I read a couple of reviews of the new Star Trek movie over the weekend. Although I rarely go to movies, part of me would sure like to see this one. It sounds like it would be great if you liked the original Star Trek series.
Back when I was a kid I used to watch Star Trek on TV, especially in reruns. I was never a Star Trek aficionado. I couldn’t tell you the plots of all of the episodes, I didn’t know anything about the actors’ lives, nor did I own Star Trek paraphernalia as did a few of the really weird kids at school. (One girl in high school carried around tribbles and a toy communicator in her purse.)
But a Star Trek episode was often a good way to waste an hour, especially given what was usually on competing channels at the same time — talk shows, game shows, inane dramas, and silly sit-coms. We could only get three channels back then and home video equipment was still years away.
Having seen Star Trek reruns many times during my couch potato years, there were some episodes that I really liked — where they ended up in a 1920s mob environment, where they went back to 1969, where they were in a Roman gladiator world, and where they had an old western shootout (hmmm, I note a pattern here) — and episodes that I quite disliked — where they dealt with this powerful brat named Charlie, where kids on the ship had an evil imaginary friend, the planet killer thing, and the episode called The Empath. (I just hated that one.) Most episodes were forgettable of themselves, although, they reinforced the basic patterns of the series. (“He’s dead, Jim!”)
Give me a break; I was a kid. I haven’t seen most of these shows since then. Maybe I’d have different opinions if I were to see these episodes today. But I rarely sit down to watch TV, so that’s not going to happen.
Years went by and I found myself regularly watching the Next Generation series. More sophisticated, to be sure. Not nearly as much brute force involved. Not bad, though. Then came DS9 — the show that got stranger and stranger by the episode. Life was changing for me then. I pretty much quit watching TV at all, so DS9 (thankfully) went by the wayside for me. I saw parts of a couple of episodes of Voyager, and thought, “What the …?”
This new movie, it seems, recaptures some of the best elements of the original series. But apparently it captures some of the worst elements as well.
Last Thursday my son had to work late at his job at a movie theater because they were showing a preview of the recent Star Trek movie. He later described for me the crowd that turned out to see it. The people that were decked out in Star Trek uniforms, he claimed, were almost uniformly “very fat” and “old” (meaning middle aged). “These were grown people,” he continued incredulously; “Dad, it was pathetic.”
Although I’d like to catch the movie, I suppose that it will be like countless other movies I have thought about watching over the past few years. Somehow I will never find time to get away and watch it. There will always be more important things going on. Then it will be out of theaters and released on DVD. Even then I probably won’t even bother to rent it. Who has the time? (Which is just another way of saying that it just isn’t very important to me.)
Besides, past experience has shown me that I usually don’t see things the way most movie reviewers do. What turns their crank doesn’t turn mine and vice versa. No disrespect intended. We just have different motivations.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Friday, May 08, 2009
Norway and the Price of Freedom
Some old gnarled trees on the grounds of Akershus Fortress in Oslo Norway still bear bullet holes and contain bullets fired by Nazi soldiers to execute Norwegian resistance fighters. A simple sign in the grove reads, “De kempet og de falt, de ga oss alt.” (They fought and they fell, they gave us their all.) Today marks 64 years since Norway was liberated from Nazi occupation.
Norwegians today still recall with bitterness the date of April 9, 1940 when German forces occupied Norway in a rapid operation. Many Norwegians still harbor a certain degree of animosity toward neighboring Sweden, which was officially neutral throughout WWII, and yet allowed German forces to use Swedish rail lines to invade across Norway’s eastern border in the early morning hours of April 9, 1940 (and subsequently permitted German rail shipments to and from Norway through Sweden throughout the war).
Norway had also been officially neutral even from WWI days. It had neutrality treaties with the UK and Germany. But Norway was also strategically important. The Gulf Stream gives Norway ice free harbors throughout the bitter winters. Its location allows relatively open sea access to the UK and North America. We now know that both the Axis and the Allies had contingency plans for operations in Norway. Hitler decided early on to put Germany’s plans into action.
Norway’s population was (and is) only a fraction the size of Germany’s. Germans maintained strict control by overwhelming the hapless Norwegians. There was one German occupier for every eight Norwegians. During this time my own grandfather, an officer in the German Naval Reserve spent time in Norway, where he said everything tasted like fish. (Having lost all trading partners except Germany, the Norwegian economy contracted, causing them to turn to heavier fishing. Fish products were used to extend many other foods and were included in most animal feeds.)
Even today Norwegians harbor harsh feelings for Nazi sympathizers. The term Quisling, which is synonymous with traitor, refers to Vidkun Quisling. He was a Norwegian politician and army officer that founded Norway’s equivalent of the Nazi Party and secretly worked with German planners to implement their plans to invade Norway. The Nazis made Quisling the head of Norwegian government during the occupation. Following the war he was executed for high treason.
One of Norway’s claims to fame is that a Norwegian invented the paper clip. (It turns out that Johan Vaaler had obtained German and U.S. patents for a version of the paper clip around 1901, despite the fact that a superior version of the paper clip about which he knew nothing already existed. His patented version was never manufactured.) During the German occupation, many Norwegians began wearing paper clips on their lapels as a show of patriotism and resistance against the occupation.
Resistance Fighters
Many Norwegians worked in the home front resistance forces, which used both active and passive methods. My mission president, Arthur Halvorsen (Wilford) was in the Norwegian underground and engaged in clandestine activities, including smuggling, distribution of illegal newspapers, and message transmission. Eventually he became part of a four-man team that sent secret encoded radio messages to the UK.
Arthur’s team often used a secret upper room in a building near the city hall in Bergen. The city hall had been appropriated to be Nazi headquarters in that area. This room permitted a good view of HQ activities. On one occasion, an important German official was visiting Bergen incognito. A member of Arthur’s team was able to get a good photograph of this man along with other German officials standing on the steps of city hall. The film was quickly smuggled to Allied officials in the UK. The next day, a large print of the photo was reproduced on the front page of a British newspaper.
Arthur was never sure how or why the photo had been leaked to the press. It was a morale builder that demonstrated the capacities of Allied spy efforts. But the publishing of the photo was a critical mistake that endangered Norwegian underground operatives. It didn’t take the Nazis long to figure out the vantage point from which the photo had been taken. The next time Arthur’s team met in the room to make a radio transmission, they were suddenly attacked by soldiers. Arthur remembered being whacked on the head and losing consciousness.
Prisoners
Arthur was one of the lucky ones that survived the attack. But he ended up in a prison camp in another part of Norway. Eventually he and other hard nose prisoners (especially those caught attempting escape) were shipped to a serious prisoner of war camp in the eastern part of Germany. News was hard to get in the camp and often came only when new prisoners were brought in. But as the war wore on, it became apparent that things were not going well for the Germans. The prison guards of prime age were sent out to the front and were replaced by both older and younger men. Food became worse. The prisoners were suffering from malnutrition.
One day an officer came and asked for four volunteers that knew how to work a dairy farm. Arthur talked three other Scandinavians into stepping forward with him for the detail. At the time, they didn’t realize that they would never return to the prison camp. They ended up on a dairy farm out in the countryside, where they did all of the work. They were constantly overseen by an armed guard. They slept in the barn, no matter how cold it was. They were prohibited from approaching or having interaction with the residents of the farm house, but they knew that all of the men folk were off to war.
In many ways, this situation was preferable to being in the prison camp. They got better nutrition and exercise. They had something to do. They developed a working relationship with many of their guards. As the weeks passed, they began to regain much of their normal strength. The guards were regularly replaced by even older guards. The four Scandinavians began to formulate escape plans.
One part of the plan was to gain the confidence of guards and make so that no flight risk would be suspected. They found ways to pick up on every possible tidbit of information because they didn’t really know for sure where they were or what the best route to freedom was. Eventually everything was ready.
On the run
Arthur said that he felt badly about tricking the guard, knocking him out, and securing him in the outhouse, because this particular man had always been kind to them. They then crept up to the farmhouse and disabled its communications. They used the guard’s weapon to hold the residents at bay while they stole as much food and clothing as was feasible. They had already saddled the horses by then. They knew it wouldn’t be long before the residents alerted the authorities, so they made their escape as quickly as possible, driving the horses hard and moving eastward.
After many days of traveling by horse (mostly at night), they were running low on supplies. They decided that they would have to trust someone in order to get supplies, so they tied up the horses at what appeared to be a small grocery store and sent two men inside. They discovered that they were in Poland, but the shop owner could speak German as well. He was more than happy to trade supplies for their horses. He also told them all of the news he had about the war.
After talking to the shop proprietor, the escapees determined that going further east and into the arms of the advancing Soviet forces was probably not a good idea. Using a crude map provided by the proprietor, they plotted a route westward through remote areas that they figured would steer them as clear of military activity as possible.
Traveling by foot turned out to be harsh. Although spring had arrived, there was still plenty of rain, mud, and cold. The men were in good shape at the beginning of their foot trek, but they could carry relatively minimal supplies and those supplies were rapidly expended. The further they got into Germany, the more they had to travel under cover of darkness. Because they stuck to outlying areas, resupplying (even by theft) was difficult.
Weeks went by. The four once-hardy men were emaciated, filthy, and clad in rags. One day as they slept in a ditch, their lookout man awoke the others. He could hear the approach of vehicles, including heavy vehicles. It had to be a military operation. The escapees had been out of touch with news, so they didn’t know for sure what this meant. They assayed their options and determined that trying to backtrack away from the area would likely get them spotted, so they decided to lay low in the ditch.
Finally it sounded as if the heavy vehicles were very near them. They were afraid that if anyone even stuck his head up above the ditch bank, it would get shot off and would expose the others. But eventually they decided that one of them would have to carefully look. One of the men took a deep breath and carefully raised himself up enough to peer over the bank, and then he carefully lowered himself. “What did you see?” asked the others. “Tanks and vehicles. Each has a big white star on the side,” he answered. It had to be Allied forces.
One of the men ripped off part of what had once been a white shirt and fastened it to the end of a long reed. The men slowly stood up with their hands and the flag in the air and started walking toward the road. In very short order they found themselves being fed rations and being checked by medics. It was still months before the men were back home in Scandinavia, but their ordeal as prisoners and fugitives was over. They were safe once again.
Liberation
Norway was officially liberated from Nazi rule on May 8, 1945 when German forces in the country surrendered to the Allies as part of the surrender of German forces in Europe. The leadership structure developed by the resistance movement proved to be highly useful in restoring order in the ensuing weeks. Crown Prince Olav (later King Olav V) returned to Norway from exile in the UK amid the wild cheering of adoring crowds on May 13. The rest of the royal family returned on June 7. The five-year night of Nazi occupation was over.
Having learned that neutrality does not ensure peace or safety, Norway soon joined NATO. All Norwegian males are required to fulfill a year of military service between ages 18 and 26 and remain on reserve call until age 44. Attitudes have changed somewhat with the passing of generations and the influx of significant numbers of immigrants from Asia and the Middle East, but the five-year Nazi occupation of the country has left a deep impression on the Norwegian psyche that will not soon go away. Many Norwegians still remember the captivity of their fathers (see Alma 29:11-12, Alma 36:2,28-29).
Norwegians today still recall with bitterness the date of April 9, 1940 when German forces occupied Norway in a rapid operation. Many Norwegians still harbor a certain degree of animosity toward neighboring Sweden, which was officially neutral throughout WWII, and yet allowed German forces to use Swedish rail lines to invade across Norway’s eastern border in the early morning hours of April 9, 1940 (and subsequently permitted German rail shipments to and from Norway through Sweden throughout the war).
Norway had also been officially neutral even from WWI days. It had neutrality treaties with the UK and Germany. But Norway was also strategically important. The Gulf Stream gives Norway ice free harbors throughout the bitter winters. Its location allows relatively open sea access to the UK and North America. We now know that both the Axis and the Allies had contingency plans for operations in Norway. Hitler decided early on to put Germany’s plans into action.
Norway’s population was (and is) only a fraction the size of Germany’s. Germans maintained strict control by overwhelming the hapless Norwegians. There was one German occupier for every eight Norwegians. During this time my own grandfather, an officer in the German Naval Reserve spent time in Norway, where he said everything tasted like fish. (Having lost all trading partners except Germany, the Norwegian economy contracted, causing them to turn to heavier fishing. Fish products were used to extend many other foods and were included in most animal feeds.)
Even today Norwegians harbor harsh feelings for Nazi sympathizers. The term Quisling, which is synonymous with traitor, refers to Vidkun Quisling. He was a Norwegian politician and army officer that founded Norway’s equivalent of the Nazi Party and secretly worked with German planners to implement their plans to invade Norway. The Nazis made Quisling the head of Norwegian government during the occupation. Following the war he was executed for high treason.
One of Norway’s claims to fame is that a Norwegian invented the paper clip. (It turns out that Johan Vaaler had obtained German and U.S. patents for a version of the paper clip around 1901, despite the fact that a superior version of the paper clip about which he knew nothing already existed. His patented version was never manufactured.) During the German occupation, many Norwegians began wearing paper clips on their lapels as a show of patriotism and resistance against the occupation.
Resistance Fighters
Many Norwegians worked in the home front resistance forces, which used both active and passive methods. My mission president, Arthur Halvorsen (Wilford) was in the Norwegian underground and engaged in clandestine activities, including smuggling, distribution of illegal newspapers, and message transmission. Eventually he became part of a four-man team that sent secret encoded radio messages to the UK.
Arthur’s team often used a secret upper room in a building near the city hall in Bergen. The city hall had been appropriated to be Nazi headquarters in that area. This room permitted a good view of HQ activities. On one occasion, an important German official was visiting Bergen incognito. A member of Arthur’s team was able to get a good photograph of this man along with other German officials standing on the steps of city hall. The film was quickly smuggled to Allied officials in the UK. The next day, a large print of the photo was reproduced on the front page of a British newspaper.
Arthur was never sure how or why the photo had been leaked to the press. It was a morale builder that demonstrated the capacities of Allied spy efforts. But the publishing of the photo was a critical mistake that endangered Norwegian underground operatives. It didn’t take the Nazis long to figure out the vantage point from which the photo had been taken. The next time Arthur’s team met in the room to make a radio transmission, they were suddenly attacked by soldiers. Arthur remembered being whacked on the head and losing consciousness.
Prisoners
Arthur was one of the lucky ones that survived the attack. But he ended up in a prison camp in another part of Norway. Eventually he and other hard nose prisoners (especially those caught attempting escape) were shipped to a serious prisoner of war camp in the eastern part of Germany. News was hard to get in the camp and often came only when new prisoners were brought in. But as the war wore on, it became apparent that things were not going well for the Germans. The prison guards of prime age were sent out to the front and were replaced by both older and younger men. Food became worse. The prisoners were suffering from malnutrition.
One day an officer came and asked for four volunteers that knew how to work a dairy farm. Arthur talked three other Scandinavians into stepping forward with him for the detail. At the time, they didn’t realize that they would never return to the prison camp. They ended up on a dairy farm out in the countryside, where they did all of the work. They were constantly overseen by an armed guard. They slept in the barn, no matter how cold it was. They were prohibited from approaching or having interaction with the residents of the farm house, but they knew that all of the men folk were off to war.
In many ways, this situation was preferable to being in the prison camp. They got better nutrition and exercise. They had something to do. They developed a working relationship with many of their guards. As the weeks passed, they began to regain much of their normal strength. The guards were regularly replaced by even older guards. The four Scandinavians began to formulate escape plans.
One part of the plan was to gain the confidence of guards and make so that no flight risk would be suspected. They found ways to pick up on every possible tidbit of information because they didn’t really know for sure where they were or what the best route to freedom was. Eventually everything was ready.
On the run
Arthur said that he felt badly about tricking the guard, knocking him out, and securing him in the outhouse, because this particular man had always been kind to them. They then crept up to the farmhouse and disabled its communications. They used the guard’s weapon to hold the residents at bay while they stole as much food and clothing as was feasible. They had already saddled the horses by then. They knew it wouldn’t be long before the residents alerted the authorities, so they made their escape as quickly as possible, driving the horses hard and moving eastward.
