Marching Boldly Into ... The Past

In a number of state legislatures, there has been a strong effort to reverse previous years of social legislation.  We see this especially true in states like Arizona, Kansas, and increasingly North Carolina, along with a smattering of other southern/plains states on particular issues.  Certainly there are some longstanding ideas that may need to be reassessed, reset, or rethought.  But is a wholesale casting out of this legacy legislation really smart?

We see these reversal movements focusing on topics such as opposition to gay/lesbian rights and marriage; access to voting; the state’s role regarding women’s health; equal legal rights and pay for women in the workplace; and support programs for those in financial jeopardy.  In the push to undo many of the changes made over the last 60 years regarding these issues, one has a sense that the goal is a nostalgic return to an America of long ago.  Not quite “The Waltons,” but more of a “Leave-It-To-Beaver” America transported to the great rural farmlands of America.  But one has to wonder, did any of these legislators ever study American History in high school as my classmates and I did?  Because much of the reverse legislation being proposed does not quite jell with the post-World War II America I lived through.  It may come as a shock to some, but the Beaver’s world was not real.  Ever.  A simpler time – yes, in many ways.  But an idyllic and fair time – no, also in many ways.

It was a time when African-American demand for long-promised civil rights broke wide open, unable to be contained after 300 years of waiting.  In my hometown in western Arkansas, I remember Blacks being restricted to the back of the buses; sitting in their own “reserved” 2^nd balcony at the movies; attending separate, inferior schools that never led to any college; consigned to living in the tiny, rickety-framed houses in the “Negro section” of town.  There were the “Whites Only” signs in public facilities and buildings that limited access; the polling places that were effectively closed to Blacks through a variety of deceptive ruses encoded in law.  A large Black population lived in our midst; yet the only two I knew personally were Charlotte, hired as a maid for our extended family, and Roy who did our yard work.  Young White children were taught that this was simply the way Life was; our normalcy.

The civil rights demonstrations grew, and so did White resistance to them, often with increasing violence – the murders, the bombings, the bus burnings, the fire hoses, the beatings, the federal troops required so that Black children could enter a “white” school.  I remember clearly the twisted, angry look I received from a White woman when I, by reflex, respectfully held the door open so that an elderly Black woman could enter the hospital ahead of me.  And the Black family sitting alone in the dead center of a restaurant, the surrounding tables conspicuously empty, with all of the White families blatantly seated in booths along the surrounding walls; not a word spoken.  This was after young Black men had been turned away from a public lunch counter because “calling them ‘equals’ and serving them as anyone else was [supposedly] contrary to one’s ‘religious views’ which prohibited intermixing the races” (not unlike the current misguided rationale of legislators in Arizona regarding gay couples).  It took a Supreme Court decision to end the laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

I remember as a teenager asking my mother why the family of a good friend, his father a business client of my father, did not belong to the town’s country club.  Her answer was apologetic but straight-forward: “They’re Jewish.”  I never went back to that country club again, except to attend my brother’s wedding reception.  (I pray that today that rule has now been eliminated.)  All public prayers in schools and public meetings ended with “In Jesus’ name we pray,” unconcerned about who might be the “we” actually in the audience.

In history class, the internment of thousands of Japanese-American citizens during World War II was never mentioned.  Regarding Native-Americans, our history lessons acknowledged the fact of the Cherokee’s “Trail of Tears” without any discussion as to its real meaning or impact; Custer’s “heroic” Last Stand was celebrated as an example of Indian savagery, never mentioning all the treaties broken by the White settlers and their governments.  The “melting pot” of European immigration gave noble purpose to America’s story; the “Irish Need Not Apply” signs and the Italian big-city ghettos did not make it into print.  Yet the noble cause of Southern secession was given full play, “Lest we forget.”  History was what the school boards told us it was.

In the 1950s, as a practical matter my mother had virtually no legal rights or status on her own without a father/husband’s endorsement.  Divorce was rare; domestic violence never talked about; “You made your bed, now sleep in it” was the prevailing social attitude.  After my first wife and I divorced, I had to sign a written document certifying that she had been an active partner in the use of our jointly-named credit; otherwise she would not be able to get any credit in her own single name.  (I still have a copy of that letter to remind me of its inanity.)  Yet it was only 10 years ago that my then-partner, when she was looking to buy a car, was told to “go home and come back with ‘your man’ and then we can talk.”  Needless to say, that salesman lost that commission.

