To Be An American

As a consultant advising college and university leaders on how to identify and effect change in their institutions, I was always struck by how planning groups would typically want to begin their work.  People would march into the room, fully confident that they knew what the problem to be solved was, why the problem existed, and usually very clear in their minds about what should be done about it.  Unfortunately, each person’s perspective would prove to be very different, which would normally come as a big surprise to the group members.  To complicate it further, the underlying attitude would frequently be, “I’m OK and doing fine, if YOU would just change what you are doing!”

What would then usually follow in these group discussions would be protracted and difficult arguments about what actions should be taken, with people promoting their tactics as of course superior to the tactics of others.  Proposed actions would bog down into pointing fingers over “who’s at fault,” and get lost within personality conflicts or individual power plays.  Over time, I learned a very valuable lesson from these painful discussions: If people cannot agree on what the TRUE PROBLEM is, and what RESULTING OUTCOMES need to be accomplished, then they will never agree on which tactical steps – in between the problem and the outcomes – need to be implemented.  Unless the necessary time was spent up front listening to each other, looking at the facts and statistics and varied human experiences behind the issue at hand, and hearing what the world looks like from each vantage point, no common understanding of the real problem would exist.  (“What do we really know about this problem?”)  And all of this advance work had to be done with the humility of realizing that perhaps each of us does not fully have the solution so conveniently in hand after all.  Without that upfront clarity and a shared sense of outcomes, no discussion on tactics was worthwhile nor would it ever produce truly effective results.

A similar lack of agreement on goals versus tactics infects our political discussions today.  We spend so much time throwing out a hodgepodge of proposals and draft laws, and then arguing about whose idea is “best,” that virtually nothing of much meaningful impact gets done.  It is like playing a game of darts with a large group of people but with no target painted on the wall.  Hence anyone can claim that their dart is the winner regardless of wherever it lands, because nothing exists to provide an agreed-to criteria for the winner.

In President Obama’s State of the Union address recently, he called for an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10, adding that “In America, no one working a fulltime job should have to live in poverty.”  The point of this particular blog commentary is not whether $10.10 is a good or bad thing; that is a separate discussion debatable on many fronts.  But calling the question of whether being an American should mean that a fulltime worker does not live in poverty is a good and proper discussion to have.  Answering those kinds of fundamental questions can breathe much needed fresh air through the hot, stale air of our current economic discussions.

What it means to be “an American” is the real question that the public and our leaders should be grappling with.  Because we might find that we have many disagreements over our fundamental assumptions.  Or perhaps even many agreements.  Or that there is a slice of American life different from mine that I really do not understand or appreciate.  Where we find we disagree, we should then work to explain our differing perspectives and reasonings in order to come into more shared perspectives and common goals.

Besides the principle that fulltime workers should not be living in poverty, what might be some other basic questions about “what it means to be an American”?  Does every American have the right to vote for his/her political leaders in an easy and unhindered way?  Should each American be entitled (or forced) to have the same education at the same age with the same quality as any other American?  Should every American have access to medical services and at the same level of needed care?  Should every American willing and able to work have a job available?  Should every American be left alone to choose their life decisions unless those decisions truly and substantively adversely affect others?  Should every American be able to identify the religious and spiritual practices most appropriate to themselves, free from domination or coercion from other beliefs?  Should every American be treated equally, fairly, and with honesty in the economic marketplace?  Should every American be entitled to a safe and healthy environment, free from violence, illness, defective goods, tainted foods and a toxic natural environment?  Should “successful” Americans have an obligation to give back to those less fortunate – either now or to support future generations?

At first blush, one might immediately think “of course,” or “of course not,” to such basic kinds of questions.  Or assume that they were answered long ago.  Or argue that there are substantive “yes, buts,” nuances, or shadings about these universal themes.  Yet these types of questions underlie our divisive political arguments today, suggesting that we have not come to agreement or declared a clear, national commitment regarding these goals.  We look for simple answers to these questions, yet consensus remains elusive because we have not stopped to fully educate ourselves on their background, and the reality-on-the-ground of these issues.  We have 300 million people in this country, each with widely varying experiences, most often of which we are highly unknowledgeable because they are out of our daily routine and immediate view.  So we have not come to a shared understanding of what we need to accomplish across that wide swath.

When America has committed itself to a common purpose, the appropriate solutions have surfaced and fallen into place, and our successes have been notable.  When we committed ourselves to defeating Japan and Germany in World War II, America marshaled its full military and civilian strength to achieve that outcome.  When we committed to landing on the moon, Neil Armstrong’s footsteps walked for all of us.  When we committed to eradicating the scourge of polio, that dreaded disease disappeared – ultimately world-wide.  When we committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity from racial discrimination, we changed the color of this country in less than one lifetime – even as the work remains undone.