After many days of traveling by horse (mostly at night), they were running low on supplies. They decided that they would have to trust someone in order to get supplies, so they tied up the horses at what appeared to be a small grocery store and sent two men inside. They discovered that they were in Poland, but the shop owner could speak German as well. He was more than happy to trade supplies for their horses. He also told them all of the news he had about the war.
After talking to the shop proprietor, the escapees determined that going further east and into the arms of the advancing Soviet forces was probably not a good idea. Using a crude map provided by the proprietor, they plotted a route westward through remote areas that they figured would steer them as clear of military activity as possible.
Traveling by foot turned out to be harsh. Although spring had arrived, there was still plenty of rain, mud, and cold. The men were in good shape at the beginning of their foot trek, but they could carry relatively minimal supplies and those supplies were rapidly expended. The further they got into Germany, the more they had to travel under cover of darkness. Because they stuck to outlying areas, resupplying (even by theft) was difficult.
Weeks went by. The four once-hardy men were emaciated, filthy, and clad in rags. One day as they slept in a ditch, their lookout man awoke the others. He could hear the approach of vehicles, including heavy vehicles. It had to be a military operation. The escapees had been out of touch with news, so they didn’t know for sure what this meant. They assayed their options and determined that trying to backtrack away from the area would likely get them spotted, so they decided to lay low in the ditch.
Finally it sounded as if the heavy vehicles were very near them. They were afraid that if anyone even stuck his head up above the ditch bank, it would get shot off and would expose the others. But eventually they decided that one of them would have to carefully look. One of the men took a deep breath and carefully raised himself up enough to peer over the bank, and then he carefully lowered himself. “What did you see?” asked the others. “Tanks and vehicles. Each has a big white star on the side,” he answered. It had to be Allied forces.
One of the men ripped off part of what had once been a white shirt and fastened it to the end of a long reed. The men slowly stood up with their hands and the flag in the air and started walking toward the road. In very short order they found themselves being fed rations and being checked by medics. It was still months before the men were back home in Scandinavia, but their ordeal as prisoners and fugitives was over. They were safe once again.
Liberation
Norway was officially liberated from Nazi rule on May 8, 1945 when German forces in the country surrendered to the Allies as part of the surrender of German forces in Europe. The leadership structure developed by the resistance movement proved to be highly useful in restoring order in the ensuing weeks. Crown Prince Olav (later King Olav V) returned to Norway from exile in the UK amid the wild cheering of adoring crowds on May 13. The rest of the royal family returned on June 7. The five-year night of Nazi occupation was over.
Having learned that neutrality does not ensure peace or safety, Norway soon joined NATO. All Norwegian males are required to fulfill a year of military service between ages 18 and 26 and remain on reserve call until age 44. Attitudes have changed somewhat with the passing of generations and the influx of significant numbers of immigrants from Asia and the Middle East, but the five-year Nazi occupation of the country has left a deep impression on the Norwegian psyche that will not soon go away. Many Norwegians still remember the captivity of their fathers (see Alma 29:11-12, Alma 36:2,28-29).
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Culture of Corruption
Jonah Goldberg has a stinging little article about some of the corruption occurring on the Democrats’ watch. He starts by giving a nod to some of the famed GOP crooks of recent years before launching into a hearty tirade about various dirty Dems.
Among other things, Goldberg discusses some shady dealings with respect to the current Chrysler debacle. (A tragedy in the making as described in this WSJ article by Holman W. Jenkins. One of Chrysler’s creditors describes in this NYTimes article how Obama administration officials tried to use hardball tactics to fleece his company in order to pay off political donors.)
Goldberg then writes, “If a Republican administration, staffed with cronies from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, were cutting special deals for its political allies ….” Whoa, he couldn’t be talking about the likes of Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, could he?
Finally, after ripping on Dems, Goldberg sounds a note of bipartisanship, writing that “political corruption is inevitable whenever you give hacks — of either party — too much discretion over public funds.”
And therein, my friends, lies the crux of the matter. Goldberg’s rant may seem a bit overly partisan to some. The fact is that when the government controls such a large slice of the economy, thuggish political opportunists will rise to take as much advantage as possible, regardless of which party of crooks is running the show.
The more money that is involved, the greater will be the corruption. This is human nature. More to the point, it is the nature of politicians. Americans by and large simply accept such sleaze as the way things happen to work in our system. Occasionally egregious underhandedness raises the public ire until it passes from the news cycle. And then the corruption cycle returns to normal.
This is one reason that some Americans favor limited government. The less government has its fingers in the economy, the less political corruption there will be.
Among other things, Goldberg discusses some shady dealings with respect to the current Chrysler debacle. (A tragedy in the making as described in this WSJ article by Holman W. Jenkins. One of Chrysler’s creditors describes in this NYTimes article how Obama administration officials tried to use hardball tactics to fleece his company in order to pay off political donors.)
Goldberg then writes, “If a Republican administration, staffed with cronies from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, were cutting special deals for its political allies ….” Whoa, he couldn’t be talking about the likes of Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, could he?
Finally, after ripping on Dems, Goldberg sounds a note of bipartisanship, writing that “political corruption is inevitable whenever you give hacks — of either party — too much discretion over public funds.”
And therein, my friends, lies the crux of the matter. Goldberg’s rant may seem a bit overly partisan to some. The fact is that when the government controls such a large slice of the economy, thuggish political opportunists will rise to take as much advantage as possible, regardless of which party of crooks is running the show.
The more money that is involved, the greater will be the corruption. This is human nature. More to the point, it is the nature of politicians. Americans by and large simply accept such sleaze as the way things happen to work in our system. Occasionally egregious underhandedness raises the public ire until it passes from the news cycle. And then the corruption cycle returns to normal.
This is one reason that some Americans favor limited government. The less government has its fingers in the economy, the less political corruption there will be.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Deadly Data
Being an information technology worker, I read with interest this post by Joe Bugajski titled, The Data Model That Nearly Killed Me. Bugajski has decades of experience in engineering with particular expertise in data and application design. He has patents, peer-reviewed publications, and technical book authorship under his belt. When it comes to IT, Bugajski knows what he is talking about. When it comes to medicine he is no expert, but he has a story to tell.
Bugajski’s article details his horrific experience with getting inadequate treatment for a severe asthma attack he suffered earlier this year. He ended up in a large teaching hospital that reportedly has great care. But he describes how the staff fought continuously with the computer system that was supposedly designed to improve the quality of medical care.
The upshot is that the critical medication Bugajski needed was not administered until 34 hours after his arrival at the hospital and 14 hours after his admittance to intensive care. He says that this was significantly due to a poorly designed computer system. The problem was then repeated when a second dose of the medication was due.
While Bugajski’s article is informative, I found the extensive comments at the end of the article even more informative. Some comments focus on IT issues. Many comments coming from health care professionals expose serious flaws in the medical system that are not directly related to the industry’s use (or lack of use) of information technologies.
IT doesn’t always work well with medicine
Some posters suggest that health care IT systems are inadequate because they attempt to address competing requirements. Getting all of a person’s health data in one place is a worthy goal, but privacy concerns (and policies) often limit the ability of different practitioners (and different levels of practitioners) to access all of the pertinent data. Some systems restrict entry of certain types of data in order to limit liability.
Once an error makes it into the system, it is nearly impossible to correct. Too much data can also produce information overload for practitioners interfacing with the system. Systems are not designed to function well with the way practitioners actually think and work. Databases are poor systems for storing some types of medical knowledge and information.
Non-technical issues
Some posters suggest that these technical issues are only peripheral to the main problems in health care. Ian, a self-identified physician writes, “Sad truth: doctors are not paid for treating your pain: they are paid for documenting its location, duration, frequency, timing, quality, modifying factors, and associated symptoms.”
A frequently repeated complaint is that there is fragmented care due to the lack of a patient advocate with adequate knowledge and power to bring the various specialist treatments together to achieve a positive result. Numerous highly trained professionals are each only operating with a small piece of the puzzle. They are not empowered or incentivized to see the big picture. There is no ownership of the patient’s general welfare, so nobody in the system really cares about it.
To counter this lack of incentive, an EMT writes, “There is absolutely no substitute for an active sense of skepticism and a very irritated advocate in any healthcare setting. None.”
Another related matter is explained by a poster name Gerry. “… the physician of today has scant training looking at the patient, but lots of training at looking for a molecular cause for any illness. Thus, they tend to believe the lab more than they believe the patient.”
Charlie, a health systems integrator, feels that the problem lies in medical traditions. He writes, “Today, the culture of American medical professionals seems to be unfortunately similar to that of medieval priests - doctors are trained (through fairly brutal treatment involving sleep deprivation and rigorous indoctrination) to have a certain “hero” mindset and to disregard and distrust outside views that conflict with hierarchically dispensed dogmas.” Practitioners are trained not to ignore outside information but to treat it with disdain. That’s why the pleas of Bugajski and his wife for a known treatment were cast aside by multiple practitioners.
An alarming situation
Several posters alluded to the lack of response to audible (and perhaps visual) alarms on various medical devices. One doctor says that these are often ignored because practitioners already know about and have considered the condition causing the alarm. Even if this is true, it points out a glaring lack of concern for the psychological wellbeing of the patient and his family. To them it looks like the patient’s peril is being ignored. Hasn’t anyone considered how to alert care professionals without freaking out patients and their loved ones?
This brings to light another problem. Every medical device is being developed as a standalone thing. Patients are hooked up to numerous devices that don’t know about and don’t talk to each other, and that don’t provide concerted feedback to practitioners. Why is this the case? Why is there no incentive for developing patient friendly devices that provide useful and concerted feedback to practitioners?
Perverse incentives and myths
Another concern voiced is that creating a government based electronic health care record will produce perverse incentives for officially sanctioned misuse of the data. This will create an incentive for people to be less than forthcoming, perhaps creating dangerous situations. Gattaca anyone?
As I wrote in this post last year, GMU economist Robin Hanson argues that our culture has an unhealthy superstition about the heroic capabilities of modern medical treatment. Our cultural conditioning causes us to develop incentives for spending our health care dollars on things that have little impact rather than on more significant factors, “such as exercise, diet, sleep, smoking, pollution, climate, and social status.”
Hanson’s research reveals that much of our heroic based medicine produces as much in negative effects as it does in positive effects. In this article, Hanson argues that we could cut current medical expenses in half without seeing any real decline in health outcomes. Our culture militates against this and we have a massive medical industry that is heavily invested in the practice of heroic medicine. Despite evidence that this is a poor use of resources, people continually demand more of the same.
Conclusion
It seems clear that health care IT systems are a mixed bag, at best. Perhaps the attempt to develop rational IT models to support an irrational health care system is destined to produce an ill fitting outcome. Possibly we need more discussions about how to achieve better health outcomes than about how to pay for heroic medicine.
Bugajski’s article details his horrific experience with getting inadequate treatment for a severe asthma attack he suffered earlier this year. He ended up in a large teaching hospital that reportedly has great care. But he describes how the staff fought continuously with the computer system that was supposedly designed to improve the quality of medical care.
The upshot is that the critical medication Bugajski needed was not administered until 34 hours after his arrival at the hospital and 14 hours after his admittance to intensive care. He says that this was significantly due to a poorly designed computer system. The problem was then repeated when a second dose of the medication was due.
While Bugajski’s article is informative, I found the extensive comments at the end of the article even more informative. Some comments focus on IT issues. Many comments coming from health care professionals expose serious flaws in the medical system that are not directly related to the industry’s use (or lack of use) of information technologies.
IT doesn’t always work well with medicine
Some posters suggest that health care IT systems are inadequate because they attempt to address competing requirements. Getting all of a person’s health data in one place is a worthy goal, but privacy concerns (and policies) often limit the ability of different practitioners (and different levels of practitioners) to access all of the pertinent data. Some systems restrict entry of certain types of data in order to limit liability.
Once an error makes it into the system, it is nearly impossible to correct. Too much data can also produce information overload for practitioners interfacing with the system. Systems are not designed to function well with the way practitioners actually think and work. Databases are poor systems for storing some types of medical knowledge and information.
Non-technical issues
Some posters suggest that these technical issues are only peripheral to the main problems in health care. Ian, a self-identified physician writes, “Sad truth: doctors are not paid for treating your pain: they are paid for documenting its location, duration, frequency, timing, quality, modifying factors, and associated symptoms.”
A frequently repeated complaint is that there is fragmented care due to the lack of a patient advocate with adequate knowledge and power to bring the various specialist treatments together to achieve a positive result. Numerous highly trained professionals are each only operating with a small piece of the puzzle. They are not empowered or incentivized to see the big picture. There is no ownership of the patient’s general welfare, so nobody in the system really cares about it.
To counter this lack of incentive, an EMT writes, “There is absolutely no substitute for an active sense of skepticism and a very irritated advocate in any healthcare setting. None.”
Another related matter is explained by a poster name Gerry. “… the physician of today has scant training looking at the patient, but lots of training at looking for a molecular cause for any illness. Thus, they tend to believe the lab more than they believe the patient.”
Charlie, a health systems integrator, feels that the problem lies in medical traditions. He writes, “Today, the culture of American medical professionals seems to be unfortunately similar to that of medieval priests - doctors are trained (through fairly brutal treatment involving sleep deprivation and rigorous indoctrination) to have a certain “hero” mindset and to disregard and distrust outside views that conflict with hierarchically dispensed dogmas.” Practitioners are trained not to ignore outside information but to treat it with disdain. That’s why the pleas of Bugajski and his wife for a known treatment were cast aside by multiple practitioners.
An alarming situation
Several posters alluded to the lack of response to audible (and perhaps visual) alarms on various medical devices. One doctor says that these are often ignored because practitioners already know about and have considered the condition causing the alarm. Even if this is true, it points out a glaring lack of concern for the psychological wellbeing of the patient and his family. To them it looks like the patient’s peril is being ignored. Hasn’t anyone considered how to alert care professionals without freaking out patients and their loved ones?
This brings to light another problem. Every medical device is being developed as a standalone thing. Patients are hooked up to numerous devices that don’t know about and don’t talk to each other, and that don’t provide concerted feedback to practitioners. Why is this the case? Why is there no incentive for developing patient friendly devices that provide useful and concerted feedback to practitioners?
Perverse incentives and myths
Another concern voiced is that creating a government based electronic health care record will produce perverse incentives for officially sanctioned misuse of the data. This will create an incentive for people to be less than forthcoming, perhaps creating dangerous situations. Gattaca anyone?
As I wrote in this post last year, GMU economist Robin Hanson argues that our culture has an unhealthy superstition about the heroic capabilities of modern medical treatment. Our cultural conditioning causes us to develop incentives for spending our health care dollars on things that have little impact rather than on more significant factors, “such as exercise, diet, sleep, smoking, pollution, climate, and social status.”
Hanson’s research reveals that much of our heroic based medicine produces as much in negative effects as it does in positive effects. In this article, Hanson argues that we could cut current medical expenses in half without seeing any real decline in health outcomes. Our culture militates against this and we have a massive medical industry that is heavily invested in the practice of heroic medicine. Despite evidence that this is a poor use of resources, people continually demand more of the same.
Conclusion
It seems clear that health care IT systems are a mixed bag, at best. Perhaps the attempt to develop rational IT models to support an irrational health care system is destined to produce an ill fitting outcome. Possibly we need more discussions about how to achieve better health outcomes than about how to pay for heroic medicine.
Friday, May 01, 2009
The GOP Dilemma
As a follow-up to my last post and related comments, I found WSJ articles by Kimberly Strassel and Peggy Noonan interesting. Both agree that the departure from the GOP of Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) is generating a lot of introspection among Republicans. This is not because Specter was a great Republican, but because this relatively small change has pushed the national GOP to the precipice of political irrelevance.
While a debate about what it means to be Republican is both useful and essential, “Mr. Specter,” writes Strassel, “is a very unhealthy basis on which to be having what might otherwise be a healthy debate. … The Pennsylvanian has only ever been purely ideological on one issue: the polls.” Noonan contends, “It is fine to dismiss Mr. Specter as an opportunist, but opportunists tell you something: which side is winning. That's the side they want to be on.”
