Massachusetts and the Problem (?) with the Democratic Party

Okay, that title, or at least the second part of it, seems to suggest that this will be a lengthy political analysis of the struggles of the Democratic Party, illustrated by what may occur tomorrow in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the union. Really, I just want to note a few things, particularly given the drama unfolding in that state.

First, some background for those not really paying attention. Following Ted Kennedy’s death, a special election was set to determine who would fill the remainder of his term in the U.S. Senate. Most people “in the know”—at least on the national stage—did not consider this a particularly important election, because, hey, we’re talking about a Democrat running for a statewide office in a deep, deep blue state, right? Well, as it’s turned out, a liberal Republican entered the fray (liberal in the way that Mitt Romney used to be liberal, as in, pro-choice and not anti-gay rights). His name is Scott Brown. He is opposing Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general. Polls on the eve of the contest—tonight—indicate that Mr. Brown has a 75% or greater chance of winning.

The loss of Kennedy’s vacated Senate seat would give the Republicans 41 seats and the ability to filibuster any bill brought in the Senate. Linked directly to the current health care bill, this would allow the Republicans to defeat it by filibustering—tying it up in procedural red tape, essentially. Many political analysts and Democrats would view this result as “devastating” and point out the cruel irony that the former seat of the very man who was synonymous with health care expansion and reform would be used to ultimately defeat it.

And it would be a bad result. Substantively. However, politically, at least this year, it might just be the best thing that could happen to the Democrats.

Okay—that’s nuts, you say (maybe you say). Without a filibuster-proof majority, how will the Democrats get any kind of health care reform done or anything else for that matter? How will that possibly help them?

This way: the Republicans’ strategy for the last year or so has been to be the party of “no.” Any attempt to work with the Republicans—with the extremely rare exception (Susan Collins comes to mind)—has been met with a complete lack of cooperation, reaching out, any middle ground. Interestingly, even some of the supposed ideas of the Republican party which were incorporated in, say, the stimulus package (having more in tax cuts than direct spending) were basically rejected. To the Republicans in Congress, if the middle ground becomes too in the middle, they draw it back even further to the right.

It’s been an effective strategy, because the Democratic Party is a big, big tent. They have their own conservatives to wrangle with and their own hardcore liberals. Look at it this way: there are 60 Democrats versus 40 Republicans (currently) in the Senate. That’s a 3-2 ratio! Rarely have there been times in the history of this country where one party has dominated the legislature, particularly the Senate, which depends not on population but the states themselves to set their numbers. Has the country changed so much? I don’t think so. Most of the states that were liberal ten years ago are still liberal, and most of the states that were conservative are still conservative. With a few demographic exceptions—Virginia is a great example—mostly what happened is the Democrats successfully recruited moderates and conservatives to the party.

So, the Republican strategy of saying “no” was an effective short term* strategy—let them fight themselves and try to pass legislation (it’s hard). While they’re fighting amongst themselves, we can throw mud at them—and they’ll be too caught up in their own internal struggles to unify and politically defend themselves. (It helps also to be the minority party in a severe recession—the “throw the bums out” reaction works against the party of the majority simply as a matter of mathematics).

However, once the Republicans have 41 votes, the “no” strategy is severely disrupted, because it’s effective! It actually stops legislation. The Republicans can no longer take the stance that—hey, we tried, they passed it anyway. Nothing we could do. Now, the majority party must negotiate with the minority party to some degree, and the Republicans then become complicit in the results of legislation.

So, yes, I think this could actually work to the benefit of everyone in the long run. Democrats will stop their self-absorbed debate, and Republicans will be forced to come up with or participate in real solutions.

* Note that I’ve always thought that it was only good as a short term strategy, because once the economy turns around, who gets credit for it? It also causes you, if you’re a Republican, to be pushed into the awkward position of rooting against the economy. Ask some Democrats about uncomfortable and conflicted feelings about news from Iraq in 2004.

** As an aside, I just realized that I pointed out another ironic situation—the disruption of the Republicans’ policy of “no” because it becomes too effective! Wow, twice in one post. Perhaps I should try literary criticism… naaaaah.

All right, I suppose that is it for now. I’d better post this before it’s rendered completely irrelevant (I hope).

