Government Mistrust

This is in response to a blog post titled "Government: It's Just a Job " from the blog "Political Lemonade"

Excellent post Casey.

Mistrust in government is a huge block to making social progress in America and has been an especially destructive force since the start of the Obama administration. At one point, talking points on certain cable news programs were sincerely speculating about the idea of government death panels. Some shows on this same cable network feature a swastika as a regular stage prop for discussions of the Obama administration.

It is nothing but ironic that mistrust in the government has gotten so bad these past two years when much of the nations problems have been caused by the greed of corporations. People look at our slowly recovering economy and say, "Bad Government!!" Have these people forgotten who lead us into this recession in the first place?

I suppose government is an easy target for many Americans; or maybe more accurately, the only target. When so many Americans have committed themselves to religiously believing the free market is a holy, self-correcting, fix all panacea, the government is often the only entity left to blame.

This view that government can't get anything right is perpetuated by adopting a persistent double standard in measuring performance. When private insurance companies take part in predatory exclusions to deny coverage, it's seen as no fault to capitalism, but rather a fixable problem that needs attention. However, when Social Security is forecasted to start paying out more than it receives in 2044, it is a sure sign that government can't get anything right and that Social Security is a complete failure. The reality of the situation is that Social Security needs some tweaking within the next ~30 years to balance the books. This is hardly a crisis. What private company could survive for 30 years without dynamically changing itself in response to its environment?

I don't believe that government always gets it right. However, I do believe that the government can often have higher ethical interests in mind whereas corporations are driven solely by profits. When it comes to vital social services, I distrust corporations far more than government.

US Military Spending: Kicking Ass vs. Balancing the Budget

Let's face it. This is ridiculous:

*The world's top 5 largest military budgets in 2009. 

While the US continues to stack up a record debt and lags behind much of the civilized world in education and healthcare, it seems more and more evident that our nation has to become better at spending money more efficiently. For instance: it's very difficult for me to understand why the US needs a Navy that is larger than the combined forces of the next 13 largest navies in the world when 11 of those 13 countries are our allies. Why not downsize the Navy to a size that is only as big as the next 5 combined navies in the world? I'm not suggesting that the US should not be the #1 military spender in the world, but I am suggesting that, barring the invasion of extraterrestrials, we have little to loose and much to gain by decreasing our margin of superiority and utilizing those assets in other areas of the national budget.

Americans are going to have to eventually decide whether they want 700 foreign military bases across the world or higher quality healthcare. Do we want to pursue foreign policies of occupying other nations or do we want to balance the budget? Like any other business or organization, the US government has a limited amount of resources. Every F-35 aircraft and every nuclear submarine represents an enormous amount of money that could have been spent towards education, environmental conservation, healthcare reform, mass transit, or deficit reduction. The opportunity cost of excessive military spending is a thorn in the side of this nation which deserves immediate political action.

Speaking of hyperbolic rhetoric...

This is a reply to "US National Government," a recent commentary on My Politcal Take.

 

Hi Mike,

I think some of the rhetoric in your recent commentary on US National Government might fit the sort of hyperbolic rhetoric I was lamenting over in my most recent commentary. I think you might do well to heed the advice I mentioned in the last sentence of my commentary: "By striving to not define each other in terms of hyperbolic extremes, Americans can gain a much greater appreciation of political disagreement and engage in meaningful discussion about important issues rather than throwing distorted rhetoric back and forth."

The idea that a large population of voters voted for Obama in the general elections due soely to his race is preposterous. I would invite you to prove me wrong using actual statistics. You mention a sort of informal poll among some acquaintances, but anecdotal evidence is really of little value since it is especially vulnerable to a bias in selection and so easily disputed by other anecdotal evidence. A prime example of the latter: I can't say I know a single person who voted for Obama soely because he was black. I wonder which one of us is taking creative liberties with our anecdotes?

Here is an example of a scientifically conducted poll where voting aged citizens are asked to give the most important reason they supported a particular presidential candidate for the 2008 general election.
This was an open ended poll-- people could say whatever they wanted to say. "Because he's black," surprisingly enough, didn't make the list. This is perhaps 2nd in disappointment only to the omission of "Because Obama Girl is a foxy lady."

Of course, there are SOME individuals within a voting population of 132,618,580 that probably voted for Obama solely because he was Black just as there are SOME individuals within that ~133 million who voted for McCain solely because he was white. In either case, those individuals make up a relatively small group, and to project the beliefs of a fringe group onto a disproportionate amount of the entire population (specifically onto a party that you disagree with) is the same sort of partisan hackery that you are damning the Clinton era democrats for: caring more about party lines than an honest evaluation of the facts.