Strassel particularly takes on Republican ‘moderates’ like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) that talk airily about some undefined form of “centrism,” while supporting everything put up by GOP opponents. Strassel contrasts this with others that have taken principled stands against their party’s position on various issues. Such disagreements can often be tolerated. But Strassel suggests that Republicans that demonstrate by their actions that they agree with very little of the party’s principles cause more harm than good.
Noonan writes, “A great party needs give. It must be expansive and summoning. It needs to say, "Join me." … A great party cannot live by constantly subtracting, by removing or shunning those who are not faithful to every aspect of its beliefs….” This sounds good, but I’m not sure it’s as accurate as Noonan suggests. Or at least, I’m not sure that voting out (or threatening to vote out) a single senator in a primary election amounts to what Noonan is saying it does.
The Specter situation is similar to the conditions Sen. Lieberman ([I]D-CT) faced back in 2006. Lieberman was turned upon by the party establishment and was rejected by his party’s primary voters. Republicans crowed that the Lieberman expulsion would harm Democrats. Can anybody point me to evidence of that harm?
Both Strassel and Noonan call for the GOP to define its principles. “The party,” writes Strassel, “is currently in trouble because the party lost its principles. Overspending, earmarks, corruption and policy drift undermined Republican claims to be the party of reform. … [T]he GOP will never win running as a less enthusiastic version of big-government Democrats. … [T]he party must reclaim its mantle of the party of limited government and entrepreneurship.”
Noonan calls for party principles to include at least “a strong defense, … a less demanding and intrusive government, … [and] a natural affection and respect for tradition and for life….” Due to the party’s recent support of measures antithetical to some of these principles, contends Noonan, it “will take them a while to seem credible again.”
Credibility is the missing link. This is precisely what many Republicans are clamoring for in their own way. While Noonan calls for the welcoming of anyone that says they are Republican, it should be obvious that accepting too many that don’t actually buy into party principles helped create the credibility crisis in which the GOP finds itself today.
As I have said before, major political parties are made up of factions that often strongly disagree on various issues. Noonan says that it is extremely rare that someone comes along that can solidly unify those factions as did FDR and Reagan, so that the GOP should move ahead without looking for such a savior. It occurs to me, however, that the Democratic Party is currently experiencing such a rare moment with President Obama.
Noonan accurately lists the challenges facing the GOP, including “younger voters who seem embarrassed to be associated with them, an aging and contracting base and, perhaps most ominously, what appears to be a new national openness to a redefinition of the relationship between the government and the governed.”
The generational shift Noonan mentions may be a much greater issue than the GOP’s apparent lack of credibility — just as generational shift played a big role in the GOP coming to power in the 80s and 90s. After all, politicians are by definition among the least credible humans on earth, regardless of party affiliation. If this is the case, perhaps the best the GOP can do is to position itself to be ready to catch the next generational shift wave that comes along.
Regardless of the reasons for current conditions and what the future holds, it would certainly do the GOP well to restore some sense of credibility. The party should welcome even those that only marginally agree, but before that can happen in a healthy manner the party has to nail down precisely what its basic principles are. Then a significant core of party members has to unwaveringly buy into those principles.
As Noonan says, this kind of work takes a long time. How can something like this happen without a strong leader? It has to begin among the lowest levels and percolate its way up. This will be a painstaking process. But if the welcoming process Noonan touts starts before this point, the party will again be blown about like a ship without a rudder.
So, the solution for the GOP is to develop a strong set of core principles and to welcome any that are willing to sail under that banner. But it has to happen in that order or it won’t happen at all. Why would anyone want to be aligned with a party that basically stands for nothing more than not being registered Democrats?
While a debate about what it means to be Republican is both useful and essential, “Mr. Specter,” writes Strassel, “is a very unhealthy basis on which to be having what might otherwise be a healthy debate. … The Pennsylvanian has only ever been purely ideological on one issue: the polls.” Noonan contends, “It is fine to dismiss Mr. Specter as an opportunist, but opportunists tell you something: which side is winning. That's the side they want to be on.”
Strassel particularly takes on Republican ‘moderates’ like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) that talk airily about some undefined form of “centrism,” while supporting everything put up by GOP opponents. Strassel contrasts this with others that have taken principled stands against their party’s position on various issues. Such disagreements can often be tolerated. But Strassel suggests that Republicans that demonstrate by their actions that they agree with very little of the party’s principles cause more harm than good.
Noonan writes, “A great party needs give. It must be expansive and summoning. It needs to say, "Join me." … A great party cannot live by constantly subtracting, by removing or shunning those who are not faithful to every aspect of its beliefs….” This sounds good, but I’m not sure it’s as accurate as Noonan suggests. Or at least, I’m not sure that voting out (or threatening to vote out) a single senator in a primary election amounts to what Noonan is saying it does.
The Specter situation is similar to the conditions Sen. Lieberman ([I]D-CT) faced back in 2006. Lieberman was turned upon by the party establishment and was rejected by his party’s primary voters. Republicans crowed that the Lieberman expulsion would harm Democrats. Can anybody point me to evidence of that harm?
Both Strassel and Noonan call for the GOP to define its principles. “The party,” writes Strassel, “is currently in trouble because the party lost its principles. Overspending, earmarks, corruption and policy drift undermined Republican claims to be the party of reform. … [T]he GOP will never win running as a less enthusiastic version of big-government Democrats. … [T]he party must reclaim its mantle of the party of limited government and entrepreneurship.”
Noonan calls for party principles to include at least “a strong defense, … a less demanding and intrusive government, … [and] a natural affection and respect for tradition and for life….” Due to the party’s recent support of measures antithetical to some of these principles, contends Noonan, it “will take them a while to seem credible again.”
Credibility is the missing link. This is precisely what many Republicans are clamoring for in their own way. While Noonan calls for the welcoming of anyone that says they are Republican, it should be obvious that accepting too many that don’t actually buy into party principles helped create the credibility crisis in which the GOP finds itself today.
As I have said before, major political parties are made up of factions that often strongly disagree on various issues. Noonan says that it is extremely rare that someone comes along that can solidly unify those factions as did FDR and Reagan, so that the GOP should move ahead without looking for such a savior. It occurs to me, however, that the Democratic Party is currently experiencing such a rare moment with President Obama.
Noonan accurately lists the challenges facing the GOP, including “younger voters who seem embarrassed to be associated with them, an aging and contracting base and, perhaps most ominously, what appears to be a new national openness to a redefinition of the relationship between the government and the governed.”
The generational shift Noonan mentions may be a much greater issue than the GOP’s apparent lack of credibility — just as generational shift played a big role in the GOP coming to power in the 80s and 90s. After all, politicians are by definition among the least credible humans on earth, regardless of party affiliation. If this is the case, perhaps the best the GOP can do is to position itself to be ready to catch the next generational shift wave that comes along.
Regardless of the reasons for current conditions and what the future holds, it would certainly do the GOP well to restore some sense of credibility. The party should welcome even those that only marginally agree, but before that can happen in a healthy manner the party has to nail down precisely what its basic principles are. Then a significant core of party members has to unwaveringly buy into those principles.
As Noonan says, this kind of work takes a long time. How can something like this happen without a strong leader? It has to begin among the lowest levels and percolate its way up. This will be a painstaking process. But if the welcoming process Noonan touts starts before this point, the party will again be blown about like a ship without a rudder.
So, the solution for the GOP is to develop a strong set of core principles and to welcome any that are willing to sail under that banner. But it has to happen in that order or it won’t happen at all. Why would anyone want to be aligned with a party that basically stands for nothing more than not being registered Democrats?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Political Opportunists
We like to think that a politician’s job is to represent her constituents. Most politicians parrot those words, but most also understand — either consciously or subconsciously — that their primary job is to further their own career. Sometimes representing constituents can be a means to that end; other times, not so much.
I’m not saying that politicians are not also driven by certain ideologies and philosophies. Those are part of the whole package. If you carefully observe what politicians really do, you will discover that they are opportunists that exploit every possible avenue to further their career. Politicians with staying power not only enjoy what they do; they are among the best political opportunists around.
Opportunists
As a political novice, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took advantage of shifting party loyalties in the 70s to unseat three-term Democratic Senator Frank Moss in 1976. On the campaign trail, he would ask, “What do you call a senator that has spent three terms in Washington, DC?” He would then answer his own question, “You call him home!”
The point was to insinuate that someone that had been in the U.S. Senate for 18 years was out of touch with his constituents back home. This line was such a crowd pleaser that it was incorporated into radio and TV ads. Today as Hatch prepares to run for term number seven in 2012, he emphasizes the value of his “experience” and “tenure,” seemingly oblivious to any concerns about being out of touch with constituents.
Even the most casual political observer can see how Hatch has changed his stripes over 3½ decades. Democrats have said that among GOP senators, Hatch is “one of the most bipartisan and easy to work with.” When any politician says something of that nature about a politician from the opposing party, it means that the politician being praised pretty much shares the ideology of the opposing party or is a push over.
This ideological shift has not harmed Hatch. The last time he faced even somewhat serious competition was 1982. He continues to successfully take advantage of the conditions in which he finds himself. Although many of Hatch’s loyal voters would be shocked to find how much they differ with him on legislation he has supported, he knows that he has the resources to nip in the bud any would-be challengers from the right and can count on reliable Republican votes, as long as he doesn’t do anything like have an affair or kiss a male gay-rights activist on the lips in public.
Another example of effective opportunism is Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has just switched from the GOP to the Democratic Party as he prepares to run for a sixth term next year. Specter has always been a moderate in a state that has both Democratic and Republican strongholds. But he is not wrong when he says that the Pennsylvania GOP has shifted right in recent years.
Straddling the middle worked well for Specter until 2004 when he faced a strong challenge in the GOP primary. To beat conservative Congressman Pat Toomey, Specter had to appear to lean right, only to have to rapidly track back left to beat his Democratic opponent in the general election.
Specter has long enjoyed a higher approval rating from his state’s Democrats than from registered Republicans. It has now become apparent that Specter would lose a primary rematch against Toomey. Rather than face certain primary defeat, Specter has decided to switch parties. These kinds of occurrences are the results of backroom deals. I suspect that Specter extracted promises from his new party of certain committee assignments and no serious primary contest.
This is political opportunism at its finest. By switching parties now, Specter will likely cruise to re-election. While Toomey might trounce Specter in a GOP primary, Specter is likely to soundly beat Toomey in a general election. He will be better funded and have more name recognition, and his centrist views will appeal to more of the state’s voters. After holding powerful roles in the GOP during the years they were in the majority, Specter will now get to be part of the Democratic powerhouse. It’s the best of both worlds for him.
Diminishing GOP
Since it is looking more likely that the Democrats will pick up the Minnesota seat currently contested by Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken, it seems that Specter’s shift will provide Democrats with the critical 60th vote in the Senate that will allow them to override Republican objections to passing any legislation they want. That is, at least until January 2011. Then perhaps Democrats will pick up even more senate seats, as happened in the 1934 mid-term election, giving them an even clearer mandate.
This is quite probable because Senate (and House) Republicans currently appear feckless, rudderless, and disingenuous all at the same time, and because more GOP than Democratic Senate seats will be vulnerable next year. Another problem for the GOP is that far fewer voters self identify as Republican than as Democrat. (Even more self identify as independent.) From today’s limited vantage point, the most likely outcome of the 2010 elections will be that Democrats will pick up enough seats in the Senate to be safely filibuster proof, even if a few Democrats occasionally defect.
Some conservatives are happy to see Specter go. They’d also like to see moderate (RINO) Republican Senators Snowe and Collins take a hike. The argument is that by achieving more ideological purity the party will eventually attract more voters. At the very least, a more purely conservative party would offer a starkly contrasting alternative once voters sour on Democratic excesses.
There may be some validity to this viewpoint, but it is a very long-term plan. With the GOP now achieving irrelevancy in national politics (albeit not as irrelevant as it was in 1936), it begs the question of whether there will be anything useful left by the time this supposed future point arrives. I also find it instructive that Republicans have not had as advantageous of a position as that in which Democrats now find themselves since Harding was elected in 1920, while Democrats have enjoyed such an advantage several times since then.
WSJ Editor James Taranto writes, “In the real world of politics, a small but principled minority can get things done only by forming coalitions with other factions on the basis of common interests or partial agreements of principle.” A party that is too small to leverage power has little chance of participating in that give and take. In that case, a party can gripe and moan. Or it can figure out how to actually appeal to more voters.
Conclusion
Regardless of party, politics involves politicians. Our Founders understood what drives politicians. They designed a system that they hoped would harness competing ambition in a way that works for the public good. That worked to a degree until men discovered that they could successfully twist the words of the Constitution to mean anything they could get the people to swallow without rebelling.
Americans would do well to drop the pretense of altruism that is tied to political office and to recognize the unbridled opportunism that is the currency of the political class. In a way, our system’s political ambition is a thing of terrible beauty, akin to that of a violent summer storm. Without proper controls, it can likewise be destructive.
I’m not saying that politicians are not also driven by certain ideologies and philosophies. Those are part of the whole package. If you carefully observe what politicians really do, you will discover that they are opportunists that exploit every possible avenue to further their career. Politicians with staying power not only enjoy what they do; they are among the best political opportunists around.
Opportunists
As a political novice, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took advantage of shifting party loyalties in the 70s to unseat three-term Democratic Senator Frank Moss in 1976. On the campaign trail, he would ask, “What do you call a senator that has spent three terms in Washington, DC?” He would then answer his own question, “You call him home!”
The point was to insinuate that someone that had been in the U.S. Senate for 18 years was out of touch with his constituents back home. This line was such a crowd pleaser that it was incorporated into radio and TV ads. Today as Hatch prepares to run for term number seven in 2012, he emphasizes the value of his “experience” and “tenure,” seemingly oblivious to any concerns about being out of touch with constituents.
Even the most casual political observer can see how Hatch has changed his stripes over 3½ decades. Democrats have said that among GOP senators, Hatch is “one of the most bipartisan and easy to work with.” When any politician says something of that nature about a politician from the opposing party, it means that the politician being praised pretty much shares the ideology of the opposing party or is a push over.
This ideological shift has not harmed Hatch. The last time he faced even somewhat serious competition was 1982. He continues to successfully take advantage of the conditions in which he finds himself. Although many of Hatch’s loyal voters would be shocked to find how much they differ with him on legislation he has supported, he knows that he has the resources to nip in the bud any would-be challengers from the right and can count on reliable Republican votes, as long as he doesn’t do anything like have an affair or kiss a male gay-rights activist on the lips in public.
Another example of effective opportunism is Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has just switched from the GOP to the Democratic Party as he prepares to run for a sixth term next year. Specter has always been a moderate in a state that has both Democratic and Republican strongholds. But he is not wrong when he says that the Pennsylvania GOP has shifted right in recent years.
Straddling the middle worked well for Specter until 2004 when he faced a strong challenge in the GOP primary. To beat conservative Congressman Pat Toomey, Specter had to appear to lean right, only to have to rapidly track back left to beat his Democratic opponent in the general election.
Specter has long enjoyed a higher approval rating from his state’s Democrats than from registered Republicans. It has now become apparent that Specter would lose a primary rematch against Toomey. Rather than face certain primary defeat, Specter has decided to switch parties. These kinds of occurrences are the results of backroom deals. I suspect that Specter extracted promises from his new party of certain committee assignments and no serious primary contest.
This is political opportunism at its finest. By switching parties now, Specter will likely cruise to re-election. While Toomey might trounce Specter in a GOP primary, Specter is likely to soundly beat Toomey in a general election. He will be better funded and have more name recognition, and his centrist views will appeal to more of the state’s voters. After holding powerful roles in the GOP during the years they were in the majority, Specter will now get to be part of the Democratic powerhouse. It’s the best of both worlds for him.
Diminishing GOP
Since it is looking more likely that the Democrats will pick up the Minnesota seat currently contested by Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken, it seems that Specter’s shift will provide Democrats with the critical 60th vote in the Senate that will allow them to override Republican objections to passing any legislation they want. That is, at least until January 2011. Then perhaps Democrats will pick up even more senate seats, as happened in the 1934 mid-term election, giving them an even clearer mandate.
