Confederate Monuments and Symbols

Posted on by
2

“I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”  Robert E. Lee (1869)

 

I bought my first car when I was sixteen years old. It was a used 1964 Chevrolet Impala, red, two-door, four speed (stick shift), dream car. I paid $600 for it. I blew it up drag racing on a Mississippi country road after only a few months (I still won the race).

On the front of that car when I bought it was a Confederate battle flag plate with “The South’s Gonna Rise Again” emblazoned in gold letters. I wasn’t very studious at that point in my life (remember I said I was 16 and drag racing on a country road?) and the significance of that license plate never really crossed my mind back then.  I now know the meaning and significance of that flag and that phrase.

Most (but not all) informed Americans understand that The Civil War and its causes have been thoroughly researched and debated by scholars and others since the war ended. Some writers argue that the War was fought over states’ rights, economic differences, or because of the election of Abraham Lincoln. These arguments are generally offered by those wanting to justify the secession of the Southern states or by those wanting to hold on to the Southern “culture” and heritage represented by heroes and symbols from the war.  I believe they are misguided.

Yes, I know the Southern states were fighting over their states’ sovereignty. Yes, I know that most Confederate soldiers didn’t own slaves (because they were too poor to own that much property). Yes, I know there were stark differences between the industrial North and the agrarian South. I’ve heard all the arguments.

But the war was about slavery. It was about those Southern states wanting to continue enslaving and often mistreating men, women, and children because of the color of their skin. That is the states’ rights issue for which they fought. So the bottom line is that the Southern military heroes who were great tacticians, great leaders, great men in other areas of their lives, were fighting to retain an immoral and inhumane institution. And the symbols such as the Confederate flag that still find their way in to our public discourse were a part of that horrific chapter of American history. It was all about slavery.

The events, economic factors, and anti-slavery literature leading to Southern secession would fill countless pages. Essentially, the Southern states that  declared themselves independent of the United States Constitution  were angry that the national government was limiting the expansion of slavery to the new territories. Abraham Lincoln, the Republican presidential candidate in 1860, ran on a promise to oppose the expansion of slavery, so within a few months of his inauguration the Southern states claimed secession and the Confederacy was formed. So at its heart that secession was about slavery.

Here are a few facts about American slavery:

  • Virginia laws as far back as 1669 stated that if a slave disobeyed his or her master and the punishment resulted in the death of the slave, the master could not be charged with a felony.
  • The infant mortality rate for slave children was twice that of white children.
  • The slave ships bringing captured Africans to the New World via the Middle Passage were cramped, to say the least. Slaves were forced to lie on wooden beds, male slaves were shackled, they were exposed to disease, and female slaves were subject to rape, and both male and female were subject to brutal treatment and beatings while aboard ship.
  • During the plantation era about 1/3 of Southerners were slaves.
  • Only about 25% of all Southerners owned slaves. However, slave owners controlled a very large number of the governmental positions and a whopping share of Southern wealth. In Texas, for example, only 27% owned slaves in 1860 but the slave owners controlled 68% of governmental positions and 73% of the state’s wealth.
  • At least some slaves were subject to daily torture and beatings because their masters were cruel.
  • In most cases female slaves had no legal protection from rape and sexual assault from their masters.
  • When they were placed on the auction block black women were often forced to strip off their clothing so potential buyers could prod and poke on their bodies.
  • By 1850 there were more than 3.2 million slaves in the United States.

So yes, The Civil War was about states’ rights; it was over the rights of states to continue treating other human beings as less than human. And yes, the war was over economic differences but the South’s plantation society was built on slavery.

And of course I know that slavery was not something unique to our country, but that does not excuse it. And I know slavery was introduced thousands of years ago, but again that is no excuse. The first declared truth in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence was that “all men are created equal”, yet slavery violated that very first precept.  That violation meant that the majority (white folks) had to somehow morally justify the notion that slaves were not real “men” since they were not considered equal.

I also know that we often say that such things must be considered in historical context, and that is certainly true. The times were different. Human sensibilities were at least somewhat different. But even if we do accept the argument that slavery must be considered in historical context that does not excuse glorifying those men and symbols that represented slavery.

As I said earlier, the Confederate war heroes were often good men in other respects, but they and the other symbols of the Confederacy should be allowed to die because they represented slavery. The fact that those heroes and symbols have now been adopted by the KKK and other racist groups should be sufficient evidence. These symbols do represent our heritage, but it is the part of our heritage represented by bigotry and malevolence rather than the kindness and generosity found in most Southerners these days. I’m more than happy to release forever the bigoted part of my Southern heritage.

And the quotation by Robert E. Lee above was his objection to establishing a proposed monument in Gettysburg following the war. Lee thought building monuments commemorating Confederates should be avoided.

The Democratic Party’s Irrational Exuberance

Posted on by
Reply

Democrats are all giddy because President Trump’s approval ratings are at historic lows. Further, only  about 25% approve and an overwhelming 70% disapprove of the job Congressional Republicans are doing. Democrats are certain this will translate into great success in the 2018 Congressional elections and that they will gain control of Congress. Not so fast. The districts from which we choose our representatives favor Republicans.

A little background is necessary.

At every level of American government we use single-member districts to choose representatives. The notion is simple; we have districts that are equal in size (based on population) and each district has one representative. We use districts for members of the U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, city council seats, school boards, county commissioners, and more.  It is a nice idea because at least in theory we know who our representative is and he/she is responsible for representing us as citizens. Like I said…nice idea. Except like most aspects of American government, the reality isn’t as nice as the idea. Politicians have a history of playing nasty.

There are numerous problems with single-member districts. For example, they make it very difficult for minorities or even a minor party candidate to win because they must go head-to-head with candidates from the majority and candidates who represent the two major parties.

Another problem with districts is referred to as “Fenno’s Paradox” based on conclusions reached by Political Scientist Richard Fenno. After conducting exhaustive research Fenno discovered that representatives do everything possible to be liked by the people in their district, often to the point of absurdity. He said members of Congress develop a “home style” in which they sell themselves as “one of us”.  So the paradox is that people think Congress as a whole is pretty bad (Congress currently has an approval rating of about 15%), but they like the member of Congress from their district. Consequently, incumbents, those holding the office, are almost always reelected even though people pretty much hate Congress. It is a paradox.

The greater problem, the one favoring Republicans, is gerrymandering, a term going back to the early 1800’s which means drawing districts to favor a group or party. I don’t want to get bogged down in the mechanics of gerrymandering, but be assured it is fairly easy to do and most American districts are gerrymandered. All national and state legislative districts must be redrawn every ten years after we take the national census (required by the Constitution). Since we take a new census in years ending in zero, the last was in 2010.

