liberation, and so we feel let down. That is normal, understandable, but not really vrey grown up of us, and so we must put away our fantasies and get back to the daily work of making as many incremental improvements in the life of this country as we can.
In an odd way, I think Teddy understood this, but that Jack and Bobby did not. That is why Jack was actually an indifferent President, and Bobby an indifferent Senator, but both were spectacular bearers of our fantasies of instant and infinite gratification.
Let us suppose that I am correct. As we approach the Thanksgiving/Christmas season, where will we be? Well, the economy will slowly, painfully, be turning around, having avoided a second Great Depression, but unemployment will still be unacceptably high -- although much of the Stimulus Bill spending will still lie before us. We will finally have significant health care reform, though muich will remain to be done. The first serious attempt at confronting global warming will be law. A Special Prosecutor will be investigating the Bush Justice Department. And the President will be able to ask himself and the country, "What shall we do in my second year?"
I mean, seriously, what more did you really expect? Gay rights remains to be addressed, though the first steps have been taken. Barney Frank will have to find a way to shepherd serious financial reform through Congress. And Obama will have to actually wind down the Iraq war and place realistic limits on the Afghanistan involvement. But Peace Talks will be restarted in the Middle East, and we may even see some sort of major change in Iran, though that is up to the Iranians, not us.
I think back again to the wisdom of Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse argued that all of us carry within us repressed infantile fantasies of immediate and effortless gratification -- fantasies to which an enormous amount of libidinous energy is attached, but which are, in their very nature, unrealizable. Combining the deepest ideas of Marx and Freud, Marcuse tells us [this in EROS AND CIVILIZATION] that the realistic goal of any revolution can only be to diminish the quantum of surplus repression imposed on men and women by the demands of capitalism and tyranny. But what fuels revolutionary fervor is the promise of LIBERATION, which is to say the fulfilment of those repressed fantasies. That is why those who have lived through revolutionary times, no matter how dangerous and uncomfortable, look back on them as the most glorious moments of their lives [rather like the way people think about tornados, hurricanes, wars, and floods, and for the same reason.]
Well, the election of Obama was no revolution, but for a moment it felt like one. Now we are seeing that the reduction of surplus repression, so to speak, still leaves us with repressed fantasies of liberation, and so we feel let down. That is normal, understandable, but not really vrey grown up of us, and so we must put away our fantasies and get back to the daily work of making as many incremental improvements in the life of this country as we can.
In an odd way, I think Teddy understood this, but that Jack and Bobby did not. That is why Jack was actually an indifferent President, and Bobby an indifferent Senator, but both were spectacular bearers of our fantasies of instant and infinite gratification.
Friday, August 21, 2009
AN ANGRY RANT
This will be a quintessentially typical blog posting. I am going to react to Paul Klugman's op ed column today without having read it! I figure this qualifies me as a true pundit. By the way, before I begin, I hope you caught my son, Tobias, on Lou Dobbs' show, defending gay marriage and talking about the repeal of DOMA. He has guts, going on Dobbs.
So here goes.
So here goes.
I saw but did not read Krugman's column. Look -- it was never in the cards that Obama was going to govern from the left, and the fight he has had getting any sort of reasonable health care reform makes it clear why. I think progressives are being self-indulgent and foolish. If they don't think Obama's policies and actions are liberal enough, they should get off their behinds and put political pressure on their Reps and Senators to move to the left. THEN Obama will, I am quite sure, happliy shift to the left.
Remember, every hour of every day, Emmanuel and the political honchos are counting votes, trying to figure out where they will get a majority that can push through what they want. I for one do not want to see Obama stake out dramatic left wing positions and then fail to get them through Congress. That might feel good for ten minutes, but it would accomplish nothing.
I am really very angry about the passive, pundit-like sit-on-the-sidelines commentariat that is constantly judging whether Obama is left enough, but never creating the on the ground conditions that will make possible meaningful reform.