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, everyone! Let’s hope that 2010 on a macro-scale is a much better year than 2009 was. I say, “on a macro-scale,” because, despite some rather poor economics in 2009, my son was born in November of 2009, thereby making it AT LEAST one of the three best years ever (the other years being 2006, when my daughter was born, and 1996, when my now-wife and I met).

Politically, I think we can expect 2010 to be even more divisive and vitriolic than 2009. 2010 is, after all, an election year. I suspect that we will see a health bill finally pass through Congress sometime in February, and we will likely have some kind of second stimulus plan of some kind. The economy seems to be doing a bit better, but unemployment remains high, and that will likely result in big gains for the Republicans in November.

Climate legislation is expected to be taken up after passage of the health care bill, which would mean March more than likely. It will be interesting to see how that goes. If the Republicans (and big oil and coal companies) are successful in portraying a climate bill as bad for the economy, then Democrats will once again be under extreme pressure supporting a somewhat unpopular bill, this time in much greater time proximity to the election, and so less time to distance or explain what the bill is about. One hopes that the political forces lined up against a climate control bill are unsuccessful. At least, the one writing this blog post hopes so. Climate change is real, first of all, and should be countered. Secondly, if the U.S. misses the boat on energy technology innovation, it could really set us a step behind the rest of the industrialized world.

In foreign affairs, we are still mired in two large-scale force deployments, one in Iraq, the other in Afghanistan. It seems as Iraq is waning, Afghanistan is waxing. However, the end or minimization of U.S. involvement in neither seems very imminent, though I suppose we could get most of our guys out of Iraq in the next couple of years. Afghanistan seems an open-ended occupation in some ways. Though the mission is more defined—counter-insurgency—achieving that goal may take years and might not end before the country loses patience (again). I fear that Afghanistan may dog the Obama administration for the length of its tenure.

Then there’s Iran. Cue Julie Andrews—“What do you do about a problem like Ahmadinejaaaaaddd?” The forces of Iranian resistance to the revolutionary regime seem to persist. Will they be able to successfully oppose the Republican National Guard and the clerics? I’d think not, but the protests and mini-revolt has been remarkably resilient—and we’re still talking about it 7 months later. Here’s hoping.

That’s all for now. I wish everyone a sublime or at least worry-free 2010!

Review of Salient Political Issues, December 2009 Edition

Greetings, readers. Please forgive me for my lack of writing over the last several weeks. We now have a 3-week old in the house (in addition to our 3 year old). Writing in complete sentences, much less holding a coherent thought in your head, is a bit difficult with the demands of diaper-changing and the constant entreaties of an attention-demanding child ringing in your ears.

There certainly has been a lot to talk about! Let’s a take look at a few things:

* Health care. I mention health care first even though I’m getting a little weary of the subject myself. That’s the problem in a lot of ways, though—the public is getting a bit weary and, combined with disinformation from the insurance companies and the Republicans’ iron wall of No—as in, no healthcare reform, no cooperation, no negotiation, no nothing do nothing neverness (more on that later)—health care reform (and health insurance reform) is sort of an up-and-down topic for most Americans, in the sense that support has bobbed up and down. Of course, it’s hard to blame people for having shifting opinions about health care, because the proposal is hard to nail down. Is there a public option? Is it “robust?” What the hell does that mean anyway?

I have discussed this topic at length. My opinions haven’t changed. Feel free to browse this blog’s history to learn what those are. (In a nutshell: 1. Health care insurance needs reform in a big way. And 2. It’s difficult to rally to the defense of a broken system, so (a) let’s change it and see how it goes, and (b) if you defend the current system you likely have a vested interest in it).

The only thing that has changed is that the Congressional Budget Office released a report generally endorsing the Obama Administration’s numbers about coverage, cost, and cost control. I was frankly a little surprised at that last bit. Other than that, nothing has changed. Just get it done and let’s move on to energy issues or something else.