Direction comes from knowing where one wants to go.  Right actions come from knowing one’s direction.  This is the missing conversation in America, a conversation in greater depth than mere bumper-sticker headlines.  The real question is not whether or not the minimum wage should be $10.10; it is about what any minimum wage should be able to afford.  What is the baseline of being “an American”?  What remains above that baseline that is for each of us to individually achieve?  Let us have that thoughtful conversation, one-on-one, listening closely to each other, without the angry posturing and empty political rhetoric.

©  2014   Randy Bell

 

Freedoms And Duck Calls

This is one of those blogs that I really hate to write, because I try to avoid wading into fad headlines of the moment.  Headlines that are about people who do not merit undue attention, and reflect opinions of little consequence to informing the public commentary.  But one recent such news fad raises an element which does beg for some expanded discussion.

A few weeks ago, the lead actor of yet another fabricated “[un-]reality show” – this of a family of millionaire duck callers in the southern Louisiana bayou – saw fit to offer up in an interview that “homosexuals are hated by God and it leads to bestiality,” along with “Blacks were happy under Jim Crow laws.”  The qualifications of this individual to offer such perspectives, beyond simply declaring his own personal opinion of God and mankind, are near to non-existent.  The predictable firestorm of condemnation of his remarks came quickly, and the A&E network “suspended” him from his highly popular show.  Then came the follow-up backlash firestorm as his defenders weighted in.  The social networks came alive; boycotts were announced; the media had their needed script for more self-attention.  And then, after completing its run, it all went quickly and quietly away as everyone went back to their daily business, awaiting the next big fad story.

Most of this story can, and should, be easily dismissed as yet another personality unnecessarily speaking unneeded thoughts.  But the reactive commentary did reveal a broader  and more fundamental truth that Americans need to remind themselves: namely, that there are no absolute freedoms in America, nor should there be.  There are only freedoms that exist in balance with the responsible exercise of those freedoms, and then a requirement that we take the consequences that may result from such an exercise.

Many of the duck caller’s supporters went on the counteroffensive not about the issues of homosexuality or civil rights, but of his First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech which they felt the resulting criticism violated in order to gag him.  Therein lies the core issue worth our discussion: Freedom of Speech (or any other of our Bill of Rights Freedoms) versus the presumption of one being insulated and protected from the consequences of that speech.

It is certainly true that our First Constitutional Amendment protects our right to say what we please, however controversial or distasteful that may be.  That right was derived from thousands of years in which absolute monarchs imprisoned or executed those who dared to speak out against them or the established Church.  So the prime motivation of our Founders was to protect such expression of contrary political or social opinion, though it subsequently morphed into protecting the right to speak any opinion on anything.  But such freedom to speak one’s opinion also equally allows others to speak their opinions in rebuttal if they so choose.  And the law has always established certain limits to our exercise of our freedoms: speech that puts the public safety at risk (e.g. “fire” in the theater), or knowingly harms another’s reputation by spreading falsehoods, is not allowed under our free speech rights.

Further, one’s right to speak does not require me to have to listen to those opinions.  It does not require me to provide a forum for those opinions.  My right to peace and quiet allows for permissible restrictions on where your speech may be given, or to choose to not disseminate it in my newspaper or cable network.  It allows me to fire the speaker from employment if his/her opinions injure my business; I have no obligation to finance speech that runs counter to my interest.  (Witness the loss of corporate endorsements for Lance Armstrong and Tiger Woods.)  We have the right to speak freely, but it is our own responsibility to find a venue and audience for that speech.

Free speech protects the right to say stupid things, just as it similarly protects the right to publish bad taste.  The First Amendment does not insist upon quality of thought.  But it does not protect one from being criticized for speaking stupidly.  If one chooses to throw a verbal grenade into the public forum of ideas, one should not be surprised when that grenade explodes and blows back debris all over that speaker.  (Witness innumerable politicians with foot well-placed in mouth.)  The blowback of negative responses does not prevent free speech, but instead serves as a needed cautionary restraint that hopefully encourages one to think through their opinions carefully, and the consequences of speaking “from the hip.”  So the duck caller had every right to speak his opinions about homosexuals and Blacks, however noxious I and others may personally find them.  But the surprise at the resulting controversy shows incredible naiveté on his (or anyone else’s) part.

In the end, one individual with no special insight expressed an opinion supported by some Americans and opposed by some others.  And when the dust settled, our understanding of homosexuality and the civil rights movement was advanced not one iota.  A 5-line commentary buried on page 35 should have been the end of this news-worthiness.  Instead we saw a large discussion about the supposed violation of one man’s freedom to speak, though as far I can tell he had plenty of freedom to say what he said.  But to give him immunity from reaction to his comments, to shut down the right of others to express their disagreements, simply moves the shoe from the right foot to the left.