Here is what matters: The party in control of the state government at the time of redistricting (following the census) has a great deal of control over drawing those districts and, consequently, every district can be gerrymandered by that party.

After the 2010 election the Republican Party had “control” of 24 state legislatures and Democrats controlled 15 (others were divided, with one chamber being Republican and the other controlled by Democrats). Twenty nine governors were Republicans and only eleven were Democrats. You get the picture.

The Associated Press (AP) recently examined current legislative districts and found that four times as many state legislative districts are skewed toward the Republican Party than those favoring Democrats. About three times as many U.S. House districts favor Republicans. For Democrats the news gets worse because states in which they historically had a good chance of winning (Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, etc.) now had districts favoring Republicans. All these states had Republican control after the 2010 census, so the districts were drawn by Republicans.

A number of additional factors favor the Republicans, and that led to much better results for their party in 2016 than would have been expected.  But gerrymandering played the major role in Republican success. Remember that in 2016 about an even number of Americans identified with each party, so we could expect almost even success in districts. That was not the case.

There are solutions to the gerrymandering problem. They could be drawn by non-partisan groups (Iowa does this), for example, or they could even be drawn by computer software. But the Democrats and Republicans like being able to gerrymander when they are in control, so nothing changes.

The bottom line is that unless support for Congressional Republicans really goes in the tank (people of all demographic groups begin turning against the party) and support for President Trump continues to decline among all groups (a real possibility), the Republican Party will retain control of Congress in 2018.

The Healthcare Mess: Part II

Posted on by
1

At the end of my first post on America’s healthcare system I concluded that the acceptable solutions to the healthcare mess depend on one’s ideological leanings. Let’s begin by examining how those on the ideological extremes, Libertarians and Socialists, feel about healthcare:

  • Libertarians (ultra conservative): Let everyone die because it is nobody’s business whether people have healthcare or not. Survival of the fittest! Healthcare Darwinism!
  • Socialists (ultra liberal): Government should provide healthcare for everyone and their pets, and patients should be given a snuggly bunny and a box of Twinkies when discharged from the hospital.

OK. Let me start again.

  • Libertarians: The Libertarian Party’s website states that “Libertarians believe that healthcare prices would decrease and quality and availability of healthcare would increase if providers were freed from government meddling and control. ” In other words, the government should not be involved in healthcare at all. Individuals, insurance companies, and healthcare providers should be responsible for healthcare decisions and healthcare should be like any other commodity. I choose which automobile to purchase without government involvement and I can decide based on price, quality, fuel efficiency, and color. They believe we should be able to do the same with doctors and hospitals (well…except for the fuel efficiency thing).

I don’t want to get bogged down in free-market theory, but I do know that applying it to healthcare is difficult. Under the free market I get to choose what good or service to purchase, but if I’m unconscious in an accident I lose that choice because someone will make it for me. If I live in an area with only one hospital or doctor, my free-market options are limited. And, to safeguard against bankruptcy resulting from illness, the free market pretty much forces me to purchase insurance and when I do so I surrender much of my decision making to the insurance company that, quite honestly, has profit rather than my best interests in mind. And unless there is a government regulating that insurance company I cannot be guaranteed that it will actually pay for my care. There goes the free market.

For a more in-depth explanation of why the free market will not work in healthcare, read this.

  • Socialists: The Socialist Party’s website states: “The Socialist Party stands for a socialized health care system based on universal coverage, salaried doctors & health care workers, and revenues derived from a steeply graduated income tax”.  The Party also supports eliminating private health insurance companies, supports government take over and control of the pharmaceutical industry, and supports public funding of all medical care including vision, dental, mental health, and alternative medicine practices.

This view considers healthcare a basic right (like speech, religion, and voting) that should be guaranteed by the government. Consequently, everyone would receive care regardless of their income or economic status. To provide such care taxes must obviously be increased.

The major arguments against fully socializing medicine are that it takes away personal responsibility for our health, government is in essence inefficient and delivers services poorly, and during times when the economy is waning the government must reduce all spending, so healthcare availability would depend on the health of the economy.

This is a pretty good summary of concerns over socialized medicine.

Are These Options Viable?

The truth is that we are not likely to adopt healthcare plans supported by either Libertarians or Socialists.  Instead we will continue seeking something in between. Again, the acceptable “in between” solution depends on whether one is liberal or conservative, whether one believes healthcare is a “right” to be protected and guaranteed by government, and at least to some extent on one’s personal socioeconomic status.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

Continue with Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) reduced the number of uninsured Americans significantly, mostly because of Medicaid expansion adopted by 31 states, and it ensured that insurance companies could not reject applicants for pre-existing conditions and that young people must be covered by their parents’ insurance through age 26. Obamacare also required insurance companies to cover several healthcare costs such as lab tests and infant care.

A good summary of Obamacare’s provisions may be found here.

Americans are evenly split on Obamacare, about half supporting and half opposing it’s policies. Americans generally believe Obamacare should not be eliminated, instead favoring a line-by-line review and reform by Congress (which would be unique since most members didn’t read it initially). As is to be expected, Democrats tend to think favorably of Obamacare and Republicans tend to think poorly of it (but remember that almost half of Americans are not Democrats or Republicans). Americans overwhelmingly agree that reducing individual healthcare costs should be a priority; today Americans spend an average of 35% of their income on healthcare, and according to some reports our average individual costs have increased under Obamacare.

There are other problems with Obamacare, some of which may be found in this summary by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

The bottom line is that a large number of Americans are still uninsured and healthcare costs continue to climb.

SO?

 I will assume that our goal is to find solutions that cover all or almost all Americans rather than accepting the Libertarian argument (favored by only about 5% of the public).  About 60% of Americans agree that government has a responsibility to ensure health coverage, and even the 35% who say they disagree with government involvement support Medicare and Medicaid, two government-sponsored healthcare programs. The higher one’s income the LESS likely one is to support government-ensured healthcare, so it can be assumed that those who have it or can afford it are less likely to want much government involvement. Interestingly, even lower and middle-income Republicans increasingly favor a government solution.

No rankings or indexes are perfect, but they do provide some guidance. Two healthcare rankings, one by The Commonwealth Fund and the other by The World Health Organization place the USA’s healthcare system far below those of other countries. And even if we do not accept rankings by these and other organizations, we do know that Americans live shorter lives, we have a higher infant mortality rate, and some Americans die each year because they lack healthcare.

SO?

No single solution will likely solve our healthcare problems, but there are a number of things we should at least consider trying, some of which have been successful in other countries and some of which might address our unique circumstances.