This is quite probable because Senate (and House) Republicans currently appear feckless, rudderless, and disingenuous all at the same time, and because more GOP than Democratic Senate seats will be vulnerable next year. Another problem for the GOP is that far fewer voters self identify as Republican than as Democrat. (Even more self identify as independent.) From today’s limited vantage point, the most likely outcome of the 2010 elections will be that Democrats will pick up enough seats in the Senate to be safely filibuster proof, even if a few Democrats occasionally defect.
Some conservatives are happy to see Specter go. They’d also like to see moderate (RINO) Republican Senators Snowe and Collins take a hike. The argument is that by achieving more ideological purity the party will eventually attract more voters. At the very least, a more purely conservative party would offer a starkly contrasting alternative once voters sour on Democratic excesses.
There may be some validity to this viewpoint, but it is a very long-term plan. With the GOP now achieving irrelevancy in national politics (albeit not as irrelevant as it was in 1936), it begs the question of whether there will be anything useful left by the time this supposed future point arrives. I also find it instructive that Republicans have not had as advantageous of a position as that in which Democrats now find themselves since Harding was elected in 1920, while Democrats have enjoyed such an advantage several times since then.
WSJ Editor James Taranto writes, “In the real world of politics, a small but principled minority can get things done only by forming coalitions with other factions on the basis of common interests or partial agreements of principle.” A party that is too small to leverage power has little chance of participating in that give and take. In that case, a party can gripe and moan. Or it can figure out how to actually appeal to more voters.
Conclusion
Regardless of party, politics involves politicians. Our Founders understood what drives politicians. They designed a system that they hoped would harness competing ambition in a way that works for the public good. That worked to a degree until men discovered that they could successfully twist the words of the Constitution to mean anything they could get the people to swallow without rebelling.
Americans would do well to drop the pretense of altruism that is tied to political office and to recognize the unbridled opportunism that is the currency of the political class. In a way, our system’s political ambition is a thing of terrible beauty, akin to that of a violent summer storm. Without proper controls, it can likewise be destructive.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Driving Rules They Don't Teach You
I am in the wrapping up phase of teaching my second child how to drive. As encouraged by Utah law, he now has many hours of driving under his belt. He has driven under many different conditions on many different types of roads.
I have purposefully had my son drive in very nasty weather, at night and under low visibility conditions, in heavy traffic, through construction zones, and in busy parking lots. I figure that if he can safely drive in the worst conditions with me in the passenger seat, he will be much more likely to drive safely in most conditions when he is on his own.
Last night he drove on the high school’s driving range along with five other drivers. After an hour and a half of driving under 15 mph, he was bored stiff. He’s used to driving in real traffic and actually driving to purposeful destinations.
As I have taught my two oldest to drive, I have told them that regardless of what they learn in driver education courses, there are three additional rules to which they must strictly adhere at all times:
The simple fact is that some people drive bad often and that most drivers — even the best ones — occasionally do something stupid. If another driver insists on doing something idiotic, by all means, get out of the way and let him do it. It is never worth sacrificing your safety simply because the traffic law recognizes that you are in the right.
If your safety is endangered by another driver’s activity, go ahead and honk and then mutter under your breath. But don’t get aggressive either with driving, language, or hand gestures. Wish the person well in your heart, and move on with life. You will be happier and safer.
This ties in closely with the second rule. You are not a traffic enforcer. Police officers can’t be everywhere and can’t see every traffic infraction, but it’s not your job to regulate traffic. If another driver is being dangerous, go ahead and get the license plate number and call the 911. But don’t try to play the cop yourself. If someone is dangerously tailgating you, it’s better to move over and let them go by than to try to slow them down.
We also have a lot of kind people on the road. You should be one of them. But it is not smart to allow your kindness to create a hazardous situation. A good illustration of this principle is the traffic patterns surrounding the 7-11 that is less than a mile from my home. It’s not hard to get into the parking lot, but at certain times of day it can be nearly impossible to get out of the south exit. You can almost always get out of the west exit.
During the predictable heavy traffic periods, a savvy driver in the 7-11 parking lot that wants to go either east or west will avoid the south exit. She will instead turn north out of the west exit and make a quick trip around the block to get to a safer intersection where she can turn west or east.
Unfortunately, many drivers aren’t that wise. You will see them attempting to turn out of the south exit during the busiest times of day. It’s one thing when a kind driver stops to allow someone exiting 7-11 to make a right turn into traffic. But when a driver stops to allow a driver to turn left, he endangers a lot of other people, including those in the adjacent westbound lane and those in the eastbound lane that have poor visibility of such activity.
I’d almost prefer that traffic engineers prohibit left turns out of the 7-11 south exit (as well as left turns into that entrance), but there are other times of day when there is little traffic in the area and such a turn can be made quite safely. It’s good to be kind, but you simply do not have the right to endanger others so that you can feel magnanimous.
All drivers should do their best to drive safely. (If you feel you must rant about cell phone usage, please write your own blog instead of threadjacking this one.) In addition to the basic rules outlined in driver education courses, I believe that following the three rules I have listed above will go a long way toward making you and other users of the road safer and happier.
I have purposefully had my son drive in very nasty weather, at night and under low visibility conditions, in heavy traffic, through construction zones, and in busy parking lots. I figure that if he can safely drive in the worst conditions with me in the passenger seat, he will be much more likely to drive safely in most conditions when he is on his own.
Last night he drove on the high school’s driving range along with five other drivers. After an hour and a half of driving under 15 mph, he was bored stiff. He’s used to driving in real traffic and actually driving to purposeful destinations.
As I have taught my two oldest to drive, I have told them that regardless of what they learn in driver education courses, there are three additional rules to which they must strictly adhere at all times:
- Idiots always have the right of way.
- Your job is to drive safely; not to enforce the law.
- Be kind, but not to the point that it endangers someone’s safety.
The simple fact is that some people drive bad often and that most drivers — even the best ones — occasionally do something stupid. If another driver insists on doing something idiotic, by all means, get out of the way and let him do it. It is never worth sacrificing your safety simply because the traffic law recognizes that you are in the right.
If your safety is endangered by another driver’s activity, go ahead and honk and then mutter under your breath. But don’t get aggressive either with driving, language, or hand gestures. Wish the person well in your heart, and move on with life. You will be happier and safer.
This ties in closely with the second rule. You are not a traffic enforcer. Police officers can’t be everywhere and can’t see every traffic infraction, but it’s not your job to regulate traffic. If another driver is being dangerous, go ahead and get the license plate number and call the 911. But don’t try to play the cop yourself. If someone is dangerously tailgating you, it’s better to move over and let them go by than to try to slow them down.
We also have a lot of kind people on the road. You should be one of them. But it is not smart to allow your kindness to create a hazardous situation. A good illustration of this principle is the traffic patterns surrounding the 7-11 that is less than a mile from my home. It’s not hard to get into the parking lot, but at certain times of day it can be nearly impossible to get out of the south exit. You can almost always get out of the west exit.
During the predictable heavy traffic periods, a savvy driver in the 7-11 parking lot that wants to go either east or west will avoid the south exit. She will instead turn north out of the west exit and make a quick trip around the block to get to a safer intersection where she can turn west or east.
Unfortunately, many drivers aren’t that wise. You will see them attempting to turn out of the south exit during the busiest times of day. It’s one thing when a kind driver stops to allow someone exiting 7-11 to make a right turn into traffic. But when a driver stops to allow a driver to turn left, he endangers a lot of other people, including those in the adjacent westbound lane and those in the eastbound lane that have poor visibility of such activity.
I’d almost prefer that traffic engineers prohibit left turns out of the 7-11 south exit (as well as left turns into that entrance), but there are other times of day when there is little traffic in the area and such a turn can be made quite safely. It’s good to be kind, but you simply do not have the right to endanger others so that you can feel magnanimous.
All drivers should do their best to drive safely. (If you feel you must rant about cell phone usage, please write your own blog instead of threadjacking this one.) In addition to the basic rules outlined in driver education courses, I believe that following the three rules I have listed above will go a long way toward making you and other users of the road safer and happier.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Reining In Leviathan by Amendment
“We no longer have sovereign states,” I told my friend when he mentioned that term in conversation. “We fought a war over that,” I told him. “When the dust settled, we had redefined our system of government so that we now have a central authority with vassal states rather than sovereign states with a central power that manages limited common concerns.” And it has only become more centrally focused and sprawling since then.
Constitutional law professor Randy Barnett thinks it’s time to take the Constitution back to its original meaning (plus most amendments). The way to do that, argues Barnett in this WSJ op-ed, is through a new constitutional amendment that “would restore a healthy balance between federal and state power while protecting the liberties of the people.”
Barnett’s article is a reduction of arguments made in part of his 2003 book Restoring the Lost Constitution. (You can read part of the book online at this Google Books link.) In his 2000 book The Structure of Liberty, Barnett promotes the idea of legal libertarianism. He explains individual rights and our duties to each other as defined by natural law and lays out the reasoning behind a properly limited government.
Trying to pass a constitutional amendment that would limit federal power would be a nearly insurmountable task. After all, two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have to vote to limit their own power. Rarely has there been an instance of a politician actively working to reduce his own power, let alone a large group of politicians doing so. In general, politicians will always seek to limit their own accountability but will fight tooth and nail to avoid giving up the least scintilla of power.
But the reality is that the collective number of state politicians vastly outnumbers that of federal politicians. Barnett suggests that states could do much as they did when promoting the 17th Amendment. Back then enough states petitioned for a constitutional convention over the issue of direct election of senators (as allowed by Constitution Article V) that Congress acquiesced, rather than risk a “runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.”
Would states actually petition for a constitutional convention in this day and age? Quite a number have passed toothless resolutions reaffirming their sovereignty under the 9th and 10th Amendments. But many states are so beholden to the federal gravy train that it is difficult to imagine them threatening that revenue stream.
Still, these are unusual times. “States,” claims Barnett, “have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people.” Well, nothing but a load of cash with strings tied to it. Those strings, ladies and gentlemen, translate into jobs that employ real people like your neighbors and mine.
You can argue until you’re blue in the face that cutting the federal apron strings would ultimately lead to better, more productive jobs, but libertarians knows that it’s very difficult to get people to buy that line. People losing jobs makes the news big time. Job creation by entrepreneurial businesses makes small time news if it makes the news at all. Job losses are very real while promises of future jobs are ethereal. Little will turn a feisty politician into a lap dog quicker than threatening to pin job losses on him.
Barnett’s suggested language for a Federalism Amendment is somewhat bold. On first reading, I figured that it would cause a significant sea change in the way things currently work in the U.S. On second reading, I think that it would result in sweeping changes, but not quite as broad as I first imagined.
Perhaps the greatest change Barnett is proposing is one he discusses rather lightly: the repeal of the 16th Amendment. Federal income tax would go away five years after the Federalism Amendment was ratified. “Congress,” explains Barnett, “could then replace the income tax with a "uniform" national sales or "excise" tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax.”
Without using the actual words, Barnett is proposing replacing the federal income tax with the FairTax, a national sales tax system (but perhaps without the revenue neutrality element). Doing so, claims Barnett, “would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code.” Yes, but would it only be replaced by another costly tax code? There are legitimate concerns about the FairTax from various perspectives (see here and here for example). Much debate would be needed on this issue.
Another of Barnett’s provisions would reign in a judiciary that has become quite comfortable with legislating from the bench and applying supposedly modern nuance to the language of the Constitution. This provision states (in part), “The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.”
I have often argued that we follow this same precedent with respect to every other legal document in the nation. How is it that we fail to do so with respect to our most important legal contract? Members of the judiciary would go nuts over this provision. They would say that it is unworkable. But it would re-enthrone the amendment process outlined in Article V as the only way to bring the Constitution up to date. Changes would require a general national consensus rather than a ruling by the majority of an elite few.
While Barnett’s proposal is intriguing, he seems to assume that most Americans would welcome something like the Federalism Amendment. I’m not at all sure that is the case. For one thing, there is a nearly dogmatic pursuit of uniformity that runs through many facets of society. In our increasingly interconnected world, there is a decreasing level of tolerance for diversity in state and local policy. It’s just too darn inconvenient for some people.
Another significant issue is that all Americans are either currently financially beholden to the federal government or will be so in the future. Barnett suggests that his amendment would get rid of most federal wealth transfers, including Social Security. Although the amendment would grandfather everyone living into Social Security, few want to consider relegating future generations of Americans to the poverty situation in which many elderly found themselves in the days before Social Security.
Trying to sell such a plan at a time when people have seen their 401k balances evaporate simply isn’t going to fly. Besides, most Americans can’t believe that Social Security will eventually become insolvent. How can it be that we can’t afford to bolster Social Security, they wonder, when we can afford to throw around trillions of dollars of ‘stimulus’ money? You can lecture people about Social Security being a pension plan with a limited balance, but too many shenanigans have occurred for people to believe that anymore.
At any rate, a Federalism Amendment would have to be carefully worded, since experience shows that the potential for mischief in constitutional language is substantial. Could a Federalism Amendment be something that conservatives could get behind, as Barnett suggests? That’s quite possible. But unless it appeals to a much broader segment of the population it will be relegated to permanent fringe status.
Constitutional law professor Randy Barnett thinks it’s time to take the Constitution back to its original meaning (plus most amendments). The way to do that, argues Barnett in this WSJ op-ed, is through a new constitutional amendment that “would restore a healthy balance between federal and state power while protecting the liberties of the people.”
Barnett’s article is a reduction of arguments made in part of his 2003 book Restoring the Lost Constitution. (You can read part of the book online at this Google Books link.) In his 2000 book The Structure of Liberty, Barnett promotes the idea of legal libertarianism. He explains individual rights and our duties to each other as defined by natural law and lays out the reasoning behind a properly limited government.
Trying to pass a constitutional amendment that would limit federal power would be a nearly insurmountable task. After all, two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have to vote to limit their own power. Rarely has there been an instance of a politician actively working to reduce his own power, let alone a large group of politicians doing so. In general, politicians will always seek to limit their own accountability but will fight tooth and nail to avoid giving up the least scintilla of power.
But the reality is that the collective number of state politicians vastly outnumbers that of federal politicians. Barnett suggests that states could do much as they did when promoting the 17th Amendment. Back then enough states petitioned for a constitutional convention over the issue of direct election of senators (as allowed by Constitution Article V) that Congress acquiesced, rather than risk a “runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.”
Would states actually petition for a constitutional convention in this day and age? Quite a number have passed toothless resolutions reaffirming their sovereignty under the 9th and 10th Amendments. But many states are so beholden to the federal gravy train that it is difficult to imagine them threatening that revenue stream.
Still, these are unusual times. “States,” claims Barnett, “have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people.” Well, nothing but a load of cash with strings tied to it. Those strings, ladies and gentlemen, translate into jobs that employ real people like your neighbors and mine.
You can argue until you’re blue in the face that cutting the federal apron strings would ultimately lead to better, more productive jobs, but libertarians knows that it’s very difficult to get people to buy that line. People losing jobs makes the news big time. Job creation by entrepreneurial businesses makes small time news if it makes the news at all. Job losses are very real while promises of future jobs are ethereal. Little will turn a feisty politician into a lap dog quicker than threatening to pin job losses on him.
Barnett’s suggested language for a Federalism Amendment is somewhat bold. On first reading, I figured that it would cause a significant sea change in the way things currently work in the U.S. On second reading, I think that it would result in sweeping changes, but not quite as broad as I first imagined.
Perhaps the greatest change Barnett is proposing is one he discusses rather lightly: the repeal of the 16th Amendment. Federal income tax would go away five years after the Federalism Amendment was ratified. “Congress,” explains Barnett, “could then replace the income tax with a "uniform" national sales or "excise" tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax.”
Without using the actual words, Barnett is proposing replacing the federal income tax with the FairTax, a national sales tax system (but perhaps without the revenue neutrality element). Doing so, claims Barnett, “would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code.” Yes, but would it only be replaced by another costly tax code? There are legitimate concerns about the FairTax from various perspectives (see here and here for example). Much debate would be needed on this issue.
Another of Barnett’s provisions would reign in a judiciary that has become quite comfortable with legislating from the bench and applying supposedly modern nuance to the language of the Constitution. This provision states (in part), “The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.”