The belief that any of our constitutional freedoms comes with no restrictions or consequences is simply another form of the arrogance that “it is just about Me” and what I want to say and do without regard for others.  Our Bill of Rights are precious and hard won; we are often far too casual in our use of them.  Our freedoms inherently expect us to use them wisely and responsibly, even as we may legitimately choose to exercise them in different ways.  When we fail to act responsibly, we must accept the consequences of what we do, and expect that our freedom will thereby be curtailed appropriately.  We can each choose different beliefs, express different opinions, walk different paths.  But we are accountable for each of those choices we make and the benefits and damages that ensue from our conduct.  That is the price we pay for our right to freedoms.

It is not unlike as in our personal lives.  We can choose to say what we wish to one another.  But we need not speak unnecessarily, carelessly or unkindly, and if we do, we are obligated to accept responsibility for the hurts and consequences our words engender.  So say what you wish, as the First Amendment allows you to do.  But please do not hide behind that Amendment when others speak their objections back to you.  And if your speech attacks another’s character, understand that it is your own character that may then be called into question.

©  2014   Randy Bell





Who Is Killing Capitalism

Capitalism – the free movement of money, goods and services based upon market demand by consumers rather than some super-authority directing such flow.  It has been the fundamental economic driver of America since our first colonial settlement.  Jamestown was originally chartered as a commercial venture by English businessmen, with expectations of high profits to be returned to those businessmen.  Upon landing at Jamestown, the anticipated gold and other treasures were never found.  So the profit motive was redirected to the abundant agriculture, where survival required hands-on labor by each individual, performed on individually-owned farms (the first American sole proprietorship “businesses”).  Individual ownership of the land and its resources, individual career paths, independently driven production and marketing decisions, individual profits, were the hallmarks of Jamestown.  They are still some of our economic hallmarks today.  All quite different compared to the Puritan’s settlement at Plymouth, which exemplified the religious aspect of our founding, and whose communistic sharing economy was in stark contrast with Jamestown.  They are two contrasting and often conflicting economic and religious philosophies, a conflict that remains with us today.

Entrepreneurship is a key (though not required) component of a capitalistic economy, at least as capitalism is practiced in America.  Entrepreneurship is what has allowed America to reach economic heights unforeseeable to pre-American generations.  It is entrepreneurship that sees an unmet need or opportunity, or a shift in consumer interests.  It is entrepreneurship that has the visionary idea of how to meet that need and fulfill that opportunity.  It is entrepreneurship that then has the creativity to produce that idea and bring it to market where consumer demand can kick into gear and pronounce the product a success or failure.

The potential of success drives some people into entrepreneurship; the risk of failure drives other people away.  America has had a long, exemplary history of spectacular economic and innovative successes, as well as glaring flame-outs of failure.  For entrepreneurship, risk-taking is required, and the capitalistic structure must be there to freely and easily render its judgment of success or failure.

The components that entrepreneurship needs from the capitalistic framework are: 1) freedom of action and creativity for the entrepreneur, yet done within an ethical and responsible framework; 2) a funding market which provides operating capital; 3) a labor force able to produce the product in the specifications, quality and quantity required; 4) an open marketplace for selling the goods and services produced, each seller on an equal footing with another; 5) a customer base willing and able to buy the products and services; and 6) an absence of artificial supports that prop up failing ventures.

Unfortunately, these required elements for successful entrepreneurship and capitalism are no longer sufficiently in place in America.  1) Regulation oversight is not properly aligned with the business endeavors – too much in some cases, not enough in others.  Too often the overseen outnumbers the overseer.  2) Funding has become severely constricted due to previous unethical and illegal lending practices in spite of government subsidies that now underwrite the everyday lending business.  3) As old-styled jobs disappear, the American labor force is not keeping up qualitatively or quantitatively with the new skill bases that are adequate for successful employment, even as financial access to a proper education is declining.  4) Independent selling in the open market has become limited because major national/multi-national corporations and franchises now dominate the marketplace both for price and available products.  5) Real income for the middle class – the true “mass market” – has been long stagnant if not shrinking, thereby stifling the consumer demand that drives our economy.  Meanwhile, wealth continues to be concentrated in fewer and fewer wealthy individuals, a number too small to drive the economy in spite of its spending excesses.  (The statistics of the concentration of wealth among the very few are frightening here.)  6) Inequitable tax regulations and anti-competition laws favorable to the few bigger players are crushing the small business person.  Businesses who have not proven themselves in the customer marketplace are being propped up because they are deemed “too big to fail,” or they enjoy special treatment from politicians or judges.

There is much moaning and crying in many business and political circles about capitalism and the supposed assault on it.  An assault supposedly coming from “spendthrift socialist politicians.”  Many business executives and their political supporters talk incessantly about the virtues of capitalism and its ability to promote the American economy and provide jobs for people.  By their reasoning, they beg that this great economic force be unleashed and unrestrained.