  • Tort Reform: This will honestly not help a great deal but it could address frivolous litigation against healthcare providers. As I stated in Part I, doctors admit that they often over prescribe medication and procedures to protect themselves from potential litigation. The problem with tort reform is that it is written by legislators, most of whom are attorneys, so it is rarely done right because attorneys make money off litigation. To be clear, I absolutely believe that healthcare providers should be subject to litigation when they act irresponsibly, but they should not be liable for circumstances beyond their control.
  • Have the national government cover preventative care (mammograms, prostate exams, immunizations against disease, etc.) as well as catastrophic care for illnesses that could be financially devastating. We could then choose to purchase personal insurance (subsidized for the poor) for stuff like the flu and minor injuries. This has been successful in Singapore and promotes personal responsibility for healthcare (which conservatives support) but also gives the government responsibility for preventative and catastrophic care (favored by liberals). And yes, I do know Singapore is unlike the USA, but that doesn’t mean we cannot consider their very successful healthcare system as a model.
  • Regulate Prices. In all healthcare systems used by our peer countries, regardless of their approach to healthcare, the government either sets or negotiates prices for medicine and other healthcare services. This is the reason prescription drugs are Canada’s top illegal export to the US; Americans can buy the same drugs illegally from Canada for a fraction of the cost paid here at home. Setting prices is a radical notion but the free market only works when competition is present, and that is often not the case with pharmaceuticals or medical devices. There may be only one or two drugs or devices available for less common illnesses or injuries, so the drug companies can charge as much as they want thus creating a monopoly. And as I mentioned earlier, in some areas only one healthcare provider is available and that can also create a healthcare monopoly. Just so you know, the pharmaceutical and medical device industries have among the highest profitability margin of all American companies.

The government has been regulating monopolies since the 1870’s when railroads were targeted, so regulating medical industries would only be a next step.

  • Single-Payer System: Since millions of Americans are still uninsured by Obamacare, just torch the entire system and start anew. Believe it or not, a good many doctors actually support this idea, arguing that the government should pay for healthcare (as the single payer) for all Americans. They argue that the profit-driven system has led to high healthcare costs and that the increased initial costs of moving to such a system would be offset by savings in premiums and “out-of-pocket” costs.

OK. I’ve run on too long again and I have not even scratched the surface. If you are interested in reading more about single-payer systems I suggest this piece from The Washington Post and this from The Heritage Foundation. For suggested alterations to Obamacare I found that this offered valuable insights. And this smartly written and nicely researched essay offers several ideas for reform.

I do not favor an immediate jump to a single-payer system, and most countries that have created advanced socialized medicine systems have not followed that path. A successful healthcare system must be fashioned to meet the needs of each country, and The United States is unique in numerous ways. I do believe the government must be more involved in regulating the prices of healthcare for the reasons mentioned above, and I believe the government should provide basic preventative and catastrophic healthcare for everyone. A citizen’s health should not depend on his or her socioeconomic status. People should not die simply because they cannot afford health insurance.

Oh yes. One final point. People often point to the healthcare provided by the Veteran’s Administration (VA) as an example of poor care provided by the government.  The truth is that veteran care has consistently outperformed care in the private sector and has been at the forefront of advances in record-keeping and accountability. And remember that the VA’s success depends almost entirely on politicians providing adequate funding.

I could honestly spend weeks on this topic, but I’m ready to get back to other (EASIER!) political and social topics. I hope you will offer comments or suggestions for addressing the healthcare crisis as well.

Thanks for reading!

 

 

 

America’s Healthcare Mess: Part 1

Posted on by
4

I may as well tackle the healthcare issue. The topic is much too complex to address in a single post (or possibly in an entire book!),  so “Part 1” will describe some of the major issues with American healthcare and “Part 2” (in a few days) will address solutions.

Hang on to your hats!

Here are a few relevant facts about American healthcare (feel free to skip to the summary if you are pressed for time):

THE CURRENT STATE OF AMERICAN HEALTHCARE

  • Some Americans die each year because they lack health coverage. The exact number is difficult to nail down (a 2009 study set the estimate at 45,000).
  • In 2016 a Harvard study found that states expanding Medicaid coverage for lower income citizens (discussed later) had lower mortality rates. So lack of medical coverage matters. If you want to read a heartbreaking account of one man’s probable imminent death because of our system, read this.
  • Approximately 18% of all American expenditures are on healthcare (most peer countries spend about 9%). That is more than $3 trillion per year.
  • We may not be getting our money’s worth because Americans are less healthy than citizens in countries spending much less and our infant mortality rates are higher. Of course at least some of our poor health is self-inflicted and results from poor lifestyle choices.
  • Even though we claim to have the best medical care in the world (and for some of us that is probably true), the USA’s life expectancy rate is lower than that of our peer countries and we rank only 42nd in the world.
  • Approximately 73% of uninsured Americans work at a job that does not offer healthcare benefits. Yes, you read that correctly. That means those folks must either live without health insurance or buy it on their own.

CONSEQUENCES FOR THOSE WITHOUT INSURANCE

  • People without health coverage are less likely to have preventative care and thus wind up being hospitalized more frequently. They also have fewer “diagnostic and therapeutic services” and, consequently, have a higher mortality rate than those of us with insurance.
  • Approximately 62% of all personal bankruptcies are the result of medical bills that an individual cannot pay.
  • More than half of those who are uninsured have difficulty paying for medical care. Approximately half of all uninsured Americans have at least one unpaid medical bill.

CONSEQENCES FOR HOSPITALS

  • When citizens do not have health insurance, hospitals must pick up the cost. Uninsured folks who are ill go to the emergency room at a hospital and by law they must be treated. Northwestern University’s Kellogg School estimates that every uninsured person in a local area costs the local hospitals an additional $900 of uninsured coverage per year. Approximately 8% of the public has no healthcare insurance, a significant drop from the 22% uninsured in 2010, but that still means hospitals may be required to cover the costs for about 25 million patients without compensation.

MEDICAID

As you probably know, Medicaid is the largest government program providing healthcare coverage for the disabled and those with low incomes.  Medicaid covers about 2/3 of Americans in nursing homes. The program currently covers about 74 million low-income and disabled Americans, half of whom are children.

Under Medicaid, national standards are established by the federal government and states can expand coverage if they so choose. On average, the national government covers a little more than 50% of a state’s Medicaid funding, with Kentucky and Mississippi receiving more than 75% of their Medicaid funding from the Feds. I don’t want to get too bogged down in details, but you can click here to learn more if you are interested.

Prior to passage of The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Medicaid primarily covered low-income pregnant women, children, and a limited number of parents. The ACA expanded Medicaid (but the expansion was adopted by only 31 states) to include medical care for individuals living below 138% of the national poverty level. In 2015 Medicaid cost the state and national governments $532 billion.

There are two major problems facing Medicaid. 1) Since 19 states did not accept Medicaid expansion many low income Americans are still not covered. 2) Cost. Medicaid costs have increased significantly since the program’s creation in 1965. With required coverage under Medicaid expansion both states and the feds must pick up the costs.

