Public Policy and Governance – Page 305

What We Don’t Know and How It Hurts Us

Remember the old saying, “what you don’t know can’t hurt you”? Unlike a lot of folk adages, it’s wrong. Very wrong.

A lot of folks–especially younger people–shrug off the suggestion that they need to follow what our political class is doing. They have lives to live, livings to earn, children to raise, parties to attend. Let the politicians tend to governing.

This morning’s New York Times–buttressed by an article from the Journal of the American Medical Association–offers a prime example of why it’s important to keep tabs on Congressional shenanigans.

In the wake of the most recent horrendous shootings, of children in Connecticut and firefighters in New York, fingers have been pointed at the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Explosives. ATF is theoretically an agency with the authority to thwart gun violence. But it has been without a permanent director for six years, thanks to the persistent efforts of Republicans in Congress to block any and all Obama appointments. Furthermore, it is hampered by laws lobbied for by the NRA and dutifully passed by Congress. As the Times notes,

Under current laws the bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions. So while detectives on television tap a serial number into a computer and instantly identify the buyer of a firearm, the reality could not be more different.

So–unlike many countries–the U.S. doesn’t have a gun registry database. The NRA thinks such information would “pose a threat to the Second Amendment.”

In fact, the NRA evidently thinks that information would pose a threat to their version of the Second Amendment.

A former student who went on to get his doctorate in medical informatics sent me a recent Viewpoint from JAMA, the Journal of the AMA. After detailing several of the most recent mass shootings, and noting that in the U.S. more than 31,000 citizens die annually from firearms, the authors note research findings that ready access to guns in the home “increases, rather than reduces” a family’s risk of homicide in the home. Then they make their main point:

The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC. Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget–precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year.

The funding was restored in joint conference committee, but only on condition that it be earmarked for traumatic brain injury. And the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Similar language has been added to funding for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, after a research study was funded by that agency to determine whether carrying a gun increased or decreased the risk of firearm assault. The article went on to detail similar restrictions on other agencies.

A couple of rhetorical question: why doesn’t the NRA want the American public to have good information about gun violence? and why does a majority of Congress do its bidding?

A not-so-rhetorical question: when will citizens of this country say “enough!”

Comments

The Art of Governing

Yesterday, I went to see the movie Les Miserables. (The theater was full–evidently, going to the movies on Christmas isn’t just a Jewish tradition.)

Les Miz is one of our favorites, and my husband and I were prepared to be critical of the movie version. While we had some quibbles, it was very good; the production made use of the medium to do things that can’t be done on a live stage. As we compared the constraints of the two art forms, stage and film, it was hard not to compare the state of the arts with the state of the state, the state of government–especially since the storyline focused on the French revolution and its aftermath. (Talk about your 99%…..)

There’s certainly a lot of trash being peddled as art these days, but it would be hard to argue that the arts are not vibrant, or that the arts community is not robust. Even here in Indianapolis, hardly a mecca for high art, we have a robust and growing arts culture. Theater, visual arts, dance, literature….the explosion of galleries, theaters and other arts venues over the past 25 years or so has been dramatic. And Indy’s experience has been mirrored in cities around the country. Indeed, the arts are no longer simply a human pleasure; they have become an important economic driver (more important economically, I’m told, than sports).

Both the production and the enjoyment of the arts requires imagination and an appreciation of the complexity of human nature and experience. And audiences for the arts have grown exponentially. Which leads me to a question: why have we not seen a similar growth in the maturity and depth of those practicing that ancient art we call statecraft? We see those folks in business and in our burgeoning nonprofit sector–why are there so few in the public sector?

Why do we continue to elect cardboard cutouts who seem able only to approach the art of governing with trite, one-dimensional slogans rather than thoughtful analyses and innovative proposals?

What have we done to turn talented people away from politics and civic engagement? And what can we do to lure them back to the practice of the ancient and important art of government?

Comments

Angry, Frightened and Armed

Several people have asked me why I haven’t blogged about the massacre in Connecticut, or about creepy Wayne LaPierre’s press conference. There are two reasons: first, plenty of other people have commented, analyzed and basically said anything I might have said. And second, what’s the point?

One of the saddest aspects of our contemporary politics is the utter lack of dialogue. We are all preaching to our own choirs. If the NRA’s press statement (hard to call something a press conference when the press isn’t allowed to ask any questions) proved anything, it is that the massacre hasn’t changed that. We are all invested in our own points of view–I certainly am–and for some issues, that investment makes it impossible to understand the opposing perspective.