Remember what I said on my blog. When it is all over, it will be a major victory, but it will not be enough, and we are just going to have to recognize that and move on to the next fight.
An historical reminder: In 1905, after working in the underground for years and years, Stalin and the other Communists finally had their revolution -- and it failed. They didn't give up. They went right back into the underground and worked for twelve more years, not knowing [as we do in hindsight] that they would eventually succeed.
We need something of that commitment and will, if we are to undo what Bush and the Republicans have foisted o this country, and are to make good on the promise of the Obama election. Once again, I remind you what candidate Obama said: We are the change we have been waiting for. That means that it is we who must make the change, and not sit like children waiting for a parent to hand it to us like candy.
So much for radical rage. Tomorrow, I shall go back to the story of USSAS.
Friday, August 14, 2009
GANG AFT AGLEY
Well, we tried. Susie and I set out yesterday evening for North Carolina Central University to attend David Price's Town Hall Meeting on health care. Driving into the wilds of Durham, NC is, for me, much like going to Worcester, MA. I ALWAYS get lost. But I charted a course, fired up my GPS unit, and with some u-turns and such, managed to find our way there. No sooner had we parked than a couple in a car stopped to tell us that the meeting had been moved to a larger hall. Back we went, and very soon found ourselves at the end of a seemingly infinite line of traffic. It looked very much like a UNC basketball game or a rock concert. As we approached the new venue, we saw a long line snaking out of the building [this was forty-five minutes before the scheduled start of the meeting.] Planted across the street were a few authentic crazies, with a large hand-painted American flag and a hand lettered sign [which I never quite managed to read]. We spent the next fifteen minutes circling fruitlessly looking for a place to park, getting ever farther from the event itself. Finally, I decided that we were too far from the hall for Susie to be able to walk it comfortably [she suffers from MS], and it was doubtful that we could actually have gotten into the meeting, considering the size of the crowd, so we went off in search of dinner. At this point, the minatory lady inside the GPS unit issued a series of impossible commands that guided us to the end of a cul-de-sac, but with several re-programmings, we managed to find our way to Ninth Steet, the one-block long Durham simulacrum of Greenwich Village, and there we had a passable meal at Vin Rouge.
When we got home, I checked the reports on line. There were some attempts at disruption by the Republican thugs, but it would seem that the meeting was largely supportive of Price, who is a liberal Democrat. One anti was quoted as complaining that the pro-reform forces had been given advance warning of the meeting, so that we could pack it. That bit of news cheered me considerably, since it suggests that the Democrats are starting to use common sense, always in short supply on the left.
On Monday, I shall venture into Raleigh to hand-deliver a statement to Senator Kay Hagen's office. This is part of an effort by Organizing For America to flood her office with written personal statements, as a way of stiffening her spine and making sure that she does not once again flip-flop on the Public Option. It isn't much, but if twenty million of us do it, it will turn this thing around.
One final mean-spirited thought. It was reported that at the Price Town Hall Meeting, a woman got up and asked, "What right have you to force me to have health insurance if I don't want it? Where in the Constitution does it say that?" Price replied that if she got sick, we would all have to pay for her care. I have to confess that I dearly wanted to wait until she did get sick, and then bar the door to the hospital Emergency Room when she showed up, reminding her that she had, as a matter of principle, refused to buy insurance. I know, I know. You can't do that. It wouldn't be humane. But still ....
When we got home, I checked the reports on line. There were some attempts at disruption by the Republican thugs, but it would seem that the meeting was largely supportive of Price, who is a liberal Democrat. One anti was quoted as complaining that the pro-reform forces had been given advance warning of the meeting, so that we could pack it. That bit of news cheered me considerably, since it suggests that the Democrats are starting to use common sense, always in short supply on the left.
On Monday, I shall venture into Raleigh to hand-deliver a statement to Senator Kay Hagen's office. This is part of an effort by Organizing For America to flood her office with written personal statements, as a way of stiffening her spine and making sure that she does not once again flip-flop on the Public Option. It isn't much, but if twenty million of us do it, it will turn this thing around.