* Speaking of energy issues, I hear there’s an important conference coming up. In Copenhagen, right? The world’s leading economies (and everybody else, but they really don’t matter on this issue) are meeting to see if they can hash out an agreement to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions before the world warms and we experience, as Thomas Friedman would call it, “global weirding”: strange and uncharacteristic weather patterns, cataclysmic events (a la hurricane Katrina), droughts, etc. Early returns are more hopeful than in recent years. Both China and India are more receptive to limits on their own emissions, as they are beginning to witness environmental degradation of their own environments and realize that they, according to most climate modeling, would be big losers in a warmer world (although truthfully no one really knows what will happen—aside from the polar ice caps melting out eventually and polar bears passing into history). The United States is led by a president that embraces the science of global warming, understands the concept of the “tragedy of the commons,” is not unduly beholden to oil and gas interests, and has made the “greening of America” a national priority (second to health care). Most leaders also see the rise of green power technology and cheap and clean energy production as the next great stimulant to global capitalism. The country that incentivizes its entrepreneurs to develop these technologies (and stay put) will benefit hugely in economic growth and prosperity. Incidentally, do you think that has anything to do with India and China suddenly showing great interest in things like solar and wind technology? (Examine with a Google search where many of these companies are going, and you will find that China is a leader… surprised? Don’t be. Just look at the tax incentives in this country for gas/oil versus alternative energy and compare it to China. We are no longer the leading innovators.)

Most of the news coming out says that no climate treaty will be agreed to at the conference, but there could be the beginnings of one. The problem may be that we will run into bad political timing. Will Democrats retain control of the Senate after next year? (Democrats who would approve such a treaty, that is, which means you can throw out any vote from Mary Landrieu of gas and oil rich Louisiana and others like her). I don’t know. It may be that action will be deferred as the unfortunate result of the political returns of an interim year during a time when the economy is bad. Perhaps this will have to wait until 2012 or even later. The problem, of course, is that time is running out on this issue—if it hasn’t already.

There is more to say about this, including discussion of the recent upsurge in denying the science of global warming (oh no! scientists sometimes don’t like each other personally and write about it in emails!) and alternative methods to cool the earth (artificial volcanic eruptions). But I save that for another post, perhaps when health care reform is finally “done” and we have moved on to other issues (please?).

* A brief word about (mostly) liberal Democrats’ intent or desire to use remaining TARP funds to fund, basically, spending on governmental programs to create jobs. I think that it is a horrible idea. It’s not that spending more to stimulate the economy and create jobs is necessarily such a horrible idea (though considering that supposedly 75% of the stimulus funds from earlier this year have yet to be spent, I am not certain that it is necessary), but the fact that the TARP funds were designated for a specific purpose—rescuing the financial system—which is not a spending program. If you want a spending program, put it in a bill and vote on it. Don’t try to find a way to re-interpret a law to other purposes. It’s just squirrelly.

The truth is, they couldn’t pass such a bill right now. Their motive is, I think, (mostly) sincere: They think that the funds are desperately needed to continue to encourage an economic recovery and create jobs. I’m sure it’s also not bad, from their perspective, to at least (hopefully) cause a job-creation trend before the mid-term elections. They think that they need the funds and are trying everything they can to get them. But sometimes, if you can’t do it honestly, even though you think it’s the right thing to do, you shouldn’t do it. In democratic governance, the ends do not justify the means. The means is everything.

* I can’t let Republicans off the hook, either. They are truly banking on a bad economy and a long, slow, painful recovery with no assistance from governmental policies and incentives, be they tax incentives or spending plans. (I’m sorry “let’s cut taxes” is too non-specific to count as policy. Republicans solution in 2002? Let’s cut taxes. 2003? Let’s cut taxes. 2006? Let’s cut taxes. 2009 and forward: horrible budget deficits. Shocker!) That might be a good strategy for 2010, because unemployment is likely to continue to be high. I don’t think it will be a good strategy for 2012, because the economy will likely improve. In addition, if the Republicans do regain power in one or both houses of Congress, they’ll have to—gasp—actually come up with real ideas. It will be interesting to see if the short-term strategy is converted in the medium and long term. It will also be interesting to see if, should the economy improve in 2011 and forward, Democrats can successfully point to policies enacted in 2009 and 2010 under their leadership to punish Republicans.

We’ll see.

That’s it for now. (Notably—I have little to say about Afghanistan at this time. In a nutshell: Hate that we’re still there, seems like most security experts think we need to be there, willing to give Obama’s strategy a bit of time.) I make no promises about frequency of posting in the future, because to do so would be disingenuous. A belated Happy Thanksgiving and, should I not post beforehand, Merry Xmas and Happy New Year!