I have often argued that we follow this same precedent with respect to every other legal document in the nation. How is it that we fail to do so with respect to our most important legal contract? Members of the judiciary would go nuts over this provision. They would say that it is unworkable. But it would re-enthrone the amendment process outlined in Article V as the only way to bring the Constitution up to date. Changes would require a general national consensus rather than a ruling by the majority of an elite few.
While Barnett’s proposal is intriguing, he seems to assume that most Americans would welcome something like the Federalism Amendment. I’m not at all sure that is the case. For one thing, there is a nearly dogmatic pursuit of uniformity that runs through many facets of society. In our increasingly interconnected world, there is a decreasing level of tolerance for diversity in state and local policy. It’s just too darn inconvenient for some people.
Another significant issue is that all Americans are either currently financially beholden to the federal government or will be so in the future. Barnett suggests that his amendment would get rid of most federal wealth transfers, including Social Security. Although the amendment would grandfather everyone living into Social Security, few want to consider relegating future generations of Americans to the poverty situation in which many elderly found themselves in the days before Social Security.
Trying to sell such a plan at a time when people have seen their 401k balances evaporate simply isn’t going to fly. Besides, most Americans can’t believe that Social Security will eventually become insolvent. How can it be that we can’t afford to bolster Social Security, they wonder, when we can afford to throw around trillions of dollars of ‘stimulus’ money? You can lecture people about Social Security being a pension plan with a limited balance, but too many shenanigans have occurred for people to believe that anymore.
At any rate, a Federalism Amendment would have to be carefully worded, since experience shows that the potential for mischief in constitutional language is substantial. Could a Federalism Amendment be something that conservatives could get behind, as Barnett suggests? That’s quite possible. But unless it appeals to a much broader segment of the population it will be relegated to permanent fringe status.
Monday, April 20, 2009
A Visit to a Socialized Dentist
The streets were quiet as we made our way through the business district late one night in the dead of the Norwegian winter. Sticking to the shadows, we found the professional building at the address scrawled on a piece of notebook paper.
As promised, we found the unlit rear entrance unlocked. We looked around to make sure nobody was observing the alley we were in, and then we quickly slipped inside, locking the door behind us. We quietly walked down the darkened corridor and found the office we were looking for. We knocked using the sequence we had been given. A voice quietly said to come in quickly.
On the other side of the door we found ourselves in the darkened waiting room of a dental office. A tense faced dentist quietly led us through the dark to a small treatment room that had no exterior windows. Once inside, he switched on the lights. “I have to be careful,” he said. “I could lose my job for this.”
Even though I had seen most of the office only in half light, it was apparent that it was neat, orderly, and well cared for. But everything about the office, from the appointments and furnishings to the equipment and supplies was like stepping into a U.S. dental office twenty years earlier. I marveled about this, because Norway has one of the highest living standards in the world. When I made some comment about the office’s retro appearance, the dentist looked at me strangely. “This office is among the most modern in the country,” he proclaimed.
The dentist wasted no time seating my companion in the treatment chair. He then found that he needed to return to the cabinet for some supplies. “I’m sorry,” he said, “my assistant usually handles this part, but I can’t have her here because she can’t know that you have ever been here.”
When the dentist opened the cabinet, he opened a panel to a seemingly hidden compartment, from which he drew out several items. “I can’t use the regular supplies,” he said, “because the ministry tightly controls those. I have these supplies because we secretly store anything that is left over after a procedure, just in case we need it later.”
When the dentist prepared to inject an anesthetic, my companion asked why he didn’t use gas instead. Was the cavity too deep for that? No, the dentist replied. It was just that the gas was metered so that it couldn’t be misused. Regulators could easily discover any gas usage that had not been approved.
The dentist had a pleasant treatment manner and seemed quite proficient. He drilled and filled the cavity and then prepared to send us on our way. He instructed us to let ourselves out, making sure that no cleaning people were in the outer corridor and making sure that no one saw us leaving the building.
“I don’t quite understand all the stealth,” my companion said. “Can’t you treat anyone you want to treat?” “In Norway,” replied the dentist, “all of the means to do dental and medical treatment are either owned or controlled by the state. There are strict rules about how anything can be used. The rules are all well intended, but sometimes they have unfortunate consequences.”
When my companion asked what he meant, the dentist said, “Sometimes I can’t do what I know is best for the patient. The ministry, for example, will let me do only a certain number of certain procedures each month. Once I’ve hit that limit, if a patient needs that treatment I have to tell them no, even if they’re in great pain. That’s why I hoard as many supplies as I can, so that I can treat people in the last week of the month if they need it. Everyone knows that all dentists do this, but no one can talk about it. If you get caught, you’ll lose your license. Treating foreigners like you out of charity is strictly forbidden. If anyone finds out about this visit, I will lose my license.”
“This all seems so wrong,” said my companion. “Well,” replied the dentist, “it’s one of the prices you pay for having socialized medicine. You can visit a doctor anytime you want, but you can’t necessarily get adequate treatment, even if the doctor wishes he could provide it.”
When my companion asked how much he owed the dentist, he replied, “Nothing. I can’t take any money for performing charity. In fact, I wouldn’t even know how much to charge you for it. We don’t get paid by procedure like dentists in America do; we get paid a salary. I have no idea how much it costs to do a procedure. Only the ministry knows that kind of thing.”
“Are you leaving with us?” asked my companion. “Are you crazy?!” replied the dentist. “I will wait here for at least 20 minutes after you are gone before I dare to leave. If anyone were to see us leave together, I’d be finished.”
As we made our covert escape into the dark cold night, I couldn’t help but be struck by how strange the whole experience had been. I remarked to my companion, “At least it will never be like this back home in America.” Given the current push for socialized medicine, I may have spoken too soon.
As promised, we found the unlit rear entrance unlocked. We looked around to make sure nobody was observing the alley we were in, and then we quickly slipped inside, locking the door behind us. We quietly walked down the darkened corridor and found the office we were looking for. We knocked using the sequence we had been given. A voice quietly said to come in quickly.
On the other side of the door we found ourselves in the darkened waiting room of a dental office. A tense faced dentist quietly led us through the dark to a small treatment room that had no exterior windows. Once inside, he switched on the lights. “I have to be careful,” he said. “I could lose my job for this.”
Even though I had seen most of the office only in half light, it was apparent that it was neat, orderly, and well cared for. But everything about the office, from the appointments and furnishings to the equipment and supplies was like stepping into a U.S. dental office twenty years earlier. I marveled about this, because Norway has one of the highest living standards in the world. When I made some comment about the office’s retro appearance, the dentist looked at me strangely. “This office is among the most modern in the country,” he proclaimed.
The dentist wasted no time seating my companion in the treatment chair. He then found that he needed to return to the cabinet for some supplies. “I’m sorry,” he said, “my assistant usually handles this part, but I can’t have her here because she can’t know that you have ever been here.”
When the dentist opened the cabinet, he opened a panel to a seemingly hidden compartment, from which he drew out several items. “I can’t use the regular supplies,” he said, “because the ministry tightly controls those. I have these supplies because we secretly store anything that is left over after a procedure, just in case we need it later.”
When the dentist prepared to inject an anesthetic, my companion asked why he didn’t use gas instead. Was the cavity too deep for that? No, the dentist replied. It was just that the gas was metered so that it couldn’t be misused. Regulators could easily discover any gas usage that had not been approved.
The dentist had a pleasant treatment manner and seemed quite proficient. He drilled and filled the cavity and then prepared to send us on our way. He instructed us to let ourselves out, making sure that no cleaning people were in the outer corridor and making sure that no one saw us leaving the building.
“I don’t quite understand all the stealth,” my companion said. “Can’t you treat anyone you want to treat?” “In Norway,” replied the dentist, “all of the means to do dental and medical treatment are either owned or controlled by the state. There are strict rules about how anything can be used. The rules are all well intended, but sometimes they have unfortunate consequences.”
When my companion asked what he meant, the dentist said, “Sometimes I can’t do what I know is best for the patient. The ministry, for example, will let me do only a certain number of certain procedures each month. Once I’ve hit that limit, if a patient needs that treatment I have to tell them no, even if they’re in great pain. That’s why I hoard as many supplies as I can, so that I can treat people in the last week of the month if they need it. Everyone knows that all dentists do this, but no one can talk about it. If you get caught, you’ll lose your license. Treating foreigners like you out of charity is strictly forbidden. If anyone finds out about this visit, I will lose my license.”
“This all seems so wrong,” said my companion. “Well,” replied the dentist, “it’s one of the prices you pay for having socialized medicine. You can visit a doctor anytime you want, but you can’t necessarily get adequate treatment, even if the doctor wishes he could provide it.”
When my companion asked how much he owed the dentist, he replied, “Nothing. I can’t take any money for performing charity. In fact, I wouldn’t even know how much to charge you for it. We don’t get paid by procedure like dentists in America do; we get paid a salary. I have no idea how much it costs to do a procedure. Only the ministry knows that kind of thing.”
“Are you leaving with us?” asked my companion. “Are you crazy?!” replied the dentist. “I will wait here for at least 20 minutes after you are gone before I dare to leave. If anyone were to see us leave together, I’d be finished.”
As we made our covert escape into the dark cold night, I couldn’t help but be struck by how strange the whole experience had been. I remarked to my companion, “At least it will never be like this back home in America.” Given the current push for socialized medicine, I may have spoken too soon.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Choosing Healthcare
“70 percent of healthcare costs are driven by behaviors.” —Steven A. Burd, CEO of Safeway, Inc.
While other companies have seen their chunk of healthcare costs increase at a brisk rate in recent years, Safeway has kept its healthcare costs steady since 2005. The main reason for this, says Safeway CEO Steven Burd in this Reuters article, has been the company’s focus on healthy lifestyle choices.
I have no idea where Burd gets the statistic quoted at the top of this post or how accurate that number is. But he is saying is that the vast majority of health costs are directly tied to lifestyle choices. Safeway has capitalized on this by offering an insurance discount to employees that make healthy choices that the company promotes. Those choices include maintaining a healthy weight and not smoking.
Each year employees that participate in Safeway’s health plan receive a score based on their health choices. “[T]hose who score the lowest pay 51 percent more for health insurance premiums than those who score perfectly,” says Burd. He also says that the company has incurred no additional expenses to implement this plan.
The Health Care Blog’s interview with Safeway Sr. VP Ken Shachmut goes into much greater detail about the company’s health initiative. Shachmut calls the company’s health insurance system “market-based health care.” He says, “Our basic premise was that if people were given responsibility for their decisions, and there was transparency to the financial consequences to those decision (both good and bad, mind you!), that they would choose to maximize both their health and their financial benefit.”
Shachmut says that implementing this plan not only slowed the growth of health care costs, it “reduced all-in per capita healthcare spending 13%.” This allowed the company to cut the insurance cost for employees “by 25% or more. … These new plans introduce mutual benefits - by controlling costs, improving outcomes, and helping to leave more money into our employees’ pockets through encouraging healthy choices.”
This sounds interesting, but doesn’t it seem a bit coercive? Shachmut says:
On top of this, Safeway is working to identify good providers, based on “price, outcome, satisfaction, etc,” and get this information out to employees. Shachmut says, “Healthcare is a complex topic and there is no one “silver bullet” – but full transparency on cost and quality comes close.”
It seems from the Shachmut interview that Safeway would prefer to move away from the “employer based insurance system that we have inherited is an accident of history from the WWII era.” But executives realize that this would require a revolutionary change that is beyond their control. So they have decided to make the best of the situation they have. “There is no need to wait for government action,” says Shachmut. Still, the company advocates the following reforms:
Shachmut’s math appears to have discounted one of the main features that makes Safeway’s plan work: individual choice. Safeway employees apparently have some choice in whether to participate in this plan. About 30% of non-union employees and 70% of union employees don’t participate in the accountability plan. Aside from this, does anyone know how many employees have chosen to leave the company and work elsewhere rather than submit to the requirements of the plan?
How much different would the health and cost outcomes be if all Safeway employees were forced to participate in the plan, they had no choice but to work for Safeway, and Safeway couldn’t fire anyone? What if the company were required to cover a proportionate number of the currently uninsured population to boot? That is effectively what Shachmut is suggesting when he pushes for universal coverage.
Under universal coverage, no one could opt out of the plan, as a significant number of Safeway employees currently do. No one could choose to leave the plan without emigrating outside of the country. Plan providers would have to cover everyone, regardless of how bad their health choices were.
Many of those making the worst choices are also the ones that could least afford to pay for coverage. So even if you raised their rates through the roof, those high rates would necessarily be subsidized by others that actually pay. The poor that make bad choices wouldn’t actually pay more, so they wouldn’t actually be incentivized to make healthy choices. On the contrary, their poor choices would be subsidized, providing additional incentive to make bad choices. Moreover, this means that rates for the responsible would be much higher than for current responsible Safeway employees.
Beyond this, it must be recognized that Safeway commands only a smidgen of the healthcare market, even in the area of its corporate office. What would costs and outcomes be like if Safeway commanded the entire healthcare market in the region and if Safeway were instead a political entity? It would effectively dictate uniform pricing and even treatment details. As the company controlled more healthcare details, healthcare professionals would lobby the regime for more beneficial conditions. A different breed of ‘paint-by-the numbers’ provider would become the norm.
Removing choice in the name of compassion cannot and will not produce the kinds of health benefits and cost savings that Safeway is currently experiencing with its healthcare plan, even if all of the elements Mr. Shachmut touts were to somehow miraculously pass political muster to become part of a national universal healthcare plan.
Safeway has apparently achieved some wonderful and noteworthy results with its healthcare initiatives. We’re not just talking cost; we’re talking about longer life and a better quality of life for many of its employees. But it is foolish to assume that these same benefits will be realized on a broad scale with universal healthcare coverage. Safeway has actual personal choice on its side. Regardless of the kinds of ‘market based’ elements employed, no universal coverage plan can obtain the benefits of personal choice.
While other companies have seen their chunk of healthcare costs increase at a brisk rate in recent years, Safeway has kept its healthcare costs steady since 2005. The main reason for this, says Safeway CEO Steven Burd in this Reuters article, has been the company’s focus on healthy lifestyle choices.
I have no idea where Burd gets the statistic quoted at the top of this post or how accurate that number is. But he is saying is that the vast majority of health costs are directly tied to lifestyle choices. Safeway has capitalized on this by offering an insurance discount to employees that make healthy choices that the company promotes. Those choices include maintaining a healthy weight and not smoking.
Each year employees that participate in Safeway’s health plan receive a score based on their health choices. “[T]hose who score the lowest pay 51 percent more for health insurance premiums than those who score perfectly,” says Burd. He also says that the company has incurred no additional expenses to implement this plan.
The Health Care Blog’s interview with Safeway Sr. VP Ken Shachmut goes into much greater detail about the company’s health initiative. Shachmut calls the company’s health insurance system “market-based health care.” He says, “Our basic premise was that if people were given responsibility for their decisions, and there was transparency to the financial consequences to those decision (both good and bad, mind you!), that they would choose to maximize both their health and their financial benefit.”
Shachmut says that implementing this plan not only slowed the growth of health care costs, it “reduced all-in per capita healthcare spending 13%.” This allowed the company to cut the insurance cost for employees “by 25% or more. … These new plans introduce mutual benefits - by controlling costs, improving outcomes, and helping to leave more money into our employees’ pockets through encouraging healthy choices.”
This sounds interesting, but doesn’t it seem a bit coercive? Shachmut says:
“I want to be clear - we were adamant about designing this program to cover only those things for which our employees had control and which were clearly behavioral in nature. We do not differentiate for genetics, and we did everything prospectively and transparently so that everyone had equal opportunity to improve their behaviors. And, where there are special circumstances documented by a physician, we authorize exceptions.”Among the accountability included in the plan are annual tests for “weight, tobacco, blood pressure, and cholesterol.” Nagging people about health choices doesn’t work, says Shachmut. But people are driven by their wallets. By demonstrating healthy choices, an employee using the family option can save “almost $1,600” per year in insurance costs. The company also offers a number of benefits designed to enhance health, including “discounted gym memberships” and full coverage for preventative care.
On top of this, Safeway is working to identify good providers, based on “price, outcome, satisfaction, etc,” and get this information out to employees. Shachmut says, “Healthcare is a complex topic and there is no one “silver bullet” – but full transparency on cost and quality comes close.”