One final mean-spirited thought. It was reported that at the Price Town Hall Meeting, a woman got up and asked, "What right have you to force me to have health insurance if I don't want it? Where in the Constitution does it say that?" Price replied that if she got sick, we would all have to pay for her care. I have to confess that I dearly wanted to wait until she did get sick, and then bar the door to the hospital Emergency Room when she showed up, reminding her that she had, as a matter of principle, refused to buy insurance. I know, I know. You can't do that. It wouldn't be humane. But still ....
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE TURNS UGLY
The town hall protests organized and inflamed by Republican operatives have taken an ugly turn with the appearance yesterday in New Hampshire, at an Obama rally, of a citizen carrying a loaded revolver. The intensity and irrationality of the protests could quite easily morph into violence. Once Obama looked to have the Democratic nomination wrapped up, more than a year ago, my colleagues in the Afro-American Studies Department at the University of Massachusetts expressed genuine fear that sooner or later he would be shot. Secret Service or no, that remains a serious threat.
Despite the clear hand of cold-eyed opportunistic Republican operatives in these protests, there is very little doubt that the people doing the protesting are genuinely freaked out about something. What might that be?
Listening to them is not a useful way to find out, unfortunately. One of the targets of their rage is the range of proposals now on the table for health care reform. Now, we need to remind ourselves of a few familiar facts. Far and away the largest health care insurance program in the United States is Medicare, a single-payer government operated program. Judging from the pictures I have seen on television, I would guess that a goodly number of the protesters are already on medicare, and the rest have parents whose medical care and prescription drugs come to them courtesy of the same program. Nobody but Ron Paul actually wants to end Medicare.
A second target of their rage is the stimulus package and other deficit spending programs passed with Obama's support and encouragement by the current Congress. These are the same people, let us recall, who expressed no pleasure or approval at all while Clinton ran up impressive budget surpluses and actually started paying down the national debt, and who sat by silently while George W, Bush turned those surpluses into whopping deficits. It is simply not possible to take seriously the content of the shouts and snarls of these protesters.
The common thread in their expressions of outrage is the fear that the America they grew up in and know is being taken away from them. Now, these folks are not entirely rational, but they are not at all stupid, and what their gut tells them is in fact true. The America they have known IS being taken away from them, with a speed that leaves them angry and panicked. There is a Blcak man in the White House. Gay and Lesbian Americans are now openly members of the American community, accepted and recognized, even, in some states, allowed to be married. Spanish-speaking Americans populate countless American cities in increasing numbers. At the same time, these people, like millions of other Americans, are under enormous economic pressure.
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with European and American politics of the twentieth century knows that this is a formula for fascism. I am not suggesting that we are about to see an American version of kristallnacht. But I am suggesting that we take what is happening quite seriously. If one of these gun-toting protesters goes over the edge and pulls a trigger, it could produce a very frightening explosion.
The Obama administration is busy organizing counter-moves to the wave of town hall protests. All of us who stand on the side of reform need to do whatever we can to support those efforts. I still think we are going to win this battle, but remember, many, many millions of Americans voted for McCain and Palin. They haven't gone away.
Despite the clear hand of cold-eyed opportunistic Republican operatives in these protests, there is very little doubt that the people doing the protesting are genuinely freaked out about something. What might that be?
Listening to them is not a useful way to find out, unfortunately. One of the targets of their rage is the range of proposals now on the table for health care reform. Now, we need to remind ourselves of a few familiar facts. Far and away the largest health care insurance program in the United States is Medicare, a single-payer government operated program. Judging from the pictures I have seen on television, I would guess that a goodly number of the protesters are already on medicare, and the rest have parents whose medical care and prescription drugs come to them courtesy of the same program. Nobody but Ron Paul actually wants to end Medicare.