Most of this talk is a smokescreen hiding the real truths.  By their actions, these same people are doing everything possible to dismantle the very capitalism they talk about.  Self-preservation and unfair advantage all too often takes priority, hidden behind deceptive marketing advertising; a slew of attorneys, tax accountants and lobbyists; and friendly politicians more interested in campaign donations than giving wise direction to the country and keeping our free market truly free.  Good and responsible business leaders are deservedly to be appreciated, whether the small-business person or the multi-national CEO.  But there are not enough of them in today’s economy, and not enough checks and restraints on the misbehaving ones.

So who is killing capitalism?  Not the Communists.  Not the Socialists.  Not the Liberals nor the Libertarians.  Not even the Conservatives.  It is Capitalists themselves who are killing capitalism, and doing it as an inside job.  It is true entrepreneurship that needs to be saved.  But I am not sure who can put this broken Humpty Dumpty back together once again.

©  2013  Randy Bell

Of Websites And Healthcare

Will Americans ever get tired of arguing incessantly about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka “Obamacare”?  Inflamed by news media personalities seeking ratings and politicians seeking power gains, this national argument has been unending for almost six tiring years.  From Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008; through Congressional debate and passage in 2009-2010; through years of wasted monthly House resolutions to repeal Obamacare that went nowhere; through a Supreme Court case in 2012 that affirmed it as constitutional; and through a government shutdown in 2013 caused by a radical minority that accomplished nothing except for more governmental and national economic chaos.

Granted, the initial rollout of the online insurance exchange signup program was a mess.  Any new computer system has its shakedown period and crazy kinks to be resolved.  But this was a technology project that personified bad management.  Truth is, governments – federal, state and local – have never been very good at technology development.  The IRS spent decades trying unsuccessfully to upgrade and integrate their systems.  The Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense are currently trying to integrate their systems to share medical records between veterans and active military personnel; so far a disaster going nowhere.

There are many reasons for government technology failures and shortcomings, many of which I have seen firsthand as a former IT professional in the public sector.  Not bad people, but bad conditions.  Too many constituencies to please; too much intractable “business as usual” thinking; inadequate leadership and decision-making authority; and all too typically, insufficient funding.  Add in the interconnection complexity of the new Obamacare insurance exchanges across the country, and you have a very difficult technology system to be developed and installed under high visibility.  Good technology project leadership would have: gotten support and advice from technology people in the insurance private sector who create such websites every day; lined everyone up with a solid project plan; given clear marching orders to all involved; and provided adequate, if not overwhelming,  resources.  Especially given that the Affordable Care Act is this president’s signature legacy accomplishment.  In private industry, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would most certainly have been summarily and deservedly fired for this poor outcome.

Unfortunately, the list of people vested in ACA’s failure is long: doomsday naysayers; untruthful politicians; CEOs now blaming Obamacare as the excuse for reducing employee benefits that they have been wanting to do for a long time; hypocrites who argue that private industry is best qualified to fix health care shortcomings that they created in the first place.  But the website will get fixed.  People will then sign up for new insurance.  Most people whose policies have been cancelled – often polices that should never have been sold due to their deceptive coverage limitations – will find new affordable policies, if not cheaper and with greater benefits, to replace their lost coverage.  And the full impact of the changes to the odious practices of the health insurance companies – e.g. preexisting conditions, limitations on coverage, caps on benefits – will become cemented in.  If all of the noisy objections would quiet down, then by the end of 2014, and certainly by the 2016 presidential election, the ACA would finally have become simply “the law and practice of the land.”

The byproduct of this continually inane and hysterical debate is what thereby has been ignored in the national conversation.  I.e. the real health care issues facing America.  Issues such as the continually escalating cost of delivering our health care.  The hidden rate schedule that is inexplicable and non-comparable among health care institutions.  The absence of a rational discussion about health services and death decisions for the elderly.  The lack of “buyer selection” in choosing health solutions and providers due to unpublished rates and a multi-tiered byzantine web of providers looking to be paid.  A system that rewards doing more tests / more drugs / more surgery rather than prevention of illness.  A for-profit industry – often masquerading as “benevolent non-profit or charitable institutions” – that increasingly measures success not by the good health of its clients but by the salaries and dividends that it returns to its insiders.  A system of insurance coverage for medical costs that is tied to one’s employment status, and the generosity (or not) of the individual employer.  It is an industry that is misdirected, with excessively layered costs, funded by backroom deal-making, with an uninformed buyer floundering in the marketplace.

Health care skills and knowledge in America may be second-to-none in the world.  But in covering our population, providing access to these services, and paying reasonable charges based upon quality/price market competition as is required of most all other industries, our health care industry is an overwhelming mess.  America is “a country that pays too much and gets too little from its health care system, whose costs, at nearly 18% of GDP, limit [its] ability to grow and invest and compete globally.  Compared with other developed countries, the U.S. has more uninsured, fewer doctors per capita, and lower life expectancies.”  (TIME, “Race For The Cure,” 12/2/2013)

These are the real issues that need thoughtful, deep, and forward-looking discussions.  But they are discussions that are not happening on a national scale.  And they will not happen as long as “medical news” focuses only on grandiose announcements of scientific research results, political game-playing, and a rallying cause for the anti-government disaffected.