It seems from the Shachmut interview that Safeway would prefer to move away from the “employer based insurance system that we have inherited is an accident of history from the WWII era.” But executives realize that this would require a revolutionary change that is beyond their control. So they have decided to make the best of the situation they have. “There is no need to wait for government action,” says Shachmut. Still, the company advocates the following reforms:
- Market-based healthcare system.
- Universal coverage with individual responsibility.
- Financial assistance for the low-income.
- Healthier behavior and incentives.
- Equal tax treatment.
Shachmut’s math appears to have discounted one of the main features that makes Safeway’s plan work: individual choice. Safeway employees apparently have some choice in whether to participate in this plan. About 30% of non-union employees and 70% of union employees don’t participate in the accountability plan. Aside from this, does anyone know how many employees have chosen to leave the company and work elsewhere rather than submit to the requirements of the plan?
How much different would the health and cost outcomes be if all Safeway employees were forced to participate in the plan, they had no choice but to work for Safeway, and Safeway couldn’t fire anyone? What if the company were required to cover a proportionate number of the currently uninsured population to boot? That is effectively what Shachmut is suggesting when he pushes for universal coverage.
Under universal coverage, no one could opt out of the plan, as a significant number of Safeway employees currently do. No one could choose to leave the plan without emigrating outside of the country. Plan providers would have to cover everyone, regardless of how bad their health choices were.
Many of those making the worst choices are also the ones that could least afford to pay for coverage. So even if you raised their rates through the roof, those high rates would necessarily be subsidized by others that actually pay. The poor that make bad choices wouldn’t actually pay more, so they wouldn’t actually be incentivized to make healthy choices. On the contrary, their poor choices would be subsidized, providing additional incentive to make bad choices. Moreover, this means that rates for the responsible would be much higher than for current responsible Safeway employees.
Beyond this, it must be recognized that Safeway commands only a smidgen of the healthcare market, even in the area of its corporate office. What would costs and outcomes be like if Safeway commanded the entire healthcare market in the region and if Safeway were instead a political entity? It would effectively dictate uniform pricing and even treatment details. As the company controlled more healthcare details, healthcare professionals would lobby the regime for more beneficial conditions. A different breed of ‘paint-by-the numbers’ provider would become the norm.
Removing choice in the name of compassion cannot and will not produce the kinds of health benefits and cost savings that Safeway is currently experiencing with its healthcare plan, even if all of the elements Mr. Shachmut touts were to somehow miraculously pass political muster to become part of a national universal healthcare plan.
Safeway has apparently achieved some wonderful and noteworthy results with its healthcare initiatives. We’re not just talking cost; we’re talking about longer life and a better quality of life for many of its employees. But it is foolish to assume that these same benefits will be realized on a broad scale with universal healthcare coverage. Safeway has actual personal choice on its side. Regardless of the kinds of ‘market based’ elements employed, no universal coverage plan can obtain the benefits of personal choice.
Monday, April 13, 2009
A Troubled Youth
He was just a kid, but he was a big kid; much taller and broader than any of the other boys in our Scouting group. At age 13, he was already as large as most of the adult volunteers involved in the program. Occasionally he inadvertently caused damage because he didn’t know his own strength.
I could tell right away that there was something odd about this boy. He seemed much less stable than other boys his age. He alternated between being a bully and a wimp, almost within the blink of an eye. Even the boys that were closest to him had difficulty carrying on normal conversations with him. Based on the interactions I have had with hundreds of boys this age, I must say that this boy’s behavior was sometimes bizarrely abnormally antisocial. While he was intelligent and was often quiet and respectful, he seemed to have difficulty separating reality from fantasy.
This boy had been adopted by a kindly couple when he was very young after the courts had taken him from his natural parents. His adoptive parents had provided a good home for him, but they occasionally sought professional counseling in dealing with him.
Two of the most popular boys in our Scouting group lived near this boy. They worked hard to befriend him. He came to our meetings because they brought him. He basked in the attention these popular boys gave him, but he would occasionally treat them harshly for no apparent reason whatsoever. Other times he would follow them around like a lost puppy dog, although, they sincerely just wanted him to be their equal.
Eventually, the boy stopped coming to our meetings because he temporarily relocated. By the time he returned, I had relocated and was involved with a different Scouting group. A few years later, I moved back to my previous area. The boys I had worked with in Scouting had moved on. Occasionally I would run into one of these young men. On one such occasion I asked what had become of the troubled boy. The report of self destructive behavior was not good.
Then one day the news reported that this large young man had been arrested for murder. He had apparently killed a friend so that he could steal the friend’s dilapidated worthless automobile. I felt deeply sad, but I was unsurprised by this turn of events. It seemed to be part of a pattern.
The young man’s parents soon moved away. Many years have passed since then. I have no idea what has become of this man. He may still be in prison. If that is the case, I have no idea where he might be incarcerated. Whether in prison or not, I wonder what condition he is in. I’d like to hope that he is being successfully treated for mental illness so that he is not a danger to others, but that may be too much to ask for. At any rate, I hope that he senses something positive about the time he spent with our Scouting group.
When you work with young people, you don’t get to determine the course they will take in life. The best you can hope for is to have some kind of constructive effect on their future choices, given the circumstances they face in life. Among my former Boy Scouts I count doctors, soldiers, teachers, engineers, architects, musicians, craftsmen, builders, salesmen, entrepreneurs, correction officers, social workers, and many other productive people. But I also count at least one murderer.
I could tell right away that there was something odd about this boy. He seemed much less stable than other boys his age. He alternated between being a bully and a wimp, almost within the blink of an eye. Even the boys that were closest to him had difficulty carrying on normal conversations with him. Based on the interactions I have had with hundreds of boys this age, I must say that this boy’s behavior was sometimes bizarrely abnormally antisocial. While he was intelligent and was often quiet and respectful, he seemed to have difficulty separating reality from fantasy.
This boy had been adopted by a kindly couple when he was very young after the courts had taken him from his natural parents. His adoptive parents had provided a good home for him, but they occasionally sought professional counseling in dealing with him.
Two of the most popular boys in our Scouting group lived near this boy. They worked hard to befriend him. He came to our meetings because they brought him. He basked in the attention these popular boys gave him, but he would occasionally treat them harshly for no apparent reason whatsoever. Other times he would follow them around like a lost puppy dog, although, they sincerely just wanted him to be their equal.
Eventually, the boy stopped coming to our meetings because he temporarily relocated. By the time he returned, I had relocated and was involved with a different Scouting group. A few years later, I moved back to my previous area. The boys I had worked with in Scouting had moved on. Occasionally I would run into one of these young men. On one such occasion I asked what had become of the troubled boy. The report of self destructive behavior was not good.
Then one day the news reported that this large young man had been arrested for murder. He had apparently killed a friend so that he could steal the friend’s dilapidated worthless automobile. I felt deeply sad, but I was unsurprised by this turn of events. It seemed to be part of a pattern.
The young man’s parents soon moved away. Many years have passed since then. I have no idea what has become of this man. He may still be in prison. If that is the case, I have no idea where he might be incarcerated. Whether in prison or not, I wonder what condition he is in. I’d like to hope that he is being successfully treated for mental illness so that he is not a danger to others, but that may be too much to ask for. At any rate, I hope that he senses something positive about the time he spent with our Scouting group.
When you work with young people, you don’t get to determine the course they will take in life. The best you can hope for is to have some kind of constructive effect on their future choices, given the circumstances they face in life. Among my former Boy Scouts I count doctors, soldiers, teachers, engineers, architects, musicians, craftsmen, builders, salesmen, entrepreneurs, correction officers, social workers, and many other productive people. But I also count at least one murderer.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
The Doctor Regulator Will See You Now
As my wife and I waited at her OB-GYN’s office, we could hear the doctor on the phone across the hall speaking rather gruffly with someone that he obviously felt was trying to push him around. After slamming the phone down, he stormed into the room grousing that the insurance company’s hired doctor had no right to tell him how to practice medicine or determine what was best for his patient. After all, my wife’s doctor steamed, the man had had his license suspended as a result of his alcoholism. He hadn’t seen a real patient in over nine years and had no idea how to effectively treat patients in real life.
Third party bean counters have been able to improve medical outcomes up to a point. Doctors Jerome Groopman and Pamela Hartzband explain in this WSJ op-ed that “standardized protocols” developed as the result of research have remedied a number of sloppy medical practices that harmed people. These protocols include hand washing and catheter insertion routines, for example.
These successes have prompted many to assume that similar protocols could be successfully developed that would improve outcomes in cases of complex diseases by standardizing treatment and practices. Both government and private insurers have implemented “pay-for-performance” programs in recent years. You might think that this means that they pay more for better outcomes, but you would be wrong. Rather, they are paying for how well doctors follow guidelines developed by committees.
In some areas, extremely coercive means are used to force doctors to rigidly follow these guidelines. Actual outcomes don’t matter. Only compliance matters.
We all want our doctors to follow best practices, but when it comes to complex diseases, explain Doctors Groopman and Hartzband, flexibility is called for; not rigidity. After listing a number of situations where metric driven treatment has proven to be useless or harmful, they write:
I recently commented to a doctor that the pharmaceutical industry thinks that a controlled study where 56 percent of the patients have a somewhat positive outcome is stupendous. I complained to him that doctors often give the impression that a medication with such a success rate will be effective for everyone. He admitted that I was correct. He added that doctors are usually “just following guidelines.”
We want our medical practitioners to have the latest technology and medical information. But it is folly to create unyielding rules based on these this. Hopefully we are training medical personnel to employ good judgment. Turning them into automatons that unstintingly follow committee recommendations makes ill use of those skills and arguably leads to worse outcomes for non-average patients.
Third party bean counters have been able to improve medical outcomes up to a point. Doctors Jerome Groopman and Pamela Hartzband explain in this WSJ op-ed that “standardized protocols” developed as the result of research have remedied a number of sloppy medical practices that harmed people. These protocols include hand washing and catheter insertion routines, for example.
These successes have prompted many to assume that similar protocols could be successfully developed that would improve outcomes in cases of complex diseases by standardizing treatment and practices. Both government and private insurers have implemented “pay-for-performance” programs in recent years. You might think that this means that they pay more for better outcomes, but you would be wrong. Rather, they are paying for how well doctors follow guidelines developed by committees.
In some areas, extremely coercive means are used to force doctors to rigidly follow these guidelines. Actual outcomes don’t matter. Only compliance matters.
We all want our doctors to follow best practices, but when it comes to complex diseases, explain Doctors Groopman and Hartzband, flexibility is called for; not rigidity. After listing a number of situations where metric driven treatment has proven to be useless or harmful, they write:
“These and other recent examples show why rigid and punitive rules to broadly standardize care for all patients often break down. Human beings are not uniform in their biology. A disease with many effects on multiple organs, like diabetes, acts differently in different people. Medicine is an imperfect science, and its study is also imperfect. Information evolves and changes. Rather than rigidity, flexibility is appropriate in applying evidence from clinical trials. To that end, a good doctor exercises sound clinical judgment by consulting expert guidelines and assessing ongoing research, but then decides what is quality care for the individual patient. And what is best sometimes deviates from the norms.Do you want your doctor to treat you according to what she thinks will truly be in your best interest, or do you want her treatment of you to revolve primarily around unseen regulators that demand exact compliance with general guidelines? Studies have already found that doctors are shying away from even lifesaving treatments in some cases “out of fear of receiving a low grade if the outcome is poor.”
“Yet too often quality metrics coerce doctors into rigid and ill-advised procedures. Orwell could have written about how the word "quality" became zealously defined by regulators, and then redefined with each change in consensus guidelines.”
I recently commented to a doctor that the pharmaceutical industry thinks that a controlled study where 56 percent of the patients have a somewhat positive outcome is stupendous. I complained to him that doctors often give the impression that a medication with such a success rate will be effective for everyone. He admitted that I was correct. He added that doctors are usually “just following guidelines.”
We want our medical practitioners to have the latest technology and medical information. But it is folly to create unyielding rules based on these this. Hopefully we are training medical personnel to employ good judgment. Turning them into automatons that unstintingly follow committee recommendations makes ill use of those skills and arguably leads to worse outcomes for non-average patients.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Consequences Shmonsequences
A friend of mine that is a primary care physician was on his soapbox a couple of days ago. Actually, he was quite entertaining as well as informative.
“I have patients,” he said, “that eat Twinkies and watch TV for a hobby. Not surprisingly, they have high blood pressure. They don’t want high blood pressure, but they also don’t want to take blood pressure medicine. And, by golly, they’re not about to give up their hobby. They whine to me, ‘But, Doc, that’s my hobby!’”
I have a lot of respect for my friend. A few years ago he was overweight and out of shape. He finally decided to take some of the same advice he had been giving his patients. He went on a healthy diet and exercise program and dropped a lot of weight. Now he does triathlons.
“I had a couple in my office today,” my doctor friend ranted, “that do dope as their primary form of recreation. They want me to give them some kind of magic pill that will take away all of the negative physical effects of their drug abuse. In today’s world,” he groused, “you’re not supposed to take away anyone’s personal recreational activity. Oh, no, that would be wrong.”
We live in a world that increasingly promotes a disconnect between choices and their consequences. In many cases, we teach that it is wrong to hold people accountable for their choices. We tell people that they can have their cake and eat it too. When groups have sufficient political clout, we protect them from their choices via public policy (and public money).
When we as a society continually send the message that you are not accountable for your choices and that you can have whatever you think you ‘deserve,’ regardless of whether you have paid the price for that outcome, is it any wonder that we have Twinkie popping, dope smoking dolts looking for a doctor that will mystically make their consequences vanish (all for a $25 co-pay)?
We’re creating a moral hazard. Too many people expect to be bailed out of their bad choices.
“I have patients,” he said, “that eat Twinkies and watch TV for a hobby. Not surprisingly, they have high blood pressure. They don’t want high blood pressure, but they also don’t want to take blood pressure medicine. And, by golly, they’re not about to give up their hobby. They whine to me, ‘But, Doc, that’s my hobby!’”
I have a lot of respect for my friend. A few years ago he was overweight and out of shape. He finally decided to take some of the same advice he had been giving his patients. He went on a healthy diet and exercise program and dropped a lot of weight. Now he does triathlons.
“I had a couple in my office today,” my doctor friend ranted, “that do dope as their primary form of recreation. They want me to give them some kind of magic pill that will take away all of the negative physical effects of their drug abuse. In today’s world,” he groused, “you’re not supposed to take away anyone’s personal recreational activity. Oh, no, that would be wrong.”
We live in a world that increasingly promotes a disconnect between choices and their consequences. In many cases, we teach that it is wrong to hold people accountable for their choices. We tell people that they can have their cake and eat it too. When groups have sufficient political clout, we protect them from their choices via public policy (and public money).
When we as a society continually send the message that you are not accountable for your choices and that you can have whatever you think you ‘deserve,’ regardless of whether you have paid the price for that outcome, is it any wonder that we have Twinkie popping, dope smoking dolts looking for a doctor that will mystically make their consequences vanish (all for a $25 co-pay)?
We’re creating a moral hazard. Too many people expect to be bailed out of their bad choices.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Willingness Is the Key
A few years ago I was chatting with a relative that had retired after working for nearly two decades as a secretary at a major university. She explained that her career at the university had been split almost equally between two departments.
During the first half of her tenure, she worked in the school of education for the department of counseling and special education. During the second half, she worked in the college of fine arts for the theater and media arts department.
My relative had enjoyed both jobs, but said that the contrast between the two departments could not have been starker. The differences she described ran throughout the entire culture of each department. They were embodied in everyone — from the professors to the students to the support staff — and in everything — from the architecture to the furniture.
Most of the people in the special education program seemed to focus their entire lives on others. Even people that had no apparent reason to gain from doing so treated a lowly secretary like my relative with genuine personal concern. Such sentiments were ubiquitous throughout departmental interactions.
The majority of people involved in the performing arts, on the other hand, made it abundantly clear in everything they did that they were the central focus. They exemplified the term, “It’s all about ME.” It wasn’t that people weren’t nice when necessary. It’s just that their self centered focus was emphatically and continuously on display throughout the department’s culture.