WHY IS AMERICAN HEALTHCARE SO EXPENSIVE?

  • The large insurance companies earn pretty good profits. In 2014, for example, UnitedHealthgroup, the nation’s largest health insurance provider, earned $10.3 billion in profits. In 2010 when the Affordable Care Act was signed in to law UnitedGroup stock was worth $30.40 cents per share but by 2015 it was valued at more than $113 per share. Between 2009 and 2016 Humana, another large insurance provider, had a 1,000%  increase in its stock value, more four times higher than the Dow Jones average.
  • Healthcare-related CEO salaries  have increased an average of 11% every year since Obamacare went in to effect in 2010. CEO’s earn an average of $20 million per year in compensation. These executives, at least one of whom earned more than $800 million in one year, do not work to lower healthcare costs. A pharmaceutical CEO, for example, will push for more prescriptions whether needed or not. Other CEO’s push for more tests and procedures and anything else that will increase the value of their company’s stock.
  • A recent article by CBS News explored other reasons American healthcare is so much more expensive than in our peer countries. Their findings?
    • Administrative costs are higher because we have countless insurance companies plus Medicaid and Medicare.  The Duke University Hospital, for example, employees approximately 1,500 billing clerks to sort out all the charges!
    • Americans want the newest technology, and that is expensive. And sometimes the newest treatments are not necessarily the best.
    • It is easier to sue doctors in America than in most other countries and this causes doctors to sometimes over prescribe tests and treatments. In a large survey 90% of doctors say they over prescribe medicine and procedures to protect themselves.
    • Many states make it difficult for medical facilities to expand services and require the approval of government and, sometimes, the approval of competitors (such as other hospitals). This removes competition, an essential factor of a capitalist economy.
    • Consumers are not told costs in advance and often do not learn how much a procedure costs until weeks or months later. So consumers cannot shop around for less expensive treatments.
  • Another factor contributing to high medical costs is Chargemaster, an innocent term with major consequences. The Chargemaster is the master pricing list for hospitals and it is negotiated behind closed doors with insurance providers. One cynical doctor describes this process whereby these rates are set and the goals of setting the rates. Essentially, the Chargemaster is what allows hospitals to charge patients. Recent legal challenges claim that many Chargemaster rates were three times higher than hospital costs and also treat patients paying expenses out of their own pockets unfairly since they were not part of the price negotiations. This also results in almost unbelievably different rates being charged by hospitals for exactly the same treatment or procedure. The process also makes it possible for hospitals to charge $15 for one Tylenol tablet, $53 for non-sterilized gloves used by a nurse or other provider, $93.50 for the use of lights during a surgical procedure, and $23 for one alcohol swab.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE RICH DOCTORS?

  • Many doctors, the healthcare professionals who SHOULD be benefitting from the system, are frustrated with and by the system. A 2013  survey found that about half of American doctors wish they had chosen a different career. In 2013 doctors were graduating from school (after studying between 10 and 14 years) with an average debt of about $165,000, and a large percentage of doctors are actually seeing their salaries decrease. Doctors also report that a large portion of their time is spent on paperwork rather than patient care.

OK. LET’S TRY TO SUMMARIZE

  • Healthcare in the United States eats up more of our spending than in other countries, but our healthcare is no better and we still die at a younger age and pay more out of our pockets than do folks in peer countries.
  • One of the reasons we pay more is because our system is fueled by greed. Doctors justifiably expect to earn good incomes because they spend at least ten years in college with some specialties requiring much more. However, although some doctors do become wealthy the executives for insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc. earn much more.
  • Some Americans die unnecessarily each year because they lack healthcare coverage.
  • Insurance companies are also paying great dividends to their shareholders.
  • Hospitals must treat people regardless of their ability to pay, and this is either passed on to those of us with insurance or is a loss for the hospitals.
  • Only about 46% of American companies provide healthcare insurance to their employees.
  • People without healthcare insurance live shorter lives and suffer increased financial distress because of medical costs.
  • Chargemaster may or may not be evil, but it does provide for what appear to be excessive hospital charges.
  • Americans’ ability to sue doctors and other healthcare providers probably increases costs. There is some indication that those costs are declining, however.
  • Administration costs for hospitals and doctors offices are extremely high because of the multiple funding sources that must be billed.
  • It is difficult for consumers to “shop around” for medical care because we don’t know costs in advance.  Costs are not consistent and the costs for the same procedures may vary significantly.
  • Medicaid expansion under President Obama extended medical care to low income Americans, but only 31 states adopted it.

America’s healthcare system is in crisis, and the above discussion only scratches the surface. How can it be fixed? Is Obamacare our best option? What about a “single payer” system similar to systems provided by Canada and most of our peer nations? Or should government get out of the healthcare business?

The answer depends on one’s ideological leanings.

Washington is a Train Wreck (or some other metaphor)

Posted on by
2

Our home is located on a fairly busy highway and I mow about five acres. A couple of weeks ago I was on the tractor mowing the area closest to the highway and witnessed what could have been a very serious accident. When I looked up I saw a small Ford truck turn left in front of a large Pontiac. The resulting crash resembled a scene from The Matrix (Reloaded). The cars collided and flew up into the air, and it was all in slow motion (at least in my mind). Both drivers and a couple of passengers were banged up and bruised, but everyone survived.

I was the first person on the scene and made certain 911 was called and determined that everyone was going to be OK.   As you probably know, I’m a political junky so later in the day when reflecting on the accident my first thought was…”it reminds me of Washington, DC; a crash taking place in semi-slow motion”. Train wreck. Plane crash. Avalanche. Tsunami. You can choose the metaphor because they all apply. Our national government is a disaster.

This is not a new development. It is easy for the Anti-Trump crowd to argue that the car crash began on January 20, but that’s just not true. Of course I agree that President Trump has accelerated the rate of the crash because his leadership skills are, to put it lightly, a joke.  Not only does he attack Democrats (although even two years ago he claimed to support the Democratic Party’s views on a number of issues and prior to 2010 most of his political contributions went to Democratic candidates), he even attacks his own appointees for following the law and behaving ethically. To be honest, the White House itself is a car crash/train wreck but nothing I could say here would change anyone’s mind either way, so I’ll let it go (for now).  But, as I said, the debacle began much earlier than the inauguration of President Trump.