Almost two-thirds of personal bankruptcies in America are attributable to health care debt.  Millions of people avoid seeking needed health care because of high costs and personal affordability.  Real people are suffering or dying for lack of access to adequate care.  When the Affordable Care Act finally settles in, when the media moves on to the next big disaster or controversial story, when the politicians find the new big fundraiser topic, when the din of this cacophonic noise finally quiets down, when all the distractions finally go away – will anyone then start the badly needed, serious conversation about health services and its delivery systems in America?

It is about issues of substance, not bumper stickers or theatrics.  It is a conversation worth having.  It is a conversation worth having now.

©  2013   Randy Bell

 

Our Seven Branches Of Government

The Constitution of the United States is a marvelous document.  Yet it is a document few Americans have actually read, even though many speak of it with authoritative certainty.  It is remarkable in the structure – and the underlying concepts – of our collective governance.  It is even more remarkable when one considers it in the light of its time – establishing a unique form of government without precedence and then unheard of throughout the world, yet crafted in only four months of meeting time.  But a most captivating aspect of this document is the very personal, all-too-human stories of the 55 men who went about this work.  Stories of their widely divergent individual opinions, their passion for those beliefs, yet their willingness and ability to reach for a greater, more over-arching unifying goal.  Then the follow-up story of the subsequent cliff-hanging, just-barely adoption of their work by the citizenry.  These stories deserve many retellings, but that is far beyond the scope of this small blog.

We all know from our school civics classes that our Constitution created three branches of government.  The Legislature branch (Congress) was divided into two parts, each defined in extensive detail – a legislature being the principal form of government previously known to the Constitutional creators.  The Executive branch (President) was spelled out next after much debate about what such a role should be, given that it was the first non-royal executive in a world filled with kings wielding near-absolute power.  Lastly established was the Judiciary branch (Supreme and lesser Courts), almost an afterthought about which little was said regarding its intended powers.  Its driving definition was to ensure that judges would be free from an overpowering President or Congress.

Among these three institutions, a whole series of operating conditions and interlocking techniques was instituted to ensure that no branch could operate independently, usurp the powers of another branch, or threaten the freedoms so recently obtain by the blood of the Revolutionary War.  These checks and balance intentionally make for slow decision-making and “inefficient” action by a government serving widely diverse people, but they effectively control the beast that could so easily run out of the control of the citizen population for whom it exists.  Cumbersome, but all very neat and tidy, openly visible and well defined.

Except that 225 years later, the actual reality is that we now have seven branches for our federal government.  With these added four, some are visible, some are not, many operate without restraint or approved “rules of the game” defined and adopted by the citizenry.  The world of governance has changed dramatically since 1789.

Ever since Andrew Jackson’s presidency, the Executive has been the dominate branch, replacing the traditional supremacy of the Legislature.  The vastness of this governmental bureaucracy can be overpowering as it seeks to fulfill an increasing public demand for services.  As a result, administrative procedures and regulations often surpass the intended primacy of legislative laws.  The two branches of Congress have each adopted procedural rules that make a mockery of our first Congress, and turn upside down the fundamental concept of “majority rules.”  The Supreme Court has become simply an extension of the legislative divisions and debate, with a continual series of 5-4 decisions between “liberal” and “conservative” judges – effectively surrendering its intended role as independent arbiters of truth and law, beholden to no political faction.

As messy and tangled up as our Constitutional government may have now become, the bigger threat to our commitment to representative democracy are the four de facto additional branches.  They were never envisioned by the Constitutional creators, yet they wield great (if not greater) power in what government decides and how it operates.

The new 4^th branch is the “political party.”  These institutions showed up pretty quickly after the start of our government, groups of strongly opposing views whose in-fighting drove George Washington to exasperation.  Many political parties have come and gone over the years, often built around issue-specific agendas or charismatic personalities.  But for the last 150 years, the Republican and Democratic parties have dominated, albeit often with contrarian sub-wings (e.g. the old Dixiecrats; the current Tea Party).  Loyalty to Party, voting by Party platform, voting to promote the Party’s political standing and power, now often trumps voting by individual conscience or to fulfill constituent opinions and goals.  A committee chairman of the majority party and from another electoral jurisdiction often has far more influence over my life than does my own elected representative.  Representative democracy loses to selfish gains in political power.

The 5^th branch is the army of paid lobbyists who camp on the doors of Congressional and/or Executive branch offices.  Highly paid, with plenty of campaign funds to distribute (directly or indirectly), they quietly, invisibly and highly effectively dictate what laws, what regulations, will be adopted.  All with a narrow and specific view of self-interest, not public interest, obtaining special favors or exemptions for their sponsors.  Special treatment not available to Mr. & Mrs. Public.  The Supreme Court may have demanded “one person, one vote,” but lobbyists ensure that not all voters count equally.