Flawed Health Care Logic

Previously, I wrote about some misconceptions about health care reform. Some of them continue to be perpetrated with impunity (or, at least, with no shame), but there are couple of new arguments that are not really misconceptions but sort of intentionally superficial treatments of the subject. Because I am tired of shouting into air whenever I read about them—as is my wife—I set them down here. No guarantees to those around me that I won’t continue to randomly pop off exasperated remarks or roll my eyes, though.

Restrictions on Liberty

First, there is the argument that the requirement that all Americans get health care insurance of some kind restricts our liberty. “Don’t tread on me!” and all that. Again, I have written about this before, particularly in discussing the auto liability insurance requirement analogy.

The problem with the knee-jerk “it restricts our liberty” argument is that the question is not whether or not such a requirement restricts our freedom to make choices generally—of course it does—but whether it unfairly limits our freedom or restricts our liberty in a holistic sense. We have all kinds of restrictions on liberties—I can’t drive as fast as I want, or burn my trash in my yard, or shout “fire” in a theater, etc. etc. The question is, is this particular restriction justified or fair? Or, to phrase it differently, if I and others are required to get health care insurance, is that restriction on our collective liberty outweighed by the resulting limitation on our economic choices? I.e., if a bunch of people don’t have health insurance, go get treatment, can’t pay for it, and then I have to pay for it with high health insurance premiums and charges for health care, then I will have less money to buy things or give money to others.

So, the facial argument “you’re restricting my liberty” is almost entirely without substance. The question, “does it unfairly restrict liberty (or, is net collective liberty decreased)?” is the relevant inquiry.

(And to forestall any objections by my philosophical readers—yes, I understand I am simplifying Rawls and Mill here, but I’m not trying to write a treatise about freedom and liberty, okay???)
As I said, I’ve discussed this before, and I believe that this particular restriction of liberty is correct and fair and results in greater collective liberty. If I have to buy automobile insurance to drive around, then having to buy health insurance to use the health care system is reasonable and justified.

The other thing I wanted to mention, though, is that the other logical option that we could opt for as a society—and the true libertarians should agree with this (revealing I think the difficulty with being a true libertarian)—is just not to treat people who can’t pay for health care. If you don’t have health insurance, too bad. You get hurt, you took the risk, and now you’ll just have to die. Currently, under the law, ERs of hospitals must treat all persons, whether they have insurance or have a demonstrated ability to foot the bill or not. Additionally, doctors regard it as unethical not to treat someone in need (though I have my doubts about some doctors’ views on this subject).

I think that would be a perverse and immoral system. Hence, I think the only moral option is to make people pay for some of these bills who would not ordinarily—to mandate health care insurance. I think also, though, that minimal health care insurance has to be affordable. Result: government involvement in some respect.

Illegal Immigrants

No illegal immigrants will be covered under any of the health care reform proposals before Congress. This particular fact was underscored when the Republican Congressman shouted “you lie” during Obama’s address to Congress.

And more’s the pity. Because somewhere between ¼ and 1/3 of the people who show up without insurance at ERs are illegal immigrants. That means that while the passage of a health care reform bill would address some of the problem, we will all STILL be paying artificially inflated prices for insurance and treatment, because hospital ERs will still be treating a veritable horde of people essentially for free. (For all kinds of things—diabetes, heart issues, acute injuries, pneumonia, etc.) Again, we only have one logical choice: let ‘em die or address the problem. And again, I feel it would be horribly immoral to take the “let ‘em die” approach.

Let’s not leave the illegal immigrant health care problem in expensive limbo—we should get them in the system somehow and make them foot some of the bill and get preventive care.

Unfortunately, doing anything that looks like it benefits illegal immigrants in any way is toxic politically. I just wish one politician would take a principled stand here, speak up, and address it. Instead, we’re going to get a halfway system that might suffer adverse consequences and criticisms precisely because there will be this additional built-in cost.

Closing Thoughts

I never thought I would have written and talked so much about health care reform. It was never one of my favorite topics or one that I even considered all that interesting. But the “debate” surrounding health care reform (coupled with some personal experience of the health care system over the last couple of years) has truly revealed for me the nature and extent of the problems in health care and in politics in general. There is so much crap out there that it’s hard to even smell the sunshine. Since I founded this blog on the basis that I would attempt to present the “truth” as well as I could discern it, it is impossible to avoid commenting about the subject.

I am ready to move onto the next debate, however! Whenever we get there...

Too Many Things to Talk About!

