Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

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

Horrific

In the wake of yet another school shooting–this time, the 27 dead included many young children–I will simply cite some facts posted by Ezra Klein:

Mother Jones has tracked and mapped every shooting spree in the last three decades. “Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii,” they found. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally….

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states….

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive.

Comments

A Thought Experiment

Sometimes, it’s useful to step outside our usual political debates about programs and policies, about this or that candidate or pundit or official, and think a bit about a more basic question–perhaps the most basic question facing any society: how should we live together?

In my graduate Law and Public Affairs class, we spend a semester considering the American answer to that question. We discuss the effect of Enlightenment philosophy on our understanding of the role of the state, we examine the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the constraints those documents impose on policy formation, and we take a closer look at current policy debates through that lens. Well and good–the stated purpose of the class is to give public affairs students an appreciation of the myriad ways our legal system shapes our policies.

But every so often, I give an exam with multiple questions from which students can choose (“write an essay on one of the following questions…”), and among the choices, I include one that poses the following scenario:  Earth has been destroyed in WWIII. You and a few thousand other inhabitants, representing a cross-section of nationalities, cultures, races and religions, have escaped to an M-Class planet. (I’m a Star Trek fan. Sue me.) Create a new government.

The question instructs students to identify the values they will privilege, the measures they will take to ensure stability, etc.

The point of the question is to shake students’ tendency to think that the world they inhabit is the only world possible; to get them to question structures and processes they take for granted, and to think about more basic questions. Typically, those who choose to answer my “science fiction” question, rather than the more mundane alternatives (immigration, taxation, environmental issues, etc.) are the better students, although even among them there are plenty who simply fashion their new world government after that of the U.S.,who simply  replicate the world they inhabit, albeit with minor changes. (Most would get rid of the electoral college, for example.) Over the years, however, I have gotten some truly inspired answers–funny, thoughtful, creative approaches to that fundamental question of how humans should construct our social order.

The answer someone gives to that question is a pretty good clue to what they truly value–not to mention to their ability to understand what can and cannot be expected to work in a world composed of real, diverse and quarrelsome humans.

What “new world order” would you create, if you had the chance?

Comments