The 6^th branch is the Communications industry.  Newspapers, magazines, newsletters, cable television news shows, internet news channels, individual blogs, and social media.  An avalanche of words beyond digestibility, more and more served up without factual or intelligent discrimination.  Reporters versus “commentators,” yet neither is bound to balanced perspective or “truth” except maybe by individual choice and personal ethics.  Minor celebrities are given major air time simply to feed the insatiable demand to fill the 24x7 news void, and to maximize revenues.  In the face of this onslaught, citizens are forced to pick their news, and they often pick the news that confirms what they already believe rather than hear the debate that shakes up and educates our deeper understandings.  In this splintering of our news, true information is lost and the emotional appeals of demagogues succeed.  “More” news has not proven to be “better” news.

The 7^th branch is made up of the new political action committees (PACs).  Turned loose financially by the Supreme Court, these shadowy groups now spend virtually unlimited dollars to promote any one-sided cause or candidate that they choose.  Big dollars from a very small number of very rich people.  They fund negative ads that reduce broad, complicated issues to bumper sticker slogans.  They distort our knowing of the pertinent facts of these issues, and distort the conclusions that we draw.  A very select few disproportionally dominate “The Message,” adding little to public decision-making.  So far, to our credit, Americans have generally resisted being bought out by the big money.  Spending levels have not necessarily equated with electoral success.  But can Americans continue to resist these “temptations of the devil”?

We are a long way removed from the Founders’ concept of the citizen-politician who gives to public service and then returns to farm or business.  A long way removed from citizen control of their representatives, our direct connection to representative democracy.  Unfortunately, the very ones empowered to bring Constitutional reform and definition to these four additional branches of government are these seven branches themselves, each of whom has have no interest in reducing their role and influence (versus expanding it!).  Yet if not controlled, it is an influence that is far greater than the three branches our Constitution originally established.  If we as citizens are to effectively change this unchartered and unauthorized form of restructured government – and change it we must – it starts with full recognition and acceptance of the reality of what our form of government has actually become.  And it is a form that we were not taught in that civics class of long ago.

© 2013 Randy Bell                 www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Governing On The Precipice

How many times can one walk to the extreme edge of the cliff before finally falling off?  And when one thusly falls, is it an “accident” of unforeseen outcomes or is it a suicide step?  Such are the questions raised about the recent absurd government shutdown and debt ceiling near default on our financial (and moral) obligations.

Mercifully, this craziness did finally come to a protracted end.  But only after the drama and stage characters burned themselves out from their own intensity.  The episode became a farcical comedy whereby the nation with the biggest economy in the world and the most powerful military, who was the creator of modern democracy, managed to look like a foolish 2^nd- or 3^rd-rate developing country in chaos.  There were a lot of speeches, a lot of maneuvering, a lot of bravado grandstanding.  But in the end, virtually nothing tangible was achieved except our own humiliation.  The losers were bodies piled atop each other all over Washington.  Some examples:

1.     The American Economy: By some estimates, around $24B was pulled out of the economy at the very time when recovery from the 2008 Wall Street debacle was slowly showing good promise.  So much stupidity from the party that has been preaching that business and the economy is supposedly priority #1.

2.     Job Improvement:  We are still hurting badly from the number of people unemployed.  So what did Congress do?  It threw almost a million government employees involuntarily out of work, and companies froze hiring due to the uncertainty of our future economic direction.

3.     Congress: Its approval rating now stands at less than 10%.  Congress’ job is to legislate, but virtually no legislation is being passed.  Which is why 2/3rds of the population now believes ALL Congresspersons should be thrown out of their office – including their own representatives (a first!).

4.     Majority Rules: One of our most basic rules of governance is that a simple majority rules.  The Senate gave away that principle a decade ago when virtually every decision became subject to a filibuster requiring a 60% majority vote.  Now the House has joined into that anti-democratic process with its own rule that nothing can be brought to a vote unless a majority of the controlling party in power approves.  Which means that 115 Republicans (only 27% of the full House) effectively controls the legislative agenda – except that in reality it only took around 50 Tea Partiers (11% of the full House) to intimidate the other 181 Republicans out of fear of losing their next primary campaign to a further-Rightist.

5.     Business Republicans: Long the stalwart backers of the Republican Party, they were sent reeling by this shutdown and threat of insolvency.  Lower government costs (and thereby taxes) equals less income for government contractors.  A debt default would send financial markets and American equity into free-fall.  Not what any business leader wants.  These once old friends of Congressional Republicans are calling for sanity, refusing to return Congressional phone calls, and pulling their financial backing and promising to redirect it to less extreme future candidates.

