Category Archives: Random Blogging

A Question

Watching the news–and what passes for news–it’s hard not to wonder whether we’ve stumbled into an alternate university. The GOP is once again threatening to shut down the government, this time, apparently, over their insistence that funds spent for disaster relief be offset by other budget cuts. We still hear politicians insist that “austerity” will create jobs–despite a broad consensus among economists to the contrary, and despite the last jobs report which showed that private sector hiring gains were entirely offset by government layoffs.

You would think that the people who are trumpeting the need for cost reductions might be looking at long-standing boondoggles and expensive programs that are demonstrably failing to achieve their goals. I’ve written before about the monumentally expensive failure that is the drug war. Senator Lugar has long advocated cuts to agricultural subsidies (I’d start with the sugar subsidy that benefits a few well-connected producers while increasing costs to consumers)–there are plenty of places where we really could make significant cuts without damaging our already threadbare social safety net. (We might consider invading fewer countries…)

And I won’t even try to comprehend the mind-set that insists that “shared” sacrifices are those that fall exclusively on the people most likely to be hurt by them, so that millionaires and billionaires can be protected from returning to the historically low rates during the Clinton Administration. If Congress really believes that protecting millionaires’ pocketbooks leads to job creation, that they are protecting people who will invest in new jobs, why not raise their rates, but give them a generous tax credit for every job they create?

I could go on, but so could most of you reading this. We seem to live in a world where logic based upon credible information has become a very rare commodity.

So here is my question: what should reasonable people living in an unreasonable age do?

Comments

And Now For Something Different……

A couple of old friends who read this blog have expressed surprise that I seem so gloomy (I’ve always been an optimist–not a Dr. Pangloss, but a believer in the common sense and good will of most people). So today I’m going to focus on one of the many good things that are happening around the world, despite our toxic politics.

While governments around the globe continue to dither about environmental policies, nonprofits are introducing bold new techniques that will not only ameliorate environmental degradation, but will cut the costs of delivering services in poor countries and neighborhoods. I found this one particularly impressive.

Now if we could just be that innovative in reforming our politics……..

Age and Perspective

One of the (very few) benefits of growing old is that you gain perspective. Sometimes, that also leads to a modicum of wisdom, sometimes not–but it does mean that one’s frame of reference is larger and longer. To use a very common example, you can’t truly appreciate how dramatically the internet has changed society if you were born after the invention of the world wide web.

This morning’s Paul Krugman column reminded me again that those of us born in the mid-twentieth century have a vantage point to assess political change that younger folks don’t have.

My students are frequently aghast when they learn that I was a Republican for most of my life–that I even ran for Congress as a fairly conservative Republican, and won a primary. But as Krugman points out, and as I try to explain to my students, the positions that made me “conservative” in 1980 make me a pinko/socialist/liberal today. Most of my students grew up in an environment where conservative Republicans reject evolution and the science of climate change, talk a lot about fiscal prudence, but practice “borrow and spend” economic policies, and are totally without compassion for the less fortunate. The only Republicans they’ve known are those who preach limited government while insisting on their right to control women’s reproduction and their right to discriminate against gays. They are shocked to learn that I was pro-choice and pro-gay rights and still was able to win a GOP primary.

Krugman explains the change with his usual clarity, beginning with the example of the Tea Party’s “let ’em die” eruption at the recent GOP Presidential debate:

“In the past, conservatives accepted the need for a government-provided safety net on humanitarian grounds. Don’t take it from me, take it from Friedrich Hayek, the conservative intellectual hero, who specifically declared in “The Road to Serfdom” his support for “a comprehensive system of social insurance” to protect citizens against “the common hazards of life,” and singled out health in particular.

Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits — and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts.

Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base.

And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the “common hazards of life” through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.”

What Krugman fails to note, and these radicals fail to understand, is that if they actually are successful in their frantic efforts to keep government from “stealing” even a penny in taxes to be distributed (in their fevered imaginations) to the “less deserving,” they would also be impoverished. What Hayek understood–and what those who invoke his name without reading his arguments do not-is that, just as a rising tide lifts all boats, an ebbing tide lowers all boats. They remind me of a two-year-old snatching a toy from a playmate while screaming “mine, mine, mine.”