The current unwillingness of our elected officials to compromise and work together can be traced directly to Lee Atwater, the Republican strategist who introduced a slash and burn form of politics that included push polling (an incredibly deceitful strategy) and sending out letters to voters telling bald faced lies about an opponent and doing everything possible to smear an opponent’s name. If you think I’m exaggerating I encourage you to check out a film entitled Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story.  Spoiler Alert: Atwater regretted and apologized for his nasty campaigns before he died. Unfortunately his approach was successful and would be used by countless future politicians. In 2000, for example, George Bush’s South Carolina political operatives who had learned well from Atwater used the same tactics to derail the nomination primaries for John McCain by claiming he had fathered an illegitimate (black) child and making other outrageous claims.

To be clear, American politics has always been nasty, but Lee Atwater took modern nastiness to a new level, and there are at least two major consequences. First, nasty campaigns make it difficult for elected officials to actually govern, and I’ll explain why in a minute. Also, because of this callous campaigning the public has become increasingly polarized and, to a fairly large extent, gullible because some voters actually believe lies told in campaigns even if those lies are idiotic and ludicrous; a fairly large subset of the voting public focuses on the outrageous lies rather than substance.

So why do I argue that such campaigning makes governing difficult? I could just point to the more obvious characteristics of current Washington, DC to make my point, but that is too simple.  A while back I was trying to get a handle on the impact of such campaigning when I ran across this piece which was actually written prior to President Trump’s election. In this well-documented paper the authors argue that 1) compromise is absolutely necessary in our American democracy and 2) the current political tone and processes make compromise almost impossible. The nasty attacks coupled with wild promises help politicians win voters and elections but work against the compromise necessary to actually govern. Governing requires reaching across the proverbial aisle and finding areas of agreement.

You and I both know this just isn’t happening these days. Congress’s inability to find reasonable reforms that could either strengthen or abolish the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is the most recent example. As I’m sure you know, both parties were not even involved in the discussion of alternative healthcare plans because Congress refuses to return to “regular order” although many members of Congress, including Senator John McCain, believe doing so is necessary and that doing so would return at least a semblance of sanity to the legislative process.

And the nastiness is not limited to congressional and presidential campaigns. In last year’s Missouri Republican primary for state attorney general , candidate Kurt Schaefer stated that his opponent Josh Hawley “worked for a terrorist, he should never work for Missouri” while Hawley claimed that Schaefer “votes to allow Chinese to buy (Missouri) farms.” Some voters obviously accepted these claims without checking their accuracy.

Or a campaign will make broad claims about an opponent that are difficult to challenge or validate. The 2014 Florida governor’s race between Charlie Crist and Rick Scott probably set that standard. Unsubstantiated charges of “fraud”, “swindling”, and “Ponzi schemes” were the rule rather than the exception.

So, if American campaigning has always been nasty why am I claiming that contemporary nastiness is different? Because, as I said earlier, a gullible portion of the public is now buying all the extreme rhetoric of their favored candidates rather than focusing on policy issues. It is easier to focus on Obama’s birth certificate than on environmental degradation. It is easier to focus on Marco Rubio’s silly claims about the size of Donald Trump’s privates than on ideas for improving infrastructure. It is easier to believe Hilary Clinton’s claims that Governor Mike Pence slashed education funding and that she never received classified emails on her private server than it is to verify those claims.

America is divided, but the fringe left and fringe right are primarily to blame. These two groups perpetuate division and hate compromise, and the politicians they elect are forced to either oppose compromise or lose reelection. As a consequence politics has become win at all cost and actually governing be damned. As long as voters keep their collective heads in their collective rear ends and don’t pay attention to facts and ideas rather than political rhetoric and outrageous claims, compromise will remain a dirty word and America will not move forward.

 

 

 

 

 

The Inconvenient Truth…About Taxes

Posted on by
4

This may not be the most exciting of my posts but it is one of the most important because it addresses misconceptions about American taxes.

I think it is probably no surprise that I’m not a fan of the healthcare reform plan proposed by the Republicans, but I’m also not a fan of “Obamacare”. I’ll tackle those in a future post, but the debate over one aspect of the Republican plan made me wonder who is telling the truth. Democrats are vehemently arguing that the plan will favor the rich while taking money out of the pockets of the poor and middle class. While at first glance that argument does appear somewhat legitimate I assumed the truth was not quite so simple. That led me to this post.

Who pays taxes? Well…we all do in one way or the other, but again the answer is much more complex. It is easier to begin by reviewing the sources of revenue for the various governments in The United States.

(FYI: I’m about to offer a lot of statistics and other supportive info, so if you get bored you can skip to my conclusion)

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE SOURCES

As you can imagine, funding for our national government comes from a variety of sources. In fiscal year 2016 the federal government spent $3.85 trillion while bringing in $3.27 trillion in revenue, meaning it ran a deficit of more than $500 billon. I will not address the consequences of that deficit in this post, but you should be alarmed by the national government’s annual deficit and the current $19.5 trillion debt (too bad my wife and I can’t find a way to pull off spending more than we earn!). Here is where the fed gets its money:

  • 56% from income taxes
  • 34% from “social insurance” revenue (Social Security, unemployment, and Medicare)
  • 10% from taxes on business, fees for using parks, and a variety of other sources.

So the lion’s share of Uncle Sam’s money comes from personal income tax and a large portion also comes from payroll taxes.

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE SOURCES

State governments take in about $1.7 trillion each year, most coming from so called “ad valorem” taxes such as sales tax, property taxes, and taxes on things like alcohol and gasoline.

Local governments bring in approximately $1.35 trillon in revenue .  Interestingly, the largest source of local revenue is money they get from the federal and state governments (called “transfers”) with property taxes following close behind. Sales taxes, fees, parking meter fees, etc. make up the rest.

Now the real question and the one raising controversy these days: Who pays the most taxes?

WHO PAYS THE MOST FEDERAL INCOME TAX

The rich pay an unbalanced portion of federal income tax and the middle class also pays a significant portion. This chart from the reputable Pew Research Center paints a pretty clear picture:

Wealthy pay more in taxes than poor

Those with the higher incomes pay a much larger percentage of income taxes than those with low incomes. Less than 3% of the population paid more than 51% of the income taxes and their average tax rate was 25.7%. People earning less than $50,000 comprise about 62% of the taxpayers, but they contribute less than 6% of the total revenue from income tax and have an average income tax rate of 4.3%.

Bottom line? The wealthy pay by far the largest portion of income tax, and income tax is more than half of all federal revenue. And according to some calculations, more than 45% of all American households pay no income tax at all.

WHO PAYS THE MOST PAYROLL TAXES

Social Security and Medicaid are the two largest payroll taxes. Our incomes are taxed at 12.4% which is shared by worker and employer. This tax currently applies to the first $118,000 of income, so no income above that amount is taxed.

That means that payroll taxes are “regressive”, meaning they have a greater impact on the lower and moderate income workers. Because of the $118,000 cap the top 1% of workers pay a much smaller percentage of their income than do workers with lower incomes. However, at retirement the workers with lower incomes tend to rely more heavily on social insurance than those with higher incomes, so the benefits are progressive, not regressive.