So, earlier this week I thought I would write yet another blurb about healthcare, given the president’s address to Congress last Wednesday. Then, I read a report about campaign finance reform and the U.S. Supreme Court’s scrutiny of over a hundred years of jurisprudence concerning corporations’ ability to contribute money to campaigns and thought I would write about that. And THEN I read about how medical malpractice reform is cited by some as a key component of cutting health care costs. And again I read about protestors converging on Washington to protest… pretty much Washington itself. (Funniest thing about the article I read about the protest this morning was the difference in the estimated size—the principal organizer referenced “1.5 million people.” The AP and other organizations (not affiliated with the organizers) estimated “tens of thousands.” That’s quite an exaggeration! I think I spot a pattern here…)

So, I’ll take these one-by-one and offer up a few quick observations:

Medical Malpractice Reform

I was frankly a bit dismayed to hear Obama reference medical malpractice reform as an idea from the Republicans that could be incorporated into health care reform, ostensibly to control costs. Typically, when you hear “medical malpractice reform” that means hard-line caps on damages in lawsuits, a sort of brutal slapdown to people who’ve been hurt in my opinion. Such caps are appealing to people who don’t understand the legal system, because there seems to be a simple one-to-one connection: hey, let’s limit recoveries on these lawsuits, and insurance rates for doctors will go down, and maybe costs will go down, too. There are *so* many problems with hard caps on recoveries that it is sometimes difficult to sit down and talk through them all.

The first and I think biggest problem that non-lawyers don’t understand is that caps on damages don’t limit frivolous lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits don’t go to trial and don’t end up with a big judgment. They get dismissed by a judge on a pretrial motion. Or, if there is enough doubt to go to trial, a jury reviews the evidence and determines whether or not a doctor has committed negligence—that is, screwed up and hurt someone really badly. Thus, a hard cap only limits damages for people who got really hurt as a result of a serious infraction on the part of a doctor, nurse, hospital, etc. E.g., to take the easiest example, “whoops, we amputated the wrong arm! Sorry, we’ll just have to go in there and cut off the right one tomorrow. Too bad you’ll be armless, but hey, mistakes happen, right?” (And yes, this does really happen).

But wait, you say—okay, maybe you don’t say, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that you did—aren’t these caps only on “pain and suffering” damages? Sometimes. That’s the current proposal from some in Congress. You could still get some damages for loss of lifetime income. But let’s take an example where that is not going to help. Let’s say that as a result of a doctor’s negligence, you lose an arm. Ouch! If you’re a high-caliber pianist, you’re likely to get a serious lifetime income award. But what if you’re a financial analyst? Or a customer service rep? It might be inconvenient to you to do your job one-armed, but no one would seriously argue that you couldn’t do it or that it’s going to seriously limit you in your career. You’re not likely to get much for that.

Doesn’t that seem wrong? Seems wrong to me. If someone cuts of someone’s arm (or kills someone, say), there should be financial recourse for that.

Second, does limiting recoveries in medical malpractice cases actually lower health care costs? The assumption is that those savings would be passed along to consumers. It’s also assumed that doctors would no longer practice “defensive medicine,” ordering unnecessary tests and treatments. Sounds reasonable. The problem is, there is no data to back up these claims. In fact, the most recent study I could find cites that medical malpractice premiums represent one-half of one percent (0.5%) of total health care costs in this country. That seems a fair price to pay for legitimately injured people to have some kind of recovery and peace of mind. It also confirms what I’ve understood based on reading I’ve done over the years: premiums have more to do with prevailing interest rates (as a result of insurance companies being big financial companies nowadays) than they do with lawsuits. This just proves that sometimes you have to look deeper, that the intuitive, simple “logical” link is not always the right one.

There is much more to say about this topic, but I’ve got other things on my mind. I hope I’ve at least created a little doubt in the minds of those who think that doctor’s negligence damages caps are the holy grail to controlling health care costs.

Healthcare Reform in General

A couple of months ago, I suggested that the best way to reform healthcare would be to separate the unholy union between heath care insurance and the provision of health care, push insurers back to providing insurance rather than health care plans and require everyone to get catastrophic health care insurance (among other things). I recognized then as I recognize now that it is simply not politically expedient to tell all of America that we are completely blowing up the health care system that you know. You couldn’t change things that dramatically; i.e., you had to be able to say, as Obama said, “if you’ve got your employer-provided health care plan, there will be no change, you can keep it.”