6.     The American People: Real people were hurt by this shutdown: public/private employees out of work; vacation-goers to national facilities; government employees trying to pay their mortgage; poor people trying to put food on the table; children locked out of Headstart programs; university research scientists whose work stopped; parents trying to protect their families from unhealthy products; small business owners scraping by.  It is a long list of real people who suffered real harm.  All for no necessary reason, certainly not from their own doing.

Yet to whom Lee Terry (R-NE) said when asked  if he would refuse his salary during the shutdown he voted for, “I’ve got a nice house and kid in college, and I’ll tell you we cannot handle it.  Giving away our paycheck …is just not going to fly.”  And Steve Pearce (R-NM) recommended that the newly unemployed just “call your bank and get a short-term loan to tide you through.”  Pearce has been rated as the 46^th-richest member of Congress.

7.     International Leadership:  We who serve as the economic backbone and force for stability in the world, have frightened the world by appearing as the least stable of all.  The damage may prove irreparable.

8.     The Tea Party: In the aftermath of this debacle, these extremists on the far Right tried to put on a game face, talking about “sticking to their principles” and “making a statement.”  But the bottom line is that the Tea Party lost everything.  Defunding Obamacare – ostensibly the reason for this financial attack – was neither altered nor defunded in any way.  No government spending was reduced.  No practical gameplan for success or “exist strategy” ever existed.  They managed to make the Speaker of the House look like a non-leader essentially held under “House arrest.”  Ted Cruz will raise big bucks for his campaign committee; but he has eliminated himself from any peer Republican support or future national leadership role.  Even the often unfathomable televangelist Pat Robertson said “The Republicans have got to wave the white flag and say ‘We fought the good fight, now it’s over.’  They cannot shut the government down and then bring about a default ... It would be devastating economically to every human being.”

9.     Principles: Whatever one’s beliefs may be, at least own them, take responsibility for them, and be consistent about them in your public statements and actions.  But this episode was a poster-child for hypocrisy.  Rightists who refused to compromise or negotiate for four months now argued that the shutdown was caused by the President/Senate Democrats not compromising.  Those who shut down the government one day were photo-opting at the World War II Memorial the next day berating park rangers who had appropriately shut down the facility.  What did Congresspersons think was going to happen when they cut off government funding?  In the end these numerous shallow ploys did not fool the American people.  Which is why the majority of Americans blamed the shutdown on Republicans.

The long list of “losers” goes beyond just these.  Some say Obama “won” because he got everything he wanted: a clean funding resolution; a raised debt ceiling; an unchanged Obamacare program.  An incredulous Representative Peter King (R-NY) described the outcome by saying “This Party is going nuts … After shutting down the government for 2½ weeks, laying off 800,000 people, all the damaged we caused, all we would end up doing was taking away health insurance from congressional employees.  That’s it?  That’s what you go to war for?  That’s what we shut down the United States government for?”

 

But what really won was our Constitution, a reaffirmation of our Founders’ wisdom.  They had feared that this new thing called “democracy” run by “the People” could open the way to anarchy by “the masses.”  Hence all the checks and balances built into that Constitution to prevent momentary mass hysteria and minority demagogues from pushing the government into extremes – just as this shutdown/debt-ceiling hysteria exemplified.  By the refusal to allow the far Right to dictate our future by their deplorable conduct, these protections of the Constitution worked as intended.  That is the only good takeaway from this whole episode.

 

Three months from now, the same deadlines will reappear; will we repeat this same irrationality?  The Tea-Partiers will likely be unchanged and unrepentant; zealots do not change their views or their tactics given their own self-righteousness along with their arrogance.  The real question is whether moderate, rational Republicans will have the courage to stand up and say “enough” to these zealots, reject their extremism, and return the Republican Party to its responsible, conservative basis.

 

Representative Charles Boustany (R-LA) observed about his Party and the Tea Partiers, “There are members with a different agenda.  And I am not sure that they are Republicans and I’m not sure they’re conservative.”  Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) said, “The decision to shut down the government has been viewed, rightfully, by the American people as irresponsible governing.”  But then again, that same Richard Burr also said, “I'm not as concerned as the President is on the debt ceiling, because the only people buying our bonds right now is the Federal Reserve.  So it's like scaring ourselves."  All conveniently ignoring the truth that nearly $6 trillion – almost half of outstanding debt held by the public – is owned by foreign governments.

 

We will have to see where the “Republican” brand goes.  We will have to see if public memories last until November 2014.  So far, I am skeptical and not hopeful.  I hope I am wrong on this one.

 

“This country is in very hard times, there’s no question about it.  But we’ll dig ourselves out of it once again if we can stop yelling at each other for ½ hour.”  (Garrison Keilor)

 

© 2013  Randy Bell

Painting With A Broad Brush

Watching the current chaos in Washington is both maddeningly frustrating yet a captivating observation of our lives in contemporary America.  We see both the good and the bad of our human character on full display.  The blogosphere and social media pages have been filled with people’s commentary about the government shutdown and our impending bankruptcy.  Some of that commentary has been genuine and thoughtful in expressing various beliefs and perceptions, regardless of one’s political positions.  But some has been our worst expressions reflecting our very deeply divided country, serving no other purpose but to just add one more brick to that growing wall that divides us.