A few years ago I saw a report on TV about a famous media star that had spent the day doing the kind of ordinary service project in which many of my neighbors and I often participate. This fellow had dressed a bit nicer than we dress for these kinds of projects, but he had actually gotten in and worked with his hands. At the end of the day, he had a look of exultant joy on his face as he said, “This has been a catharsis for me.”
I almost felt sad for this man, because he had apparently waited until his sixth decade of life to discover the happiness that lies in unselfish service to others. It made me wonder how many others live out their lives so wrapped up in satisfying their own desires that they miss out on much greater personal fulfillment than they will ever derive from selfish pursuits.
Giving selfless service is good for us. It makes us happier. Studies show that it makes us healthier. But I have noticed throughout the years that forcing someone to serve rarely brings such benefits. In many cases it creates resentment rather than joy. Occasionally youth that come to a service project begrudgingly will start to get the spirit of it from those around them and will discover an ennobling sensation overcoming their antipathy. But more often they end up being more of a hindrance than a help.
I think that if more people understood the good things that come to them from serving others, they would go out and serve just to gain those benefits. For that reason, I invite others to serve. But I am not in favor of forcing people to “serve.” The ends do not justify the means, nor will compulsory “service” develop the kind of character traits we hope will accrue through giving willing assistance.
School and university programs are increasingly requiring public service. There has been a lot of talk about the government requiring public service from our young people, or of at least offering other benefits to entice them into rendering such service.
I believe that this is a misguided effort. In some cases it amounts to taxation in disguise. In other cases, it is just quid-pro-quo — a job by another name. At any rate, it is unlikely that it can generate either the kind of joy that comes from unselfish service or the kind of culture of selflessness its promoters hope for.
No amount of compulsory public service would turn the self centered students in the performing arts department into the selfless students in the special education department. Well intentioned attempts to force such a result would produce detrimental unintended consequences.
During the first half of her tenure, she worked in the school of education for the department of counseling and special education. During the second half, she worked in the college of fine arts for the theater and media arts department.
My relative had enjoyed both jobs, but said that the contrast between the two departments could not have been starker. The differences she described ran throughout the entire culture of each department. They were embodied in everyone — from the professors to the students to the support staff — and in everything — from the architecture to the furniture.
Most of the people in the special education program seemed to focus their entire lives on others. Even people that had no apparent reason to gain from doing so treated a lowly secretary like my relative with genuine personal concern. Such sentiments were ubiquitous throughout departmental interactions.
The majority of people involved in the performing arts, on the other hand, made it abundantly clear in everything they did that they were the central focus. They exemplified the term, “It’s all about ME.” It wasn’t that people weren’t nice when necessary. It’s just that their self centered focus was emphatically and continuously on display throughout the department’s culture.
A few years ago I saw a report on TV about a famous media star that had spent the day doing the kind of ordinary service project in which many of my neighbors and I often participate. This fellow had dressed a bit nicer than we dress for these kinds of projects, but he had actually gotten in and worked with his hands. At the end of the day, he had a look of exultant joy on his face as he said, “This has been a catharsis for me.”
I almost felt sad for this man, because he had apparently waited until his sixth decade of life to discover the happiness that lies in unselfish service to others. It made me wonder how many others live out their lives so wrapped up in satisfying their own desires that they miss out on much greater personal fulfillment than they will ever derive from selfish pursuits.
Giving selfless service is good for us. It makes us happier. Studies show that it makes us healthier. But I have noticed throughout the years that forcing someone to serve rarely brings such benefits. In many cases it creates resentment rather than joy. Occasionally youth that come to a service project begrudgingly will start to get the spirit of it from those around them and will discover an ennobling sensation overcoming their antipathy. But more often they end up being more of a hindrance than a help.
I think that if more people understood the good things that come to them from serving others, they would go out and serve just to gain those benefits. For that reason, I invite others to serve. But I am not in favor of forcing people to “serve.” The ends do not justify the means, nor will compulsory “service” develop the kind of character traits we hope will accrue through giving willing assistance.
School and university programs are increasingly requiring public service. There has been a lot of talk about the government requiring public service from our young people, or of at least offering other benefits to entice them into rendering such service.
I believe that this is a misguided effort. In some cases it amounts to taxation in disguise. In other cases, it is just quid-pro-quo — a job by another name. At any rate, it is unlikely that it can generate either the kind of joy that comes from unselfish service or the kind of culture of selflessness its promoters hope for.
No amount of compulsory public service would turn the self centered students in the performing arts department into the selfless students in the special education department. Well intentioned attempts to force such a result would produce detrimental unintended consequences.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Going for Gold
A friend of mine is absolutely confident that the nation’s monetary model will completely crash within five years. Most people that say this are simply engaging in idle philosophy. Not him. He has taken a large amount from his 401k and has used it to buy gold.
When my friend explained this to me, I couldn’t help but think of another acquaintance that had said the same thing, almost verbatim, during another economic downturn. This man strongly affirmed that the U.S. monetary system would collapse within five years, rendering all dollar denominated assets completely worthless. Gold, he assured me, was the only logical answer.
That was more than 20 years ago.
This time is different, asserts my friend. He wonders why I can’t see all of the crazy and unprecedented things the government and the Fed are doing with our fiat currency. Yes, I can see it. He wonders if I haven’t studied history and found that gold has replaced every fiat currency in the past 3,000 years. That’s a handy statistic tossed about in certain circles, but what they imply by it is a gross distortion of fact.
To be sure, fiat currencies have their problems, not the least of which is centralized government control. But before jumping into other kinds of currencies, it would be wise to understand their pitfalls. Gold is not the panacea that its promoters make it out to be.
By buying actual gold, my friend has exchanged some of his fiat currency assets for a commodity currency. This is different than having currency based on a gold (or any other commodity) standard, which is a representative currency.
(Those that favor a gold standard representative currency seem conveniently ignorant of the widespread dissatisfaction with it throughout many areas of the U.S. during the last half of the 19th Century and first part of the 20th Century — even being a major issue in presidential campaigns. All types of currencies have their advantages and disadvantages.)
When I opined to my friend that selling mutual fund shares at a low point in favor of buying gold at near historic high prices was probably an unwise strategy, he would have none of it. “I’m not doing this for investment value. I’m doing this for survival.” At that point I suggested that making financial decisions based on fear is rarely a successful model. He replied that he is quite certain that he will end up far more secure.
SmartMoney’s Jack Hough explains in this article why gold has been used as money and why he thinks it is a bad way to go, even if you do believe that Armageddon is only months away. Gold has been used as money because it doesn’t decay, isn’t consumable or useful in very many applications, and is “exceedingly rare,” “divisible,” “easily shapeable,” and “easy to test for purity.”
Those are fine qualities. But gold, says Hough, “doesn’t work to make itself more valuable. It just sits.” The price of gold rises and falls with demand, of course. But over time, gold’s value is relatively stagnant. One “dollar invested in gold in 1802” would be worth about $2.80 today. That same dollar invested in stocks would be worth about $420,000. Even investing it in U.S. Dollars would have returned over $250.
Fair enough, my friend would say, but he’s not in gold for its investment value; only for its barter value. He also isn’t going to be around for 207 years. Besides, he is confident that the $420,000 in stocks and $250 USD mentioned above will be worth $0 within five years, so gold is where it’s at, even if its value doesn’t change.
My friend could be right. Despite the government’s shenanigans, however, it is much more probable that gold will plummet within five years, much as it did after its 1980 high point. Not everyone buying gold today is a survivalist. When stock prices rise and gold prices drop, many gold owners will sell their gold and buy stocks.
Most people are emotional investors that buy high and sell low, doing the exact opposite of what generates wealth. Non-emotional investors know that volatility can be their friend, not their foe. When it comes to creating and maintaining wealth, volatility does not necessarily mean insecurity.
If you’re a millenarian, you believe that there will eventually come a doomsday and that many awful things will happen in the run up to that event. But will that happen within the next five years? That’s a much harder question. Such has been the forecast from certain folks every time there has been an economic downturn or a disaster. We always seem to bounce back. (Yeah, I know. That’s like what people said to Noah before the flood.)
It would be hubris to say that it is impossible for our monetary system to collapse. The most likely course of events, however, will be that human ingenuity will kick in and we will work our way through the current economic downturn. Policies will be tweaked and tempered. There will be ups and downs. As normalcy sets in, some that prepared for doomsday will feel that their preparations were in vain.
Even if you do think doomsday is just around the corner, Hough suggests being “cautious about stashing too much wealth in something so fickle [as gold], especially when it’s popular.” He advises that a better instrument would be “ordinary commodities,” or better yet, “the means of producing them.” People will always need such things and will find ways to pay for them, even in a collapsed economy.
One survivalist friend of mine has a huge stash of toilet paper. As long as it’s kept dry it doesn’t deteriorate very fast. He is positive that people will be willing to pay top price for TP in the dystopian future’s barter system.
One final word on buying gold. It has been my experience that buying anything that everyone else in a given group is buying eventually yields undesirable results. Engaging in the time honored tradition of chasing fads will produce the same kind of outcome that always results from such faddish pursuits. Somehow that makes me think of a large dusty stash of vinyl LP disco albums a friend still had lying around in 1993.
When my friend explained this to me, I couldn’t help but think of another acquaintance that had said the same thing, almost verbatim, during another economic downturn. This man strongly affirmed that the U.S. monetary system would collapse within five years, rendering all dollar denominated assets completely worthless. Gold, he assured me, was the only logical answer.
That was more than 20 years ago.
This time is different, asserts my friend. He wonders why I can’t see all of the crazy and unprecedented things the government and the Fed are doing with our fiat currency. Yes, I can see it. He wonders if I haven’t studied history and found that gold has replaced every fiat currency in the past 3,000 years. That’s a handy statistic tossed about in certain circles, but what they imply by it is a gross distortion of fact.
To be sure, fiat currencies have their problems, not the least of which is centralized government control. But before jumping into other kinds of currencies, it would be wise to understand their pitfalls. Gold is not the panacea that its promoters make it out to be.
By buying actual gold, my friend has exchanged some of his fiat currency assets for a commodity currency. This is different than having currency based on a gold (or any other commodity) standard, which is a representative currency.
(Those that favor a gold standard representative currency seem conveniently ignorant of the widespread dissatisfaction with it throughout many areas of the U.S. during the last half of the 19th Century and first part of the 20th Century — even being a major issue in presidential campaigns. All types of currencies have their advantages and disadvantages.)
When I opined to my friend that selling mutual fund shares at a low point in favor of buying gold at near historic high prices was probably an unwise strategy, he would have none of it. “I’m not doing this for investment value. I’m doing this for survival.” At that point I suggested that making financial decisions based on fear is rarely a successful model. He replied that he is quite certain that he will end up far more secure.
SmartMoney’s Jack Hough explains in this article why gold has been used as money and why he thinks it is a bad way to go, even if you do believe that Armageddon is only months away. Gold has been used as money because it doesn’t decay, isn’t consumable or useful in very many applications, and is “exceedingly rare,” “divisible,” “easily shapeable,” and “easy to test for purity.”
Those are fine qualities. But gold, says Hough, “doesn’t work to make itself more valuable. It just sits.” The price of gold rises and falls with demand, of course. But over time, gold’s value is relatively stagnant. One “dollar invested in gold in 1802” would be worth about $2.80 today. That same dollar invested in stocks would be worth about $420,000. Even investing it in U.S. Dollars would have returned over $250.
Fair enough, my friend would say, but he’s not in gold for its investment value; only for its barter value. He also isn’t going to be around for 207 years. Besides, he is confident that the $420,000 in stocks and $250 USD mentioned above will be worth $0 within five years, so gold is where it’s at, even if its value doesn’t change.
My friend could be right. Despite the government’s shenanigans, however, it is much more probable that gold will plummet within five years, much as it did after its 1980 high point. Not everyone buying gold today is a survivalist. When stock prices rise and gold prices drop, many gold owners will sell their gold and buy stocks.
Most people are emotional investors that buy high and sell low, doing the exact opposite of what generates wealth. Non-emotional investors know that volatility can be their friend, not their foe. When it comes to creating and maintaining wealth, volatility does not necessarily mean insecurity.
If you’re a millenarian, you believe that there will eventually come a doomsday and that many awful things will happen in the run up to that event. But will that happen within the next five years? That’s a much harder question. Such has been the forecast from certain folks every time there has been an economic downturn or a disaster. We always seem to bounce back. (Yeah, I know. That’s like what people said to Noah before the flood.)
It would be hubris to say that it is impossible for our monetary system to collapse. The most likely course of events, however, will be that human ingenuity will kick in and we will work our way through the current economic downturn. Policies will be tweaked and tempered. There will be ups and downs. As normalcy sets in, some that prepared for doomsday will feel that their preparations were in vain.
Even if you do think doomsday is just around the corner, Hough suggests being “cautious about stashing too much wealth in something so fickle [as gold], especially when it’s popular.” He advises that a better instrument would be “ordinary commodities,” or better yet, “the means of producing them.” People will always need such things and will find ways to pay for them, even in a collapsed economy.
One survivalist friend of mine has a huge stash of toilet paper. As long as it’s kept dry it doesn’t deteriorate very fast. He is positive that people will be willing to pay top price for TP in the dystopian future’s barter system.
One final word on buying gold. It has been my experience that buying anything that everyone else in a given group is buying eventually yields undesirable results. Engaging in the time honored tradition of chasing fads will produce the same kind of outcome that always results from such faddish pursuits. Somehow that makes me think of a large dusty stash of vinyl LP disco albums a friend still had lying around in 1993.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Ron Paul: Analysis or Scoffing?
I often peruse a number of local blogs, including David Miller’s Pursuit of Liberty and Frank Staheli’s Simple Utah Mormon Politics. During the recent campaign cycle, Frank made clear his strong support for Ron Paul.
In a comment on a recent post of David’s, Frank accuses me of being among those that “scoffed at the idea that Ron Paul was the only real alternative.” I began to compose an answer to Frank’s charge, but soon realized that if I posted it, I would be inappropriately hogging David’s blog. So I thought I would write my own post on the matter.
If I scoffed at Ron Paul being the only real alternative, it was only due to what I believe to be a dose of reality. In January 2008 I explained that I differed with Paul on foreign policy. But I also differed with every other presidential candidate on at least some substantive issues. Depending on the nature of the policy and the candidate’s stance, support of a candidate isn’t necessarily ruled out by a few policy differences.
In the referenced post, however, I explained that Paul’s foreign policy stance came across as utterly unrealistic to most voters. Various polling later showed this to be correct. Nearly 15 months ago, people were generally unhappy with our nation’s foreign policy. But Ron Paul’s utopian libertarian approach to foreign policy seemed so impractical and idealistic that it rendered him an unserious candidate in the minds of most voters. It was the poison pill that kept people from taking anything else he said seriously.
Still, I never implied that voters shouldn’t support Ron Paul; only that few ultimately would support him. This is not simply due to his foreign policy statements. Paul has done much over the years to limit his appeal to the point that he is not broadly politically viable.
Some ardent Paul supporters delude themselves into believing that he would have had a reasonable chance of becoming president if only this or that might have been tweaked — if the media had treated him fairly or if the establishment hadn’t quashed him, for example.
All of these suppositions require the willing suspension of disbelief. Repeated polling found that Ron Paul enjoyed very deep support in very narrow categories. Pollsters knew that no amount of positive media coverage, money, or getting his message out would have expanded his support much beyond those narrow categories.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, enjoyed much broader support with depth in some categories. But his support was still regional, meaning that it was insufficiently broad to make him nationally competitive, even after spending unprecedented wads of cash. John McCain’s support was quite broad but very shallow. In the end, that was enough to win a party nomination but too weak to carry a general election.
In an interview I listened to during the campaign, Ron Paul essentially admitted that he was a ‘message’ candidate — that he was in the race to send a message and to influence the debate, rather than to win. That might be enough to gain the votes of those of us that found the other candidates unworthy of our support. But people that study political psychology can tell you that a major factor in most votes is the desire to be identified with the winner. Just sending a message isn’t enough for most voters. They want to win.
Again, you can argue all you want that if only some minor thing had been different, Ron Paul would have been viable enough for winner-oriented people to vote for him, but this is simply not a reflection of reality.