But he did go with the mandate idea and used the same analogy I did: the analogy to automobile liability insurance. (Not that I claim any ownership of the analogy; and, in fact, it serves to show the efficacy of the comparison, because it is so obvious). I think it’s a great analogy, though it’s not perfect, obviously: driving a car is something that you can choose not to do (of course, outside of the northeast, forget it! This is America, we drive cars!). It’s also not a “right,” in the sense that health care is or may be (I’m not going to discuss this concept, but my inclination is that it is a right). But it provides an excellent justification for the mandate. The seat belt law is another good analogy—yes, you give up the “freedom” of being stupid and driving without a seat belt, but your liberty is infringed upon because the cost that saddles the rest of society is too great. Politicians have been so afraid to discuss the requirement of obtaining insurance, but the example is right there for us. I’m happy that Obama showed the grit to lay it out there.

It Was the Supreme Court, Stupid!

Remember the 2004 presidential campaign? There was sort of a sense of low expectations for both candidates from the perspective of what the individuals themselves would do in the office of president. The race became more about the “issues” (or did until Kerry was swift-boated). On one side, you had neo-conservatives playing up the fear of terrorism and, in this writer’s opinion, intentionally conflating the war in Iraq with 9/11. On the other side, you had growing skepticism of the reasons for the war and the foundation and trustworthiness of the sources suggesting the imminent production and use of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). On one side you had the typical social conservative overweening concern with right-to-life issues, while on the other side you had right-to-choice issues and stem cell research (though that became a bigger deal in 2006). People did not see either candidate for the presidency as an inspirational leader, generally. The argument can be made that the better spin doctors won that election. But that is another topic (and one that I discussed briefly earlier this year when Obama was sworn in).

“It’s the Supreme Court, Stupid!!!” Remember that slogan? A prominent issue was the thought that the next (or same) president would appoint one and possibly two Supreme Court justices. That thought was borne out when Rehnquist was replaced by Roberts and O’Connor by Alito. The replacement of Rehnquist by Roberts as Chief Justice has been considered an ideological wash, though it is still a bit early in Roberts’ jurisprudence to say whether he is more or less conservative than Rehnquist or more or less prone to respect precedent (viz., more or less “activist”). But clearly the replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor, a straight down the middle centrist, with a true conservative in Samuel Alito (together with Antonin Scalia, called without affection “Scalito”) is a difference-maker and one that will last for quite a while, because the next justices to be replaced will be older liberals. Most of the focus of the shift to the right on the Court was on abortion, but we may be about to see a major ruling occur soon on campaign finance reform. Three of the Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy) are on record as saying they would be willing to reverse a law dating back over a hundred years preventing corporations from donating to political campaigns. The two who will apparently decide whether to overrule the established law will be the two new appointees. Most consider that Alito has made his mind up already, but some wonder whether Roberts, who prefers to rule narrowly, will be willing to sign a sweeping opinion.

I personally think it would be a poor result to allow corporations to donate to campaigns. We are a nation of people, not corporations. Corporations can’t vote and are driven by the single-minded concern of profit for their shareholders. Let’s leave it to human beings to make laws and consider notions of fairness, rights, and more communal concerns like, say, defense and the environment. Don’t corporations already have enough power?

In Conclusion

I was actually going to talk a little bit more about the protestors and seek to deconstruct the virulent anti-Obama movement, but I think that is a bit of a long conversation. It combines parts of a general upset about the state of the economy and unemployment, desperation in one’s own personal life, touches on racism in some cases, and in general is one of those open-ended discursive debates that merits a full discussion in a different entry. If I feel the urge.

Local Racial Politicking: Alive and Well in Atlanta

For this newest entry in our blog, we need look no further than our own fine city of Atlanta, where, this year, a new mayor will be elected in the fall. Some, like me, view this is a chance to get new leadership in the door—to break a power structure that has thrived on cronyism for a long time; to get someone in the mayor’s office who can fix the budget; who can address a recent and disturbing property crime increase; to ensure a water supply for residents, since Lake Lanier is being taken away; and to promote the city in a real way. (The current mayor has been kind of a mixed bag. She’s leaving us all with a faint feeling of disappointment, possibly as a result of very high expectations.)