Women’s career choices back then were minimal: e.g. nurse, teacher, office assistant, garment worker, phone operator, maybe real estate salesperson – if she was “allowed” to work at all.  A “woman cop” was actually only a parking meter collector.  They were, conveniently enough, all lower-paying jobs – even if she was able to get “a man’s work.”  Today’s women have virtually any career path open to them, but pay and advancement often still reflect that 1950’s mentality.

At least back then the State mercifully stayed out of prescribing women’s health and treatment.  Those decisions were left fully to the doctors (who back then were actually self-employed) and their patients.  Except that it took another Supreme Court decision to allow women to have access to “the pill” – a new form of birth control that started a sexual / economic / societal revolution.  One exception was abortion.  It was officially illegal in many states.  But, like the earlier attempted legal prohibition against alcoholic drink, it did not stop the practice, it just moved abortion underground into other jurisdictions or to back alley “fixers” whose work threatened women’s health and lives.  None of the women I have personally known who have had abortions did so thoughtlessly and casually.  Unwed motherhood was a serious stigma with major social consequences nearly unimaginable today.

These are merely selected examples from a long list of our true past realities.  Going back to “the good ol’ days?”  No thanks.  Not for me.  Been there, lived that.  A lot of good experiences in those times, but they are past.  A lot of regrettable experiences in those times, but we have thankfully made many corrections to take us forward.  Corrections not yet finished.  Corrections easily undone if we should slip back into old human habits.

We must always be on guard for humankind’s continual inclination to return to old distorted memories; it is the familiarity of the past versus the uncertain cloudiness of the future.  But there were significant reasons that changes were made in America 50 years ago.  We should not be tempted to believe that those reasons simply no longer exist.  We can fine tune our direction, make needed adjustments in our course.  But no U-turns are allowed on this road.  Too many have worked too hard to get us to here.  Our map is in the history books.

“It may be true that the law cannot change the heart.
But it can restrain the heartless.”

(Martin Luther King, Jr.)

©  2014   Randy Bell

 

Political Reflection

Failure can be a wonderful thing.  Even though in the short term the admitting of it, and the acceptance of it, can be cruelly painful.  The pain may be short-term, but what we do with that failure will stay with us a very long time.  The critical factor is reflection.  Do I lower my embittered head and just bulldoze my way forward, determined to somehow prove myself right in some future manner?  Or do I learn some very valuable lessons from this experience of failure to better guide my future?  (“I have constructed 3,000 different theories in connection with the electric light … Yet only in two cases did my experiments prove the truth of my theory.” – Thomas Edison)

In November 2012, Republican Mitt Romney lost the presidential election.  Handily.  It was an election that many confidently expected him to win, an election in which most all historical markers virtually guaranteed his victory.  But he failed.  Across the Republican Party in the ensuing months, the excuses, the finger-pointing, the blaming, the volume of calls for a change of direction – or no change of direction – hit the news media.  Mr. Romney wasn’t conservative enough; he was too conservative for the general election.  The Republican political messages were fine; the messages were all wrong.  The Party was not inclusive enough; the Party needs to be loyal to its principles and its voting base.  The Party fielded self-destructive candidates; the Party abandoned its best candidates.  Perhaps the most insightful analysis came from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who said, “We have to stop being the stupid Party.  We have to stop saying stupid things.”  Continually shooting yourself in the foot is, in fact, pretty stupid.

In response to all this politician and commentator analysis, the Republican National Committee commissioned a formal in-house study specifically to assess what happened and recommend changes to improve Republican electoral outcomes.  The resulting report, entitled “Growth & Opportunity Project,” was released with the usual fanfare in March, 2013.  In a nutshell, the report called for such things as immigration reform to better appeal to Hispanics, else “our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only” – important, given that the Republican base of older, white males is, in fact, shrinking.  It called for coming together, saying “Republican organizations need to understand that all of this will work better if they all participate in these discussions and play their respective roles” – also important, given the bitter split between Tea Party and “moderate” (i.e. not-as-far-to-the-right) Republicans, and the dominating influence of Super-PACs, conservative think tanks and corporate lobbyists.