WHO PAYS THE MOST STATE AND LOCAL TAXES

This one is more difficult to address because it varies by state. Some states have income taxes, others don’t. Some states have higher property tax rates than others, some have natural resources such as oil and coal that they can tax (called a severance tax), some have toll roads, etc. In general the wealthy pay more tax on the state and local level because they own more property that is taxed, buy more luxury items thus paying larger sales taxes, pay more state income tax (in states with such a tax) because they have higher salaries, and pay severance taxes because they own the coal mines, oil wells, and stands of timber.

WHO PAYS THE MOST IN TAXES OVERALL?

When all local, state, and federal taxes are combined one may conclude that the higher a person’s income the higher is her/his tax burden.

  • The bottom 20% of income earners pay about 19% of their income in taxes.
  • The top 20% of income earners pay about 32% of their income in taxes.

SO, DAVE, CAN YOU JUST REACH A CONCLUSION ALREADY!?

Well yes. Sort of.  I can actually reach several.

  • The wealthy contribute the lion’s share of income taxes and about half of all Americans do not pay any. So the current argument being made by Democrats that the Republican healthcare plan offers tax breaks for the wealthy is accurate because it would not be possible to offer a tax break for those folks who are not paying income tax at all. Any tax break thus necessarily applies to the wealthy. However, I’m not sure I believe reducing taxes on the top 1% so dramatically is a great idea. In the current Republican plan the top 1% would have their taxes reduced by 44% while the bottom 20% would see only a 2% tax reduction.
  • The wealthy also pay a larger portion of most other taxes at all levels of government.
  • Payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicaid, Unemployment) favor workers with higher incomes because no income over $118,000 is taxed, but the workers with lower incomes benefit most from these programs in the end because the higher income workers are more likely to have personal retirement or pension benefits.
  • The statement from the right (that I’ve heard often in recent days) that the bottom 50% of wage earners pay no taxes is false and only applies to income tax. Everyone, regardless of income, pays sales taxes on purchases, tolls on roads, tax on any owned property (and indirectly on rented property since landlords calculate property taxes into rents), fees for parking meters, excise taxes (gas, alcohol, and tobacco), and usage fees for things like landfills and parks.

Are America’s taxes fair? That is up to you to decide and objectivity on this topic is a challenge.

The problem is that there has been no broad discussion of American taxes since 1913 when the income tax was added to the Constitution. Neither party has been willing to examine our tax codes and the taxes themselves to determine whether they make sense. They don’t. I believe all Americans should pay taxes because we all benefit from the governments supported by those taxes, and all Americans DO pay taxes. We just need a national discussion addressing the tax structure and that isn’t happening any time soon. The Republicans promised such a discussion during the 2016 campaign and I hoped it would take place, but that issue and other issues of substance have been pushed aside because of the constant tweets and other distractions made by the Republican Party’s leader making it virtually impossible for his party to focus on issues of substance.

 

 

 

Wall-to-Wall Sycophants

Posted on by
3

Sycophant:  a servile self-seeking flatterer.

Niccolo Machiavelli is often associated with a style of politics called Machiavellianism  which Merriam-Webster defines as “the view that politics is amoral and that any means however unscrupulous can justifiably be used in achieving political power”.  People often refer to Richard Nixon’s actions as “Machiavellian”, for example. Politicians are often accused of “Machiavellian” behavior when they do or say anything necessary to be elected. I’ll address this type of politics in a later post, but today I actually want to use Machiavelli to discuss President Trump’s cabinet.

As an aside, when people refer to “Machiavellian behavior” they only refer to ideas expressed in one of the author’s books, The Prince, and ignore his other works that address republics rather than tyranny. Machiavelli wrote to his audience and The Prince was an attempt to gain favor with a monarch from whom Niccolo wanted a job. In other places he actually argued in favor of republics.

OK. Sorry. That history lesson was probably unnecessary but it is one if my many pet peeves.

I’m sure you are wondering what Machiavelli has to do with this post.

Since Donald Trump appeared on the political scene several years ago I’ve read both conservative and liberal sources that refer to his brand of politics as “Machiavellian”.  It is true that many of President Trump’s decisions and actions take on the autocratic flavor promoted in The Prince, but it is pretty apparent that the President is not at all familiar with other of Machiavelli’s prescriptions for political success.

Here’s what I mean.

Chapter 23 of The Prince (Wooton’s translation) is entitled “How Sycophants are to be Avoided”. Machiavelli wrote:

“My subject is sycophants, who pullulate* at court. For men are so easily flattered and are easily taken in by praise, that is it difficult for them to defend themselves against this plague, and in defending themselves they run the risk of making themselves despicable. For there is no way of protecting oneself against flattery other than making it clear you do not mind being told the truth…. So a wise ruler ought to find an alternative to flattery…”      *Pullulate means to breed or produce freely (I Googled it for you).

Machiavelli thus warned political leaders, even tyrants, not to surround themselves with sycophants or flatterers who offer only praise when honesty is needed. If you have paid attention to the news in recent days you know where I’m headed with this.

As far back as 1992 Donald Trump stated that he requires absolute loyalty and that he “gets even” with anyone who is disloyal. I’m pretty certain this is a fairly outdated approach to management in the private sector because most modern management models favor more democratic and inclusive decision-making. And in the public sector I am absolutely certain that a president (or any other governing official) surrounding him or herself with sycophants or flatterers is an indescribably bad idea. Yet it appears that is precisely what the current resident of the White House has done.

You can choose whether to believe President Trump or James Comey regarding Comey’s claim that President Trump asked him to pledge loyalty, but if true such a demand or request was way out of order because the head of the FBI must be totally independent and absolutely should not pledge loyalty to anyone.

The Comey claims aside, however, we now have videotaped evidence that President Trump surrounds himself only with sycophants. During his first Cabinet meeting on June 12 every single one of his cabinet members pledged unwavering support and allegiance to the President. This after the President opened by stating that “Never has there been a president….with few exceptions…who’s passed more legislation, who’s done more things than I have.” Any advisers not playing the roll of sycophant would have corrected this blatantly false statement. Not a single piece of important legislation has been passed since President Trump took office; almost everything passing Congress up to this point is minor and has no significant impact. Healthcare reform, tax reform, immigration reform, and all other legislation promised during the presidential campaign have made it nowhere although the entire national government is controlled by the President’s party. Rather than correcting President Trump’s false statement, however, each member of the Cabinet obsequiously heaped praise on the him.

Before you begin attacking me for disrespecting the President, remember that I am non-partisan and am independent and have not been a real fan of any American president in a long time. In my opinion, however, the mess that is the current White House is frighteningly dangerous to our republic and our future.

