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.
If I had any doubts whatsoever about the pitiful state of economic literacy in this country, yesterday provided a perfect example. I was reviewing a paper submitted by a student to one of our faculty members. He had given her a poor grade, and she argued that she deserved higher marks. I am the Program Director, so grade appeals come to me. The paper was filled–as all too many are these days–with grammatical errors, but what really struck me was the student’s answer to the question: how can government encourage more citizens to become involved in policy deliberations? The response? By reducing taxes and providing more government services.
I rest my case. (Excuse me while I go slit my wrists….)
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.”
This morning’s comics were virtually all devoted to the subject of 9/11. One of my favorite strips is Crankshaft (my husband and I tend to relate to old and cranky); this morning’s had Crankshaft sitting in front of his television, listening to a blond announcer give a really lovely tribute that ended with the following sentiment:
“Our nation will survive and grow, secure in knowing that knowledge always overcomes ignorance, and an open, inquisitive mind always overcomes fear.”
I am sad today, not only for the people who died in the towers that day, not only for the brave firefighters and police officers who died or became terribly ill trying to save them, but for the death of my faith in that very belief.
In the wake of the attacks, there was an outpouring of human kindness, a recognition that however different we might be otherwise, we were all Americans. In the wake of a tragedy,we had a rare, precious window of opportunity to rise to the challenge and be a better, kinder nation. Instead, we were told to go shopping, and we did. We embraced a more pernicious invasion–an attack by our own government on our civil liberties. We took out our new fears on our Muslim neighbors (and our neighbors who looked like they might be Muslim). We invaded a country that had no connection to the attack and put its costs on the national credit card so that our generation wouldn’t need to pay for it. We shut our eyes to torture and rendition. Rather than using the tragedy to contemplate how we might improve our communities, we closed our minds, turned on each other, and gave in to ignorance and fear.
This is the weekend I have scheduled for my fall housecleaning. It always makes me feel good go through the pantry, closets and other nooks and crannies that I can easily ignore during most of the year-those places that only get “the treatment” during the spring and fall cleaning rituals.
Which reminds me that November is coming, and with it, the opportunity to do some political housecleaning as well.
I thought about our desperate need for such civic housecleaning when I heard a caller to a radio show explain that the President’s jobs plan was ridiculous–not because it wouldn’t work, or was otherwise ill-conceived–but because we shouldn’t be spending money we don’t have. The nation, he proclaimed, should do what individuals do, and live within our means. (Ok, you can stop laughing now and read on.) The host, to his credit, asked the caller if he had a mortgage? A car payment? “Well, that’s different,” was the response.
Exactly. In fact, in the wake of the President’s speech (hell, for the past several years!) we have been treated to the antics of assorted elected buffoons who not only don’t have answers to our problems, but don’t know what the questions are.
The question is not whether we should spend money on Program A. That’s a question that cannot be answered without several preliminary inquiries. Is this an investment–our house, the country’s infrastructure–or is it an operating expense, like rent or highway maintenance? As any businessperson will tell you, you borrow for the former but not the latter. What are the consequences of spending for the proposed purpose? What are the consequences of not spending for it? And if the benefits of spending outweigh the benefits of not doing so , will Proposal A achieve the desired results?
It’s bad enough that large numbers of otherwise reasonable citizens don’t understand that, but it is truly appalling when our elected officials don’t grasp the most basic elements of public or economic policy. (And yes, Mike Pence, I’m looking at you. And a lot of others.)
It’s time to do some housecleaning. And that housecleaning actually should be modeled on the process we use in our own homes. Housecleaning doesn’t mean a wholesale “throw the bums out” catharsis. When we clean a closet or drawer at home, we sort: we throw out the stuff that is no longer useful or wearable–the stuff that’s taking up space we need for better, more useful stuff. And that’s what we need to do for the next several Novembers. We need to get rid of the lunatics and egomaniacs, obviously, but we also need to retire the nice-enough people who are simply in way over their heads (yes, I’m looking at you, Mayor Ballard). But voters of both parties also need to understand that whatever the wingnut of the day may be telling us, we don’t throw someone out simply because we disagree with them. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Richard Mourdock.) There are plenty of people who will engage in thoughtful and informed analysis and simply reach different conclusions. We should opt for competence and intellectual honesty, not uniformity. To stretch my analogy past the breaking point, we need to throw out those high fashion shoes that have killed your feet ever since you bought them, and keep the comfortable ones that aren’t quite so flashy and “in.”
Take it from someone who is in the middle of fall housecleaning.