The report went on to call for fewer primary debates – potentially pulling the rug out from potential lower-funded candidates without the deep funding pockets needed to generate exposure.  More targeted outreach to women (“they are not a ‘coalition’; they represent more than half of the voting population in the country, and our inability to win their votes is losing us elections”); more “mutually respectful” conversations with African-Americans; more receptivity to gays and lesbians (“for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be”).  Finally, the report called for some “populist” support, saying “we should speak out when CEOs receive tens of millions of dollars in retirement packages but middle-class workers have not had a meaningful raise in years.”

Lots of good ideas and frank admissions, suggesting some meaningful reflection going on.  But one year later we should ask, “how’s that working out for you?”

Immigration reform?  Barely passed the Senate, and only with extravagant funding for a small army to close the border with Mexico; dead in the House.  Deep opposition to gays and lesbians remains an almost universal knee-jerk response, so no welcoming “big tent” there.  For women, there are continued new “back door” laws to shut down abortion services, and now Mike Huckabee is leading opposition even to contraception prescriptions (women’s right to “the pill” was mandated by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago); plus near-unanimous negative votes against “equal pay” laws and renewal of the Violence Against Women law.

Then there is the full-scale attack on the rights and mechanisms to vote; the cynical message appears to be that if you cannot win on the strength of your ideas and candidates, then just change the rules on who can vote.  (The Supreme Court’s 1-person/1-vote rule from forty years ago is still in effect, and the “poll tax” – e.g. our modern day equivalent by a voter ID – was also outlawed 50 years ago.)  As far as middle-class/populist appeal, Republicans have reduced food stamps, cut extending unemployment benefits, and in seeming indifference to the middle-class and small business person, shut down the federal government provoking a significant setback to our national economy.  Finally, as far as Republicans “working together,” the Party remains in civil war from both internal and external forces.  One side is focused on winning elections; the other side is focused on ideological purity regardless of the outcome.  It is a war with no end in sight.

The result is that – no surprise – “Growth & Opportunity Project” is yet another strategic plan with no support making no impactful change.  Instead, actions have cemented a view among many Independents that Republicans want to turn back the clock 50 years on social issues, and cut finances to the poor and middle-class while subsidizing the rich and protecting corporate America.  (Requiring the rich to pay at least as much percentage taxes is not “anti-capitalism income redistribution” as some claim; it is “fairness distribution.”)

And how did focus groups around the country describe the Party?  The report itself states, "Asked to describe Republicans, they said that the Party is 'scary,' 'narrow minded,' and 'out of touch' and that we were a Party of 'stuffy old men.'  This is consistent with the findings of other post-election surveys."  Being simply “the Party of No” is not a way to attract an American public looking for problems to be solved; people who sound perpetually angry rarely make even good ideas seem attractive.  “To succeed, we have to be the party of change … and we have to be the party of solutions.”  (Bobby Jindal, once again.)

Where will the Party go with its internal dynamics?  Attention is predominately focused on capturing the Senate in 2014.  It may well happen.  But there is another primary season coming, which will pull incumbent Republican candidates even further right against Tea Party opponents.  Who the resulting candidates will be, and how well they will be positioned for the fall general election, is highly unknown at this point.  For those who survive the primaries, their best hope then will the Democrats’ usual ineptitude at turning out their base in off-year elections.  For in November, it is all about turnout, and Republicans have done best in off-years when zealot partisans rule the day.  Nothing is assured either way.

And 2016?  The Tea Party right-wing will not be denied.  It will dominate the Party, and will insist on its day in the sun with a candidate solidly from their ranks.  Their True Believer Candidate will carry the banner confidently into the 2016 general election.  But when the public gets a close look at what that agenda really means, means to them personally, the candidate and the movement will be trounced at the polls – almost no matter who the Democratic candidate is.  Then experienced Congresspersons will take back this co-opted Republican Party, correct its course back to just right-of-center, and the nation will benefit once again from having a true 2-party system that can rediscover how to govern.

It is a replaying of the 1964 election – when extremism in the Republican Party won the nomination and lost the election (in spite of fielding a principled and worthy candidate), and conservatism subsequently found truer reasonable voices.  You heard it here first.  1964.  It is coming back again.

©  2014   Randy Bell

 

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