A particularly odious recent posting that made me wince was a young writer who chose to complain about the beneficiaries of “entitlement programs,” railing against such citizens as the homeless, Medicaid recipients, and food stamp grocery buyers.  The supposed “solution” to this handout environment that she feels serves as a drag on our culture, economy and government is simply for those people to just “get a job.”  It is an opinion/solution that conveniently ignores the reality of all the jobs that no longer exist due to the structural changes in our economy (decrease in manufacturing; increase in technology and financial services); the jobs shipped overseas; the corporations sitting on their abundant cash and not hiring due to the uncertainty of the chaos in Washington.  There are many reasons why we have almost 8% unemployment.

Nevertheless, I can somewhat personally relate to people who have that attitude and point of view.  40 years ago after my separation from my first wife, I found myself living in downtown Boston in a small 1-room basement apartment with the bathroom located across the hall.  Money was very scarce at that point in time, even though I was still employed (i.e. one of what we now call the “working poor”).  It was all quite a comedown from owning my 3-bedroom ranch house in the outer suburbs.  On one of my monthly grocery shopping expeditions, I found myself behind a person unloading her cart for checkout.  Item after item of fresh fruits and vegetables, orange juice, meats, and yes snacks and deserts, came out of that cart.  All items nowhere to be seen in my cart.  And when it came time to pay, she handed over a package of food stamps along with some cash.  Over the next several days in the retelling of this incident to friends, I was still angry and frustrated by her “entitlement” while I went under-nourished in spite of holding a fulltime job.

It was only later that, with time, patience, maturity and no doubt with God’s good grace and assistance, I was gradually able to understand the real reason for my anger at that unknown shopper.  Making one set of life choices had given me a wonderful family and a “successful” financial and social life in suburban America.  Yet it was in my making another set of life choices that I now found myself in that basement apartment.  I knew my personal story.  But I had no idea what that shopper’s personal story was, why those food stamps were in her purse and not equally in my billfold.  The truth behind my anger was that she had exposed my own vulnerabilities; my anger was at myself.  She had made me confront my own life’s decisions, and laid bare the starkness of my current end result.  As most all religions teach us, no life should be defined by comparisons of what others have or do not have.  The only definition that matters is the one we define for our own self, and the spiritual relationships we bring to it.

Are there cheaters who game the food stamp program (and other such assistance programs) and take “unfair” advantage of it?  Of course.  And they should be identified and prosecuted fully.  There will always be some 5% or more of people in any grouping who will act unethically if not illegally.  Just as there are 5+% of doctors and medical service providers who collude to defraud Medicare by creating false patients or delivering false services.  Or 5+% of businesspersons who stuff inappropriate ingredients into their products.  Or 5+% of charity or religious figures who skim donations into their personal pockets.  Or 5+% of Wall Street financiers who deceived the public through risky investments and bad mortgages, but still walk around in their $1000 suits and live in multi-million dollar homes.  Or 5+% of public servants and politicians who accept bribes and payoffs to give “special favors” and preferential treatment to rich donors.  In truth, there is always “the 5%” in any group looking to defraud others.  And that 5%  knows no boundaries of race, color, gender, religion, economic status, or any other such subgroupings.

When a person (like this young writer) says broadly disparaging things about segments of our community, after 40 years I continue to ask the same question of that person: have you ever personally met a Muslim, Jew or Catholic that you have so universally maligned?  Have you ever spent a day together with a limited-education coal miner in Appalachia?  Have you ever talked directly to an urban-poor African-American mother and learned her personal story and particular circumstances?  Have you ever really LISTENED to a homeless person or a person on unemployment benefits rather than just talking constantly TO them?  Have you ever reached out to find a human face of a homosexual man or woman?  Ultimately, what do you truly know about “those people” you are so resentful or scared of?

It is easy for us to demonize groups of people who we do not personally know, especially when that demonizing comes from ignorance, anger or our own arrogance.  About people whose circumstances we do not understand.  Whose way of being is completely outside our own experience.  It is much harder to do that when we know their names, see their faces, and have a real listening conversation with them.

When we paint people with a wide, inexact brush, we color all people as the same even though they are not.  Even though we know we ourselves are not all the same as others.  Such painting is not only disrespectful of others, but additionally has another bad consequence: the brush also drops paint on us, and thereby also colors us into something more unrecognizable with each stroke.  Colors us as something we might be horrified to see if we looked into a mirror after we finished our painting.  We may think we are just painting a picture of other human beings.  In fact, we are painting a very revealing self-portrait of our own true inner being.  And sometimes that portrait is not a very pretty picture.

“The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about.”  (Wayne Dyer)

© 2013   Randy Bell