What we are seeing from this radical fringe is not a political shift. It’s a tantrum.

Comments

A Logic Question

Tom Friedman is not a favorite columnist of mine–although I often agree with him, he often seems a bit too smug, a bit too self-satisfied with his own superior analytical skills. But today, he hit one out of the ballpark. After asking “Is It Weird Enough Yet,” he eviscerates Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry for their insistence that climate change is just a hoax, perpetrated by research scientists to generate funding. Not only does Friedman explain (in language that even Rick Perry should be able to understand) how the extreme weather we are experiencing is a consequence of global climate change, he explains what is necessary if so-called “green jobs” are to generate real economic growth.

But let’s say you still aren’t convinced.

Ever hear of “Pascal’s wager”? The philosopher Blaise Pascal was dubious about the existence of God, but he reasoned that–since one could not know for certain–the logical course of action was to act as though he did.  If it turned out that God was real, great. If not, you would have lived a good life. In other words, by acting as though you believe even if you don’t, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Global climate change invites a similar logic. If we decide to act on the advice of the 98% of scientists whose research supports the finding, and climate change is real, we’ll save the planet. If it turns out that our fears are ill-founded or exaggerated, we’ll end up doing a lot of things we need to do anyway–recycle, use energy more efficiently, etc.

When we have everything to gain by a particular course of action, and nothing to lose, refusing to take that action is more than weird. It’s self-destructive.

Comments

Missing the “Rest of the Story”

I’m old enough to remember listening (on radio, not TV) to Paul Harvey’s “The Rest of the Story.” For those of you too young to know what I’m talking about, the format was always the same: Harvey would start out–in his deep, resonant voice–by telling a story drawn from history or headlines. There would then be a break for a commercial, following which Harvey would come back with “the rest of the story”–what we might call today the backstory. It almost always cast the introductory narrative in a different light.

What made me think of those broadcasts was one of those “cute” emails that circle endlessly on line. A friend had forwarded it, and it WAS cute. It was in the form of an obituary, and the “deceased” was Common Sense. Most of it was unexceptional, but I found two items irritating, because they displayed how urban myths gain traction: we live in a time and place that has lost any appreciation of nuance or complexity. We no longer hear “the rest of the story.”

Two of the items provided as evidence that common sense is dead were 1) the story about the elderly woman who spilled hot coffee at McDonalds, and 2) the “fact” that prisoners are treated better than their victims.

And now for the rest of those stories.

The coffee spilled at  McDonalds  scalded the elderly woman so badly she had to be hospitalized and undergo skin grafts. She sued ONLY for reimbursement of her medical costs. McDonald’s refused. It turned out that there had been multiple previous cases against McDonalds alleging a practice of serving unreasonably and dangerously hot coffee, but no remedial action was taken. In other words, McDonalds knew their coffee was so hot that it posed a hazard, but ignored the danger. The jury awarded damages in an amount intended compensate the victim AND to send McDonald’s a clear message.

Anyone who thinks that we “coddle” prisoners–treating them better than we treat their victims-should arrange to join SPEA Criminal Justice majors in one of their periodic site visits to jails and prisons. If it is a first visit, students usually return visibly shaken. The glib assertion that prisons are like country clubs is ludicrous; it betrays the ignorance of the speaker.

Ironically, no one seemed to note the inconsistency of these two “examples.”  The McDonald’s verdict is cited for the proposition that “the system” is TOO solicitous of victims. The prisoner example is cited to show we are INSUFFICIENTLY solicitous of victims.

I don’t mean to be too harsh about what is essentially intended as a joke. But as these sorts of stories get embedded in our national mythology, we increasing lose the capacity to recognize that–as an old pol of my acquaintance used to put it–it’s a mighty thin pancake that only has one side. Or as Paul Harvey would say, that there’s usually a “rest of the story.”

Comments