I know it is fashionable to bewail this state of affairs and to lecture anyone within earshot about the virtues of “going halfway,” of making the effort to see the perspective of the other. And there are definitely areas where extremists on both sides of the ideological spectrum need to get over themselves and do just that. But let’s be honest: right now, there are some positions that reasonable people ought not engage, or take seriously.

Arming America is one of them.

I understand that there are a lot of people–make that a lot of white guys, mostly middle-aged and older–who are angry because life hasn’t turned out the way they thought it would. There are a lot of people who are frightened and disoriented by the pace of change. When President Obama made his “gaffe” about those people clinging to their guns and religions, the remark was politically damaging, but no less true. And those people are not going to enter into a conversation about what reasonable restrictions on gun ownership might look like.

Fortunately, not all armed Americans are fanatics. In fact, if polls are to be believed, most members of the NRA do not inhabit LaPierre’s alternate universe. There are plenty of gun owners who do favor background checks, who agree that American sportsmen do not need Uzis and assault weapons capable of mowing down dozens of people without reloading. Those are the people we should seek out; the people we can and should talk to.

The others–the ones screaming that Obama is coming for their guns, the ones stocking up on ammunition, the ones demanding that we arm teachers or post armed guards at every classroom door–are quite simply beyond the ability to reason.

Comments

Cliff Notes

Unbelievable.

I actually feel sorry for John Boehner. He presides over a Caucus that isn’t simply stubborn or contentious–thanks to its most ideological members, it is simply ungovernable. These members are unwilling to move an inch for the good of the country or even their own party. It’s stunning.

What I don’t get is the fanatical refusal to raise taxes even a small amount for even a few of the very richest Americans. Boehner’s “Plan B”–which crashed and burned thanks to that refusal–allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire only for those making more than a million dollars a year. Protecting those few Americans from a slight raise in the marginal rate was evidently so important to the Tea Party fanatics that they were willing to knock the props from under their own party’s leader and reinforce a growing public perception that the GOP has become far too extreme. (A recent poll found that 52% of Americans hold that view of the party–and that was before this latest embarrassment.)

Presumably, Boehner’s inability to get what he wanted from his caucus will strengthen the President’s hand as the fiscal “cliff” nears, although it’s increasingly difficult to predict anything in the Never Never Land that is Washington, D.C. The only thing that seems certain is that we’ve elected a lot of people who haven’t the faintest idea what governing is all about.

If I could explain why they are willing to go down with the ship rather than raise taxes on anyone, I’d be delighted to share that explanation in this space, but I can’t. I’m baffled.

Comments

This Is Why We Can’t Talk To Each Other Anymore….

Have we gotten to the point where we can’t have an honest political discussion any more?

I’ve used this blog to criticize the crazies (Gail Collins refers to them as ‘rabid ferrets in today’s column) who currently control the GOP. Today, I’m giving equal time to the lefties who characterize any proposed change to social programs as “cuts” to be fought tooth and nail.

As part of the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, President Obama has signaled a willingness to change the formula by which Social Security cost-of-living raises are calculated. In the wake of that suggestion, my inbox has been filled with hysterical warnings about imminent poverty for the elderly, recriminations for the administration for its willingness to “cut benefits,” and calls for Action with a capital A. Don’t bother to read the fine print. Sign this petition! Send this message!

This knee-jerk reaction is no different from that of the right-wing NRA types who equate restrictions on assault weapons with the imminent “confiscation of our guns.”

Can we stipulate that these issues are more complicated than these hysterical charges and counter-charges suggest? For once, can we have an adult conversation about the pros and cons of a suggested policy change?

A change in the formula used for calculating raises is not a cut–at least, not as that word is understood by most sentient humans. That doesn’t mean that there may not be undesirable side-effects from the proposed change, but if those undesirable side-effects exist, they should be specified and discussed. If the proposed change will operate to harm disadvantaged populations, we should tweak the formula to avoid those consequences. Screaming that the sky will fall if XYZ occurs is rarely a prelude to rational policy debate.

The left justifiably criticizes the Tea Party ideologues for their refusal even to consider alternatives to their positions. That intransigence–that refusal to acknowledge nuance and complexity–is no more attractive or helpful when it comes from the left.

Comments