If President Trump surrounds himself with advisers and administrators who are afraid to offer views contrary to his own, the President lives in a protective bubble and believes all his ideas are good. The most successful presidents of recent decades such as Reagan and Clinton (just because they were successful doesn’t mean you must agree with their policies, decisions, or outcomes) surrounded themselves with intelligent advisers who felt comfortable giving their boss truthful information. It is painfully obvious that President Trump takes a different approach and is, consequently, separated from the truth on numerous issues.

To be honest, the behavior of President Trump’s cabinet members would be more understandable in Russian President Putin’s cabinet or maybe in the leadership circle for North Korea’s supreme leader. We would expect it there. But we should be terribly worried about such syncophantic fawning by public servants whose first responsibility is to the American public. Pledging allegiance to the President and an unwillingness (or inability) to offer ideas contradictory to his means his ideas will always win, and at this point I don’t think most of his ideas are well considered or researched. And if anyone with access to the President does miraculously grow a spine I sincerely hope his or her first bit of advice will be to delete his Twitter account because that one thing explains a great deal of his current 36% approval rating and his inability to get things done.

 

Life is not “Unfair”

Posted on by
4

I apologize in advance because I may ramble a little. This is unlike my normal political/social posts.

A common 21st century theme is that “life just isn’t fair”.  When someone dies at an early age, when children go without food, when a referee makes an incorrect call, if a lazy co-worker earns a higher salary, or when someone we dislike advances in society we often say “well…life just isn’t fair”. In my mind that is a silly conclusion and in some ways it relieves us of personal responsibility because if things do not go according to our wishes we can blame it on an unfair universe. As my good friend Lara recently said, “As adults, the world is far too complicated to be broken down into fair or unfair”. She argues that the word “fair” is only appropriate for children who do not grasp the world’s complexity.

The platitude is even more problematic when used by those with strong religious convictions who believe a deity is taking an active role in society and in people’s lives. When they say “life isn’t fair” they are directly challenging their deity’s decisions and the role that deity plays in their lives. Would God make “unfair” decisions?

And those without religious convictions accusing life of being unfair are indirectly concluding that there is some universal moral agent making decisions about our daily lives. “Fair” assumes there are some universal rules that equally apply to everyone, and life is “unfair” if I don’t get my fair share. Those rules of fairness must have been established by some power higher than are we.

So it is a silly statement regardless of how it is used or who uses it. Life isn’t fair or unfair. Life is life. As much as people dislike the phrase, “it is what it is”. Life is often random and treats many of our fellow citizens better than others, but that doesn’t mean it is “unfair”.  A significant portion of our living standards or success in life can be attributed to the random nature of our birth; some of us are born into better families, better living conditions, and with better economic opportunities than others. Those are the issues we should be addressing. How can we ensure greater opportunities for everyone?

And don’t tell me that all it takes is hard work. I’m a reasonably smart guy but there are not enough hours in the day or days in the week to make it possible for me to pass a class in physics or tensor calculus. I’m also pretty certain I could have practiced tennis ten hours per day as a youngster and still would not have made it to Wimbledon (curse you, slow-twitch muscle fibers!!). I am and will always be controlled by my physical and intellectual limits.

Also, don’t tell a kid who grew up in the ghetto that all she has to do is work hard to be successful because sometimes that works and other times it doesn’t. Circumstances are random. The presence of mentors or other responsible adults in children’s lives is often random. Some kids have the opportunity to have that one person step in to their lives who makes a difference, others do not.

The truth is that the world has always been random and we don’t like it. We want to assume there are universal rules that apply equally to all.  There are no such rules and that makes us unhappy because more than anything else we want order and “logical” explanations, and we spend our lives trying to create them. So when life throws inconvenient or painful events our way we want to explain  those events away as “unfair”, as something that doesn’t fit with our sense of and need for order.

So:

  • The Paris Climate Accords were not “unfair” to the United States. If they treated us unequally (and they didn’t) it is because we negotiated poorly.
  • It is not unfair that children starve to death every day. We choose to live on a planet that does not distribute an abundant supply of food equitably.
  • It is not unfair that bankers and CEO’s earn much more than lower-level workers. We choose to live in a capitalistic society that treats people unequally without addressing that inequity.
  • It is not unfair if our spouses have affairs or otherwise find comfort with others. The random nature of our relationships or our personal unwillingness to address relationship problems lead some partners to that place. It still isn’t right, but it is not unfair.
  • It is not unfair when people criticize Kathy Griffin for holding a fake severed and bloody head of President Trump when they were silent over lynching videos and photographs of President Obama. Both are deplorable and unacceptable and resulted from poor choices and poor character traits. The difference is that Kathy Griffin  is a celebrity, so her actions drew immediate attention (remember the media attention when Clint Eastwood talked to an empty chair pretending it was Barack Obama?). But it wasn’t unfair.
  • Racism and sexism are not unfair. They are personal characteristics of some portion of society that, thank goodness, most of us deplore.  And institutional sexism and racism are shameful social attributes that society chooses not to address.
  • Global warming is not unfair but it is wrong for my generation to ignore the possibility that our actions may be limiting options for our children and all future generations. Yes, it is a possibility and even if there is only a slight chance we are adversely affecting the environment we should seek alternatives to fossil fuel. But it is not unfair that we aren’t doing so. It’s  just narrow minded.
  • It is not unfair if I study twenty hours for an exam but earn a lower score than someone who studied only ten hours. That student probably has more natural understanding of the subject than do I.

You get the idea. The notion that “life isn’t fair” allows us to blame problems on something other than ourselves.

After all, if life was fair I would have millions of readers!

A Few Misconceptions

Posted on by
6

Just trying to clear up a few misconceptions that I’ve read in posts or comments on  Facebook or “news” websites recently.