A second target of their rage is the stimulus package and other deficit spending programs passed with Obama's support and encouragement by the current Congress. These are the same people, let us recall, who expressed no pleasure or approval at all while Clinton ran up impressive budget surpluses and actually started paying down the national debt, and who sat by silently while George W, Bush turned those surpluses into whopping deficits. It is simply not possible to take seriously the content of the shouts and snarls of these protesters.
The common thread in their expressions of outrage is the fear that the America they grew up in and know is being taken away from them. Now, these folks are not entirely rational, but they are not at all stupid, and what their gut tells them is in fact true. The America they have known IS being taken away from them, with a speed that leaves them angry and panicked. There is a Blcak man in the White House. Gay and Lesbian Americans are now openly members of the American community, accepted and recognized, even, in some states, allowed to be married. Spanish-speaking Americans populate countless American cities in increasing numbers. At the same time, these people, like millions of other Americans, are under enormous economic pressure.
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with European and American politics of the twentieth century knows that this is a formula for fascism. I am not suggesting that we are about to see an American version of kristallnacht. But I am suggesting that we take what is happening quite seriously. If one of these gun-toting protesters goes over the edge and pulls a trigger, it could produce a very frightening explosion.
The Obama administration is busy organizing counter-moves to the wave of town hall protests. All of us who stand on the side of reform need to do whatever we can to support those efforts. I still think we are going to win this battle, but remember, many, many millions of Americans voted for McCain and Palin. They haven't gone away.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
BACK FROM SAN FRANCISCO
I am back from San Francisco, just in time for 100 degree temperature here in Chapel Hill. I had planned to blog for a day or two about my grandchildren, and I may still do that, but there is something more important that needs to be talked about, namely, the status of Obama's health care reform proposals. I am really very angry about the commentary coming from the liberal side of the blogosphere and mainstream media. Let me explain why.
At the moment, all attention is focused on the thuggish efforts to disrupt town hall meetings held by Representatives and Senators, and on the bizarre, hysterical claims emanating from the right about death panels that will order the euthanization of old people. The commentaries are full of bleak projections and dire warnings and gloomy judgments that Obama has lost control of the debate, or has failed to show sufficient courage, or has betrayed his supporters.
All of these commentaries have one central underlying premise in common, and that premise is flat out wrong. The premise is that we are all passive observers, handicappers, prognosticators, that our role in all of this is to stand on the sidelines and give or take away points according to our evaluation of how Obama is doing. We might call this the Paula Abdul or American Idol conception of our role in politics.
Well, folks, that isn't how it is. From the day he declared for the presidency, Obama said as much. Remember that breathtakingly uplifting line, "We are the change that we have been waiting for"? What on earth did you think that meant? If WE are the change that we have been waiting for, then it is WE who must make the change that we want. It is not going to be given to us, done for us. Obama had the good sense to recognize that major changes in American domestic policy would be possible ONLY if vast numbers of Americans worked for those changes -- not merely voted for them on election day, and then went home to wait and see whether they happened, but WORKED for them every day, for as long as it took.
We now have a president who proposes dramatic change and uses the office of the presidency to work for it. That is what we voted for. This means that IF we do the work that is required to force our representatives in Congress to vote for that change, then he will happily sign the bills and implement the changes. It means that Obama will appoint men and women who will manage their agencies and departments so as to advance the changes we voted for.
Obama is doing his part, with greater success than anyone knowing American politics had any right to expect. The question before us now is NOT whether HE will succeed or fail, but whether WE will do our part, and provide him with the political support he needs to enact the changes that he called for and that we voted for.
Anyone who does not understand this simply does not understand how American politics works, or else is too passive, defeated, and depressed to pitch in and make things happen.
So, what to do? I have said it before, but I will say it again. Go to http://www.mybarackobama.com and find SOMETHING on the website to sign up for. if you really cannot figure out what to do, send me an email and I will make some suggestions.
Now let's all stop whining.