Like it or not, political races are as much popularity contests as anything else. For decades Ron Paul has created and marketed himself as a contrarian. This packaging necessarily limits his appeal and makes it impossible for him to win broad based support.
People appreciate criticism of the government. Carping about the government is a favorite American pastime. But Paul’s message is so stark as to seem to many to be a refutation of some things they have come to believe to be essential elements of what America means.
I state these criticisms of Ron Paul as an admirer of many of his positions and without intending derision. I am only putting forth my analysis of the matter. Regardless of how much I like some of what Ron Paul has to say, whether I put up yard signs supporting him, or whether I vote for him; the simple truth is that he is not and never will be a viable candidate for U.S. President.
I do not think that failure to enthusiastically support translates to scoffing. But, if trying to be an objective analyst makes one a scoffer, then I guess Frank is right.
In a comment on a recent post of David’s, Frank accuses me of being among those that “scoffed at the idea that Ron Paul was the only real alternative.” I began to compose an answer to Frank’s charge, but soon realized that if I posted it, I would be inappropriately hogging David’s blog. So I thought I would write my own post on the matter.
If I scoffed at Ron Paul being the only real alternative, it was only due to what I believe to be a dose of reality. In January 2008 I explained that I differed with Paul on foreign policy. But I also differed with every other presidential candidate on at least some substantive issues. Depending on the nature of the policy and the candidate’s stance, support of a candidate isn’t necessarily ruled out by a few policy differences.
In the referenced post, however, I explained that Paul’s foreign policy stance came across as utterly unrealistic to most voters. Various polling later showed this to be correct. Nearly 15 months ago, people were generally unhappy with our nation’s foreign policy. But Ron Paul’s utopian libertarian approach to foreign policy seemed so impractical and idealistic that it rendered him an unserious candidate in the minds of most voters. It was the poison pill that kept people from taking anything else he said seriously.
Still, I never implied that voters shouldn’t support Ron Paul; only that few ultimately would support him. This is not simply due to his foreign policy statements. Paul has done much over the years to limit his appeal to the point that he is not broadly politically viable.
Some ardent Paul supporters delude themselves into believing that he would have had a reasonable chance of becoming president if only this or that might have been tweaked — if the media had treated him fairly or if the establishment hadn’t quashed him, for example.
All of these suppositions require the willing suspension of disbelief. Repeated polling found that Ron Paul enjoyed very deep support in very narrow categories. Pollsters knew that no amount of positive media coverage, money, or getting his message out would have expanded his support much beyond those narrow categories.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, enjoyed much broader support with depth in some categories. But his support was still regional, meaning that it was insufficiently broad to make him nationally competitive, even after spending unprecedented wads of cash. John McCain’s support was quite broad but very shallow. In the end, that was enough to win a party nomination but too weak to carry a general election.
In an interview I listened to during the campaign, Ron Paul essentially admitted that he was a ‘message’ candidate — that he was in the race to send a message and to influence the debate, rather than to win. That might be enough to gain the votes of those of us that found the other candidates unworthy of our support. But people that study political psychology can tell you that a major factor in most votes is the desire to be identified with the winner. Just sending a message isn’t enough for most voters. They want to win.
Again, you can argue all you want that if only some minor thing had been different, Ron Paul would have been viable enough for winner-oriented people to vote for him, but this is simply not a reflection of reality.
Like it or not, political races are as much popularity contests as anything else. For decades Ron Paul has created and marketed himself as a contrarian. This packaging necessarily limits his appeal and makes it impossible for him to win broad based support.
People appreciate criticism of the government. Carping about the government is a favorite American pastime. But Paul’s message is so stark as to seem to many to be a refutation of some things they have come to believe to be essential elements of what America means.
I state these criticisms of Ron Paul as an admirer of many of his positions and without intending derision. I am only putting forth my analysis of the matter. Regardless of how much I like some of what Ron Paul has to say, whether I put up yard signs supporting him, or whether I vote for him; the simple truth is that he is not and never will be a viable candidate for U.S. President.
I do not think that failure to enthusiastically support translates to scoffing. But, if trying to be an objective analyst makes one a scoffer, then I guess Frank is right.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Institutions of Liberty
Broad based liberty can only exist in a society that has thriving institutions of liberty. These institutions comprise a sprawling multi-level network that informs and impacts every facet of life. This network includes institutions of every conceivable size.
It is not possible to design such a broad, multi-faceted network. But it is possible to develop a framework that supports such a network and encourages its survival and expansion.
The list of types of institutions of liberty is extensive. It includes businesses, libraries, youth groups, educational establishments, trade associations, municipal governments, churches, legal systems, scientific societies, media and other communication lines, travel routes, charity and service societies, free and open elections, arts, military, athletic clubs, etc.
The fact that an institution falls into one of these categories does not make it a liberal institution. (Note that the term liberal is here used to denote support of human liberty rather than to describe a specific modern political ideology.) In fact, most of the categories listed above include many illiberal institutions — organizations that run counter to human liberty.
If category isn’t enough to classify a structure, what delineates between a liberal and an illiberal institution? It would be easy to say that liberal institutions are dedicated to human liberty, while others are not. But in fact, many organizations not devoted to liberty actually function to encourage it.
For example, the argument that religion works against human freedom is at least nearly as old as recorded history. But celebrated economist F.A. Hayek (himself a non-religionist) makes a compelling argument in his book The Fatal Conceit that religion plays an indispensible and unparalleled role in transmitting the moral code essential to human liberty. (It would be easy to challenge my one-sentence synopsis of chapter nine of Hayek’s book, but I suggest reading Hayek’s well organized thoughts before doing so.)
Similarly, it has been shown time and time again that a healthy family structure functions to decrease harmful dependency and increase human liberty. This is true, even if the family has no particular devotion to freedom.
So, it seems to me that the test of whether an organization is liberal or illiberal must come down to its actual effect on liberty. We may classify an institution as liberal if its overall effect supports liberty, even if some of its actions work against it (since few human organizations are pure). I also believe that many organizations have transitioned over time from liberal to illiberal and vice versa.
Thus, I also contend that it takes vision and effort to create and maintain liberal institutions. I somewhat disagree with various strict libertarians that such structures would spontaneously pop up and naturally continue without concerted and united effort. To the extent that this does occur, these institutions owe much to the freedom-friendly environment fostered by other liberal institutions and the deliberate effort to promote such an environment.
Since organizations are continually in flux, it is imperative that we work to make sure that our liberal institutions continue to advance liberty. I also believe we have a duty stand against illiberal institutions, and to try to correct them where possible. The good thing about the work of liberty is that each person, regardless of their status in life, can and should do their part to support the cause of freedom.
It is not possible to design such a broad, multi-faceted network. But it is possible to develop a framework that supports such a network and encourages its survival and expansion.
The list of types of institutions of liberty is extensive. It includes businesses, libraries, youth groups, educational establishments, trade associations, municipal governments, churches, legal systems, scientific societies, media and other communication lines, travel routes, charity and service societies, free and open elections, arts, military, athletic clubs, etc.
The fact that an institution falls into one of these categories does not make it a liberal institution. (Note that the term liberal is here used to denote support of human liberty rather than to describe a specific modern political ideology.) In fact, most of the categories listed above include many illiberal institutions — organizations that run counter to human liberty.
If category isn’t enough to classify a structure, what delineates between a liberal and an illiberal institution? It would be easy to say that liberal institutions are dedicated to human liberty, while others are not. But in fact, many organizations not devoted to liberty actually function to encourage it.
For example, the argument that religion works against human freedom is at least nearly as old as recorded history. But celebrated economist F.A. Hayek (himself a non-religionist) makes a compelling argument in his book The Fatal Conceit that religion plays an indispensible and unparalleled role in transmitting the moral code essential to human liberty. (It would be easy to challenge my one-sentence synopsis of chapter nine of Hayek’s book, but I suggest reading Hayek’s well organized thoughts before doing so.)
Similarly, it has been shown time and time again that a healthy family structure functions to decrease harmful dependency and increase human liberty. This is true, even if the family has no particular devotion to freedom.
So, it seems to me that the test of whether an organization is liberal or illiberal must come down to its actual effect on liberty. We may classify an institution as liberal if its overall effect supports liberty, even if some of its actions work against it (since few human organizations are pure). I also believe that many organizations have transitioned over time from liberal to illiberal and vice versa.
Thus, I also contend that it takes vision and effort to create and maintain liberal institutions. I somewhat disagree with various strict libertarians that such structures would spontaneously pop up and naturally continue without concerted and united effort. To the extent that this does occur, these institutions owe much to the freedom-friendly environment fostered by other liberal institutions and the deliberate effort to promote such an environment.
Since organizations are continually in flux, it is imperative that we work to make sure that our liberal institutions continue to advance liberty. I also believe we have a duty stand against illiberal institutions, and to try to correct them where possible. The good thing about the work of liberty is that each person, regardless of their status in life, can and should do their part to support the cause of freedom.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Voters are Not Hapless Victims
Americans hate Congress. Americans love to hate Congress.
Nearly three months into its term, the 111th Congress is enjoying approval ratings around 30% positive and 56% negative. This is almost exactly on par with the approval ratings for the 110th Congress at the same time two years ago. After May 2007, however, the ratings for the 110th Congress declined below that point and never recovered, dipping as low as 12+/79– last fall. If the current trend continues, the honeymoon period for the 11th Congress will end by summer.
The 109th Congress, by contrast, had positive ratings in the high 20- to low 30-percent range its entire term. Its negatives fluctuated from the low 50s to the low 70s. The 108th Congress had about the same. In fact, it’s been a long time since Americans have genuinely approved of Congress. It is essentially a failed institution in the minds of most Americans.
But we apparently think that with few exceptions, Congress is only bad when its members get together. I say this because we keep sending the same people back to Congress election after election. We hate Congress but generally approve of our own representative and senators.
The 2006 congressional elections produced a major shakeup. The Democrats picked up 7% of House seats and 6% of Senate seats. Even in that election, incumbents mostly kept their seats: 94% in the House and 79% in the Senate. Those that lost had been successfully tied to scandals in a very public manner (see OpenSecrets.org article).
Last November’s elections returned 95% of House incumbents and 93% of Senate incumbents to Washington (see OpenSecrets.org article).
There are many reasons for incumbent advantage. Americans have a flair for appearing to favor political outsiders. But the reality is that Americans give a lot of weight to experience. The more experienced candidate wins more than three-fourths of the time (even in races featuring no incumbent). Who has more experience at the job than the incumbent?
Gerrymandered districts also help return House incumbents to Washington over and over again. The incumbent in most districts merely needs to win her party’s primary to ensure re-election in November. Senators have it a little more difficult, because they have to appeal to voters across their state.
Incumbency brings name recognition, which has long been a major factor in political races. Every time the incumbent’s name makes the news, it is advertising. Some of it is good; some is bad. In general, however, it works to the incumbent’s advantage unless he has outraged voters with disgraceful behavior.
Donors also know that incumbents are most likely to win. Incumbency brings more opportunities for fundraising, usually including support from their party’s establishment. In nine out of ten presidential and congressional races the top campaign spender wins.
While incumbency has its distinct advantages, challengers can win even when an incumbent hasn’t been any more dishonorable than the average federal legislator. For example, underfunded newbie Jason Chaffetz convincingly beat four-term incumbent Chris Cannon in last year’s primary in Utah’s 3rd district, thanks to a lot of work at the grass roots level. Also, a challenger’s lack of a voting record can sometimes work to her advantage.
While all of these things are true, I’m afraid that they tend to paint the voters as victims of the political class and its fellow travelers. While voters can certainly fall prey to manipulation, I don’t buy the general argument that the masses are little more than innocent dupes or useful idiots in a political game that is beyond their control.
The people of this nation have more power and capacity than that. In fact, our political affairs are in their current state by choice. We choose to permit Gerrymandering. Heck, sometimes we require it. We choose to accept massive incumbency advantage. We consent to political funding schemes. It doesn’t have to be this way. We choose it, even if we do so by unwillingness to do anything about it.
Instead of discussing the symptoms, it would be better to get at the root of the matter. We should be asking why we as a society choose to organize our politics in this manner. Despite what we tell pollsters, we seem to actually be far more willing to live with what we’ve got than to take steps to effect real improvements.
This could mean that we (as a whole) are fairly satisfied with the current state of affairs, despite what we say to pollsters. Or it could mean that the elite class simply hasn’t pushed the populace to the point of rebellion but that the pot is simmering. Maybe the truth lies somewhere between these two points.
At any rate, I believe Americans have chosen and continue to choose our current political model, including its problems. The question is: why?
Nearly three months into its term, the 111th Congress is enjoying approval ratings around 30% positive and 56% negative. This is almost exactly on par with the approval ratings for the 110th Congress at the same time two years ago. After May 2007, however, the ratings for the 110th Congress declined below that point and never recovered, dipping as low as 12+/79– last fall. If the current trend continues, the honeymoon period for the 11th Congress will end by summer.
The 109th Congress, by contrast, had positive ratings in the high 20- to low 30-percent range its entire term. Its negatives fluctuated from the low 50s to the low 70s. The 108th Congress had about the same. In fact, it’s been a long time since Americans have genuinely approved of Congress. It is essentially a failed institution in the minds of most Americans.
But we apparently think that with few exceptions, Congress is only bad when its members get together. I say this because we keep sending the same people back to Congress election after election. We hate Congress but generally approve of our own representative and senators.
The 2006 congressional elections produced a major shakeup. The Democrats picked up 7% of House seats and 6% of Senate seats. Even in that election, incumbents mostly kept their seats: 94% in the House and 79% in the Senate. Those that lost had been successfully tied to scandals in a very public manner (see OpenSecrets.org article).
Last November’s elections returned 95% of House incumbents and 93% of Senate incumbents to Washington (see OpenSecrets.org article).
There are many reasons for incumbent advantage. Americans have a flair for appearing to favor political outsiders. But the reality is that Americans give a lot of weight to experience. The more experienced candidate wins more than three-fourths of the time (even in races featuring no incumbent). Who has more experience at the job than the incumbent?
Gerrymandered districts also help return House incumbents to Washington over and over again. The incumbent in most districts merely needs to win her party’s primary to ensure re-election in November. Senators have it a little more difficult, because they have to appeal to voters across their state.
Incumbency brings name recognition, which has long been a major factor in political races. Every time the incumbent’s name makes the news, it is advertising. Some of it is good; some is bad. In general, however, it works to the incumbent’s advantage unless he has outraged voters with disgraceful behavior.
Donors also know that incumbents are most likely to win. Incumbency brings more opportunities for fundraising, usually including support from their party’s establishment. In nine out of ten presidential and congressional races the top campaign spender wins.
While incumbency has its distinct advantages, challengers can win even when an incumbent hasn’t been any more dishonorable than the average federal legislator. For example, underfunded newbie Jason Chaffetz convincingly beat four-term incumbent Chris Cannon in last year’s primary in Utah’s 3rd district, thanks to a lot of work at the grass roots level. Also, a challenger’s lack of a voting record can sometimes work to her advantage.
While all of these things are true, I’m afraid that they tend to paint the voters as victims of the political class and its fellow travelers. While voters can certainly fall prey to manipulation, I don’t buy the general argument that the masses are little more than innocent dupes or useful idiots in a political game that is beyond their control.
The people of this nation have more power and capacity than that. In fact, our political affairs are in their current state by choice. We choose to permit Gerrymandering. Heck, sometimes we require it. We choose to accept massive incumbency advantage. We consent to political funding schemes. It doesn’t have to be this way. We choose it, even if we do so by unwillingness to do anything about it.
Instead of discussing the symptoms, it would be better to get at the root of the matter. We should be asking why we as a society choose to organize our politics in this manner. Despite what we tell pollsters, we seem to actually be far more willing to live with what we’ve got than to take steps to effect real improvements.
This could mean that we (as a whole) are fairly satisfied with the current state of affairs, despite what we say to pollsters. Or it could mean that the elite class simply hasn’t pushed the populace to the point of rebellion but that the pot is simmering. Maybe the truth lies somewhere between these two points.
At any rate, I believe Americans have chosen and continue to choose our current political model, including its problems. The question is: why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)