In fact, things have been trending in the direction of a break from the old guard—which has frightened a group calling itself the “Black Leadership Forum,” which recently disseminated a message written by two Clark Atlanta University political science professors espousing the “Black point of view.” Apparently, the black agenda is—not to put too fine a point on it—all about making sure a white mayoral candidate (of which there is only one) is not elected mayor. Never mind the issues—the important thing is that the mayor is black. Period.

I’m not joking. The link is here.

What’s more, when the authors—the two Clark Atlanta professors—were revealed, they refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong about what they wrote. Here’s a quote from their joint statement:

The recent suggestion that it is somehow racist to highlight an agenda that promotes the interests of African American voters is patently false. It is a red herring that polarizes debate about electing the most qualified candidate for Atlanta’s next mayor.

The need for African American voter and taxpayer interests to be addressed by all candidates is just as legitimate as it is for candidates to respond to issues raised by the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Georgia Stand-Up, Central Atlanta Progress or any Neighborhood Planning Unit (NPU). . . We stand by our belief that “a black agenda would enable African American interests to be respected by any administration.” The interests of African American voters are just as legitimate as other Atlanta voters, and the notion that we must apologize for highlighting those interests is absurd.

* * *

Dear Esteemed Professors:

I urge you to set aside your vested political interests for a moment for the sake of progressive racial relations, intellectual honesty, and decency. What you have said is tantamount to what a lot of white people said in the ‘50s and ‘60s. It is racism, pure and simple. You may glean this from a simple exercise: substitute the word “white” for the word “black” and the words “Aryan American” for the words “African American” in your message. Read it back. Think hard. Swallow hard. Then apologize.

Here’s an example:

Original:

“1. The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a black mayor at all cost. In fact, if a white candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as Maynard Jackson’s victory in 1973.”

becomes:

“1. The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a white mayor at all cost. In fact, if a black candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as [analogy fails here—but really gosh darn significant].”

I ask you this: what would your reaction have been to a leaked memo promoting “white interests," a “white mayor at all costs” agenda, and the promotion of a unified “white” front in order to tank any and all black candidates? More than charges of racism, which would be true, wouldn’t the greater charge be that such an agenda misses the point? We’ve got a lot of problems in this city. We don’t need another one—racial tension.

Also, please do not confuse a “black agenda” with your own entrenched political interests—you call the government of the city from 1973 on—and these are your own words—a “Machine.” Well, maybe it’s time for this particular political machine to be traded in—cash for clunkers. It’s time for a new political order in the city, a not exactly post-racial order but one that is not driven by race, but by solutions to problems.

I voted for Barack Obama (who is half-white / half-black) because I felt he was the right leader for our country, at the right time, with the right ideas. Why did you vote for him? Because he is “black?” Do you really think that the election of a white mayor today would return Atlanta to pre-1973 race relations? C’mon. We know what it’s about—power, and the retaining of it. Just be honest.

* * *

Probably the most disturbing thing about this whole affair is that this memorandum was propagated by two professors at a college. These are the people who are supposed to open our kids’ minds? Expose them to new ideas? I urge Clark Atlanta University to suspend both of them post-haste. These are not the kind of mind goblins we should be exposing our young people to.

If It Sounds Like an Evil Villain from a Spy Movie Came Up With the Concept...

... It’s Probably Not True
(Or, Some Misconceptions About Health Care Reform)

To counteract the incredible display of horse manure flying about the airwaves, on tv, and being suggested to you by your friends and neighbors, I put together this list of a few misconceptions about health care reform. Note that I am talking about the general gist of the main bills currently on hold in Congress while our representatives are on vacation or being harangued at town hall meetings. Note also that I don’t necessarily agree with all terms—current terms, that is—of the health care bill(s). In fact, in my most recent post, I suggested a few quick reform measures of my own. Nevertheless, the amount of disinformation being broadcast motivates me—no, compels me—to put together this list.