At the moment, all attention is focused on the thuggish efforts to disrupt town hall meetings held by Representatives and Senators, and on the bizarre, hysterical claims emanating from the right about death panels that will order the euthanization of old people. The commentaries are full of bleak projections and dire warnings and gloomy judgments that Obama has lost control of the debate, or has failed to show sufficient courage, or has betrayed his supporters.
All of these commentaries have one central underlying premise in common, and that premise is flat out wrong. The premise is that we are all passive observers, handicappers, prognosticators, that our role in all of this is to stand on the sidelines and give or take away points according to our evaluation of how Obama is doing. We might call this the Paula Abdul or American Idol conception of our role in politics.
Well, folks, that isn't how it is. From the day he declared for the presidency, Obama said as much. Remember that breathtakingly uplifting line, "We are the change that we have been waiting for"? What on earth did you think that meant? If WE are the change that we have been waiting for, then it is WE who must make the change that we want. It is not going to be given to us, done for us. Obama had the good sense to recognize that major changes in American domestic policy would be possible ONLY if vast numbers of Americans worked for those changes -- not merely voted for them on election day, and then went home to wait and see whether they happened, but WORKED for them every day, for as long as it took.
We now have a president who proposes dramatic change and uses the office of the presidency to work for it. That is what we voted for. This means that IF we do the work that is required to force our representatives in Congress to vote for that change, then he will happily sign the bills and implement the changes. It means that Obama will appoint men and women who will manage their agencies and departments so as to advance the changes we voted for.
Obama is doing his part, with greater success than anyone knowing American politics had any right to expect. The question before us now is NOT whether HE will succeed or fail, but whether WE will do our part, and provide him with the political support he needs to enact the changes that he called for and that we voted for.
Anyone who does not understand this simply does not understand how American politics works, or else is too passive, defeated, and depressed to pitch in and make things happen.
So, what to do? I have said it before, but I will say it again. Go to http://www.mybarackobama.com and find SOMETHING on the website to sign up for. if you really cannot figure out what to do, send me an email and I will make some suggestions.
Now let's all stop whining.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
THOUGHTS ON THE FIGHT FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM
I have just returned from collecting more signatures on a petition supporting Obama’s health care proposals, as well as on postcards to be hand delivered to our new, and wavering, senator, Kay Hagen. This time, I was stationed at the entrance to the Carrboro Farmer’s Market, which, like the public library, is a very productive site for garnering support for any sort of progressive cause. Would that the world were like the Carrboro Farmer’s Market! With the House having risen for the August recess, and the Senate about to do the same, this seems like a good time to take a deep breath and think yet again about the ugly legislative process. If nothing else, such reflection may guard me – and you too, I hope – against the ulcerative effects of the endless reports of Blue Dog Democratic opposition to a public option and Max Baucus’s Pharma-fueled efforts to dilute and slow down anything remotely resembling reform. [Baucus is the senior senator from
As always, when confronted with a particularly distasteful bit of reality, I like to retreat for a bit to pure theory in order to clear my head. So let us remind ourselves of some simple truths, often forgotten, about competing theories of political democracy. We can then return to the disheartening spectacle to which we have been exposed these past weeks, and try to gain on it some perspective.
In the eighteenth century, when the structure of the American political system was put in place, there were two competing and absolutely incompatible theories of electoral democracy. The first, advanced by thinkers like Montesquieu and patterned on the newly emerging phenomenon of free market competition, understood the goal of the legislative process to be the resolution of competing interests through negotiation and bargaining. Guided by expectations like those to which Adam Smith gave voice in his famous metaphor of the invisible hand, these democratic theorists hoped that through the expression of private interests and the legislative resolution of the conflicts among those interests, an aggregated collective decision would emerge that constituted the public good. Despite Montesquieu’s role in advancing this conception of democracy, it was the English who most fervently championed it, and it was the rebellious English colonists in
There was, however, a competing conception of democracy, given its most brilliant expression in the writings of the Swiss philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, according to which the goal of the legislative process was to set aside private interests all together, and engage not in a negotiation, but rather in a deliberation about the nature of the General Good. Rousseau argued that a republic whose members sought merely to advance their private interests could not enact laws that commanded the respect and obedience of the public. Only those commands issuing from an assembly, all the members of which were aiming at the General Good, could rightly be given the honorific title of Laws.