  • Democratic presidents have presided over the greatest increase in the national debt. Franklin D. Roosevelt increased it the most and Barack Obama was second. Harry Truman was third. It could be argued that economic circumstances mandated these increases, but everyone certainly does not accept that argument.
  • The argument that Democrats tend to accept more welfare than Republicans is false. Republican-leaning “red states” (though states are represented by shades of green in the map presented here ) overwhelmingly accept more federal welfare money than do “blue states” that lean Democratic.  Further, Republican states are significantly more dependent on federal money than are Democratic states.
  • Liberals tend to believe they are more tolerant of alternative points of view, but that is not necessarily true. The number of student protests on college and university campuses over invitations to conservative speakers has led even liberal sources to express concerns over censorship. In 2016 alone at least 43 speakers were disinvited from college speaking engagements because of their political or social views. At least some protests became violent resulting in injury to individuals. Colleges and universities should be THE place open dialogue is welcome.
  • The 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to gun ownership (see District of Columbia v Heller), but that right does not extend to the unrestricted ownership of every type of firearm. Justice Scalia said so in the Heller case. Should everyone have the right to private ownership of anti-aircraft weaponry or M1A1 Abrams tanks? The idea that firearm ownership should be unrestricted emerged in the 1970’s when the National Rifle Association, an organization created to promote sportsmanship and responsible gun ownership, was taken over by radical groups focused on absolute gun ownership. Prior to the takeover the NRA actually supported reasonable restrictions on gun ownership such as permits and waiting periods. Conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger once said that the 2nd Amendment’s development since the 1970s “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word –fraud — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime”.
  • James Comey hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances for reelection, but Hillary mostly did it to herself. She never grasped the impact her private email server was having on the public’s trust of her as a candidate. A recent CNN Report makes it pretty clear that this one issue doomed her candidacy. Other factors contributed to the public’s lack of trust, but the email issue was most important in the eyes of the voters.
  • President Trump won the Electoral College in the 2016 election by 306 to 232 electors but he lost the popular vote by 2,868,691 votes. In spite of President Trump’s claims to the contrary, there is no credible evidence  that voter fraud had a significant impact on the final vote tallies. Some voter fraud is to be expected when over 120 million people vote, but the number of fraudulent voters is very small.
  • Christopher Columbus did not “discover” America. Although the time reference cannot yet be agreed upon, we certainly know that Native Americans came here thousands of years before Columbus. Evidence also suggests that Vikings Leif Eriksson and Thorfinn Karlsefni arrived centuries earlier.
  • According to most economists and other pundits, including  conservative writer Juan Williams and contributors to the conservative leaning Washington Examiner, President Trump’s proposed budget would most hurt the very voters who put him in office.  The cuts affect sick children, loans for students to attend college, people confined to nursing homes, and other healthcare for the elderly. The wealthiest Americans would apparently do very well because of tax breaks, the elimination of estate taxes, and similar provisions in the plan. This would continue a three-decade trend concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The impact on the middle class is uncertain because the proposed budget is apparently pretty vague in a number of areas.
  • A pie chart circulating on Facebook indicates that 57% of federal expenditures are dedicated to the military and only 1% to food and agriculture. The truth is that we spend about 16.4% of our budget on the military and about 4% on food-related expenditures. Still, we spend more than $550 billion per year on the military and that will grow to more than $600 billion if President Trump’s current budget proposal passes Congress.
  • American citizens pay significantly more for healthcare than do citizens in other similar nations, but we have a lower life expectancy.  Americans spent an estimated $3.4 trillion on medical care in 2016, and forecasters say that may grow to $5.5 trillion by 2025 because our population is aging and because costs of medical services and drugs are growing at a rapid pace. By 2025 healthcare may consume 1/5 of our total economy. So the belief held by many that the free market will take care of healthcare costs appears false.
  • Even though a good many Americans do not believe it, the truth is that less than 1% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. That money goes for such things as HIV/AIDS prevention and other health-related projects, helping maintain forests (which produce clean air for everyone regardless of nationality), combatting drug trafficking, economic development, and various other humanitarian projects.  Opinions regarding whether we should be spending money for these projects depend on one’s ideology. We spend in the neighborhood of $50 billion per year on foreign aid. By comparison, after paying medical and other benefits to soldiers we will have spent more than $2 trillion (about 40 times as much) on the War in Iraq. We also spend well over $200 billion per year in interest on the debt. Interest on the debt doesn’t impact AIDS or forests.

I’m currently working on a webpage to host this blog, and with my technical skills this may take a while! I’m trying to save a few bucks because the current host is fairly expensive. As a consequence I’m not adding posts to the blog as frequently as I’d like, but I’ll keep it going as time permits. Let me know if there are topics you would like me to address. I may not know anything about the topic but that has never stopped me before!

False Patriotism

Posted on by
2

pa·tri·ot·ism

(pā′trē-ə-tĭz′əm)

Love of and devotion to one’s country. ((The Free Dictionary)

Patriotism seems pretty straightforward these days. We prove love and devotion to our country by waving the flag (or wearing a flag lapel pen or wearing an American flag bikini or displaying the American flag in various ways on our vehicles), listening to Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood (but definitely not The Dixie Chicks), and supporting military intervention regardless of the truth behind its execution. Modern patriotism supports an “us” (true American) vs “them” mentality based on symbols rather than substance and discourages critical thinking.

Patriotism of this sort is dangerous because it fosters an uninformed citizenry that blindly supports pretty much anything done or said by the government or by officials who are accepted as “patriotic”, and rejection of comments by anyone not considered patriotic. This, in turn, allows the government to make decisions which citizens support whether or not those decisions are grounded in fact. Most seriously, of course, is a decision to send our citizens off to war without just cause. Good examples are Lyndon Johnson’s false evidence used to support American escalation in Vietnam and Richard Nixon extending that war for political gain. More recently President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair appear to have based the invasion of Iraq on false evidence.  Government has also been less than honest with the public on other occasions such as President Nixon’s false statements about our involvement in Chilean elections and Senator Joseph McCarthy’s false accusations that government and Hollywood were filled with communists. Prevailing notions of patriotism do not promote questioning such decisions or statements.

Our Founders would almost certainly oppose the current definition of patriotism. Remember that they themselves were radicals who overthrew the existing regime (monarchy) and replaced it with radical/liberal structures and processes proposed by political philosophers from the Enlightenment. They naturally supported questioning government and would have considered doing so patriotic. Here are a few relevant quotes:

  • Ben Franklin: “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”
  • George Washington: “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism”
  • Abraham Lincoln (obviously not a Founder): “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men”.

My favorites and, in my opinion, most relevant:

  • Thomas Jefferson: “The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.”
  • Thomas Jefferson: “An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic.”

Jefferson argued that the best way to avoid tyranny was an informed public, not one that blindly follows its government.

I believe true patriotism is taking the time to understand the government and its policies and questioning governmental decisions or politicians’ statements that are not grounded in fact or science. James Madison said it best: “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” In a previous post I discussed how poorly informed we are as a society and, consequently, how easy it is to manipulate our opinions. I now offer the notion that being so poorly informed is unpatriotic. True patriots demonstrate love and devotion to their country by taking the time to understand as much as possible about the critical issues of the day rather than simply displaying the American flag (which, by the way, I also support). I absolutely understand that being fully informed when our lives are so hectic is a near impossibility, but we must at least try to understand the basic arguments driving our government’s policy decisions. And we should vigilantly test the truth of statements made by our leaders.

Although I prefer listening to music by Pink Floyd, Gorillaz, and Miles Davis, I also like The Dixie Chicks. I really don’t think that makes me unpatriotic.