1. The current health care reform bills will produce a system of socialized medicine in this country.

First—no, they wouldn’t. Socialized medicine is the direct control of the practice of medicine by the government. The government employs virtually all medical providers (doctors, nurses) and hospitals and places of care. All citizens receive health care free of charge unless they elect to pay for it privately. Regardless of what you might think about socialized medicine, that is not what Congress is proposing. The bills before Congress propose to achieve a few core objectives: (i) stop health care insurance companies from being able to cherry-pick their insureds; principally, this means that individual policies would be treated akin to group policies. This is very important, incidentally, to self-employed people and small businesses. It would also mean the elimination of the “preexisting condition” exception from insurance policies. Anyone who has been confronted with this form of denial realizes that this is the correct and humane thing to do; (ii) offer a government-subsidized plan to the working poor and lower middle class families (akin to Medicare); (iii) make—yes, make, as in require—the uninsured get insurance (and objective (ii) is very closely related to this objective). The culmination of all three of these principal goals is intended to produce the goal of universal coverage; viz., everyone can get health insurance of some kind in this country.

Second—every time I hear someone shout out “socialized medicine” with that sort of crazy glint in their eye, I wonder: Do they really know what they’re talking about? I don’t think so. I think it’s like we all accused someone of being a Communist back in the ‘80s. I think really it’s a substitute for “bad.” So, what they’re really saying is—health care reform! Bad!

Well, maybe if it’s the wrong kind of health care reform. And maybe socialized medicine would be bad, though the Brits seem to think it’s okay. In any case, that’s not what we’re getting, so this is a misconception and is FALSE.

2. A faceless government bureaucrat will make your health care decisions for you.

Okay. This one makes me smile a little bit, because, I mean… isn’t a faceless insurance company bureaucrat making your health care decisions for you right now? I know that’s the case for us, where my wife and I were prevented from having our second child for a year and a half because of insurance waiting periods. (Needless to say numerous conversations over the years with … wait for it… faceless insurance company bureaucrats trying to get something covered. If you haven’t experienced this yet, just wait—it’s coming, my friend. Unless, of course, health care is completely reformed). Wouldn’t it at least be better if the faceless bureaucrat were a government employee, theoretically working for you, and also subject to review by Congress and our elected representatives?

Also, of course— and here’s the zinger—uhm, no. A faceless bureaucrat would not be making health care decisions for anyone. The healthcare plan “czar” (is anyone besides me getting a little tired of the use of the word “czar” every time we set up a program where one guy is the head honcho? It’s like appending “-gate” at the end of any supposed scandal. Do they have a special course on hackneyed phrases in journalism school?) would be in charge of approving plans proffered by insurance companies who want to participate in the healthcare exchange. Doctors would be in charge. Or, as I prefer to think about it after spending some time in the hospital with my wife following her c-section, patients are in charge.

3. Health care reform will encourage euthanasia of the elderly.

This falls under the category of “if it sounds crazy, it probably is.” I am continually amazed at the capacity for some people to be so gullible and… ingenuous (as in, innocent… not “ingenious,” as in clever). Look, if it sounds like a concept of an arch villain in a spy movie, it’s not likely to be true, okay? A purpose of health care reform is not to kill elderly people. The fact that this assertion even has to be refuted disgusts me. But thanks to people like Sean Hannity and friends, this disinformation is countenanced and given air time. (Much like the “Obama was not born in Hawaii” claims. Complete and utter garbage.)

I was going to call this the “top five” misconceptions about health reform, but it’s late and I’m tired. There is also a certain level of tolerance I have for mentally engaging with and refuting what, seem to me, to be such blatant errors. Where is our independent media? Oh, wait, that’s right, we lost it when Fox started winning the air wars.

My tolerance level and endurance for this sort of thing is also taxed by an undercurrent of dismay and cynicism. These arguments—these outright lies, really—are not the real powers that need to be fought. These misconceptions are propagated by very powerful interests that stand to lose a great deal with health care reform. Insurance companies, certain health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, basically everyone profiting from skyrocketing health care and treatment costs (sellers, not providers for the most part—hospitals and, for the most part, doctors have not seen lasting prosperity from the massive inflation in health care costs over the last 20 years). My dismay and cynicism arise from the fact that the people fighting this battle on the ground for these powerful interests are harming themselves—they have been manipulated and do not even realize it. It’s truly disgusting. With a little money and an ingenious campaign of disinformation, powerful, fortified interests can manipulate people to fight a battle that harms their own interest.

But that’s the nature of the beast in our current socio-economic-political system. There will be no discussion on the merits. Only a Machiavellian power struggle.

We will see a similar event with the global warming bill—already tremendously watered down. When the time comes, I will fire up the ol’ blog. But for now, I shine my blazing beacon of truth on health care reform! And will continue to do so as long as I can tolerate it.

Peace be with you.