It is obvious upon even the most superficial reflection that these two theories imply totally different, indeed, opposed standards of behavior for the men and women chosen to act as representatives of the sovereign people [for the theories agree that true sovereignty resides in the citizenry as a whole]. According to the first theory, the task of Representatives is to advance the private interests of those whom they represent. Representatives from farm states must, in order for the system to work, press for legislation that will benefit farmers. Representatives from heavily urban states must press for legislation to benefit city dwellers. And so forth. The purpose of elections is to give the citizens of any district an opportunity to choose a representative who will advance their interests, as they understand them [for the theory also asserts that we are, each of us, the best judge of our own interests.] There are massive practical problems in realizing this conception of democracy, of course, the most obvious of which is that those whose interests in a district are in a minority [even farm states have cities, after all] will find those interests without an effective voice in the legislature. [As I have argued, in In Defense of Anarchism, it is this problem that undermines any and every claim that a representative democracy can make to legitimacy. But that is for another day.] Nevertheless, through pressure brought by interest groups on elected representatives, and through the constant shifting of alliances among interest groups, some measure of genuine representation, it is argued, does happen.
According to the second, Rousseauean, theory of democracy, the responsibility of elected representatives is totally different. [Never mind here that Rousseau thought representative democracy to be no better than slavery.] In all his or her deliberations, a Representative or Senator must ask only “What legislation will advance the General Good?,” and never “What legislation will advance the interests of my constituents?”
Under ideal circumstances, representatives would be motivated solely by their fiduciary responsibility to advance the interests of their constituents, but of course the American political system is, in many ways, not ideal. Some of these ways were anticipated by the authors of the Constitution, and in fact counted upon by them. For example, the representatives are themselves individuals with private ambitions and interests, chief among which is to win re-election, and as campaigns become more expensive, they tilt ever farther in the direction of the interests of those constituents [or even non-constituents] who can contribute heavily to their campaign funds. A problem of a quite different sort is posed by the fact that some of the elected representatives actually have strongly held convictions about what is in the General Good, and quite mistakenly, although understandably, act on those convictions [the example of Arlen Specter demonstrates that not all elected representatives fall into this error.] A representative who votes for what he or she believes is right, rather than for what is in the expressed interest of his or her constituents, is like a lawyer with power of attorney to execute a real estate closing who decides that buying the property at the agreed upon price is not really in the best interest of the client, and invests the money in preferred stock instead. Grounds for disbarment, not for the encomium of “statesman.”
In a huge democracy like the
To be sure, the bargaining process is distorted by the realities of American politics and by the structure and rules of the Senate. The practice of carrying out the writing of legislation in standing committees, and of assigning the chairmanships of those committees by seniority, results in such anomalies as the one we noted earlier, of Max Baucus, and through him, the people of Montana, exercising a disproportionate influence over the writing of health care legislation. Still and all, it is the same system that gives Barney Frank, and through him the people of
Which brings me back to where I began this meditation, standing behind a table at the Carrboro Farmer’s Market. The Blue Dog Democrats [I will not even speak of the unspeakable Republicans] are, I suspect, accurate in their representation of the perceived and expressed interests of their constituents as the Black Caucus is in their representation of the perceived and expressed interests of theirs. I say “perceived and expressed” because the theory of democracy underlying the American system is not intended to make allowance for representatives who know better than their constituents do what is in their constituents’ true interests. That way lies Rousseau.
So if you hate the compromises and watering down of Obama’s already watered down proposals for health care reform, as do I, the only rational response is to mobilize popular support for acceptable reforms, and hope either that you are in an actual majority, or, if not, that you are in a better mobilized minority able to have a disproportionate influence on your representatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