And it's funny you mentioned the Clinton Impeachment trial as an example of partisan hackery. I don't think you're on the right side to be playing that card. You mentioned that any other person would have been indicted under the same circumstance, but nothing could be further from the truth. Prosecutions for perjury committed in a civil trial are extremely rare. The particular perjury charge brought against Clinton arose in a civil trial that was dismissed and the actual perjury that occurred was only tangentially related to the case that was being heard. No ordinary citizen would have EVER been prosecuted under these circumstances. The charges brought up against Clinton were a fine example of Republicans tossing out common sense for the sake of scoring some partisan points. When the most important crisis of that era revolves around a blow job, something is wrong with our priorities. Let's not forget that Clinton balanced the budget. In retrospect, I think Americans would have overwhelmingly welcomed another budget-balancing blow job enthusiast like Clinton in place of the two Bush terms that followed.

I would encourage you to focus more on substantive platform disagreements and philosophic differences rather than distorted stereotypes and hyperboles. Your last sentence (which I can only guess is alluding to the Obama administration's policies) especially captures the essence of the hyperbolic sentiment I discussed in my commentary: the Obama administrations would like to increase certain aspects of government involvement pertaining to the economy and social services, ipso facto, the Obama administration envisions eliminating democracy and creating a socialist government. I guess it's fortunate we have social services like publicly funded schools so that people can have a platform to preach against the idea of a government providing publicly funded social services.

A Free Market... really?

With the midterm election right around the corner, there has never been a better time to take stock of our personal political beliefs in an effort to ensure we make better choices at the ballot box.

The economy has always enjoyed an important position in the minds of US voters and often polls among the top considerations that voters base their decisions on. Economic policy defines party positions and is perhaps, for better or for worse, the foundation of America's future. It's vital that we, as a nation, understand what role, if any, the government should play in our economy.

It seems to me that there is a particular narrative concerning the economy that has the power to distort voters minds by the masses. This idea is the mythical beast known as the "free market." I call this idea mythical because it does not and cannot exist in any civilized society. The United States, like all other civilized democracies is a mixed economy.

Republicans and Libertarians seem to have this sort of religious faith in the idea of the free market; in their minds it can fix every social ill and every policy problem we can fathom. However, the reality is that market freedom is not a one-stop-cure that can be sprinkled on political legislation. In a healthy civilized society, market freedom is more like an essential nutrient that needs to exist in a careful balance alongside government control and socialist principles.

Money is a powerful motivator. When there is a degree of freedom for people to pursue their own career paths, they will invest countless hours in education, dream up novel ideas for ingenious inventions, and create an army of small businesses. Economic freedom also creates a consumer driven environment that provides an dazzling array of market niches and potential careers. More quality jobs directly correlates to a healthier society, less crime, and less poverty. It's easy to see why it is so enticing to view economic freedom as a political panacea.

The problem though is that money is, in many ways, a motivating force that is too powerful. People don't seek out money or power in moderation; they always want more. So much so that they are willing to greatly compromise their values and their nations well being to squeeze out greater profit margins. This is the ugly side of capitalism: slavery, child labor, pollution on a catastrophic scale, denying life saving operations because of trivial pre-existing conditions, ect. Without a government to regulate the economy, society would quickly go down hill.

However, by finding a careful balance between government control and economic freedom, we can enjoy the benefits of capitalism without the dangers of unchecked greed. There is a spectrum of political platforms that fall in between socialism and total economic freedom. Advocating an economic or political system that falls at either extreme of the spectrum will result in disaster.

This might seem obvious to many people, yet it seems to be an idea that is not well understood by our nation as a whole. Recently, when the Democratic party advocated adjusting the balance of economic power to give the government more control in healthcare regulation, many detractors tried to frame the democratic party as advocating a shift toward complete government control over the economy. It seems to me that many Americans are not very good at perceiving shades of grey and instead prefer an unrealistically simplified black and white picture of politics.

But trying to view politics through a black and white filter will give a grossly distorted image. Republicans don't want a truly free market and Democrats don't want complete government control. Each party agrees (if only implicitly) that there needs to be a balance between government control and personal liberty. By striving to not define each other in terms of hyperbolic extremes, Americans can gain a much greater appreciation of political disagreement and engage in meaningful discussion about important issues rather than throwing distorted rhetoric back and forth.

Ann Coulter on Obama

In our present political climate, it seems like some of the biggest mouthpeices belong to the most outrageous mouths. Americans are all too eager to swallow the craziest talking points and rhetoric in search of a feeling of validation for their political ideas. In this climate, shock jocks like Ann Coulter thrive.

Just last month, in an article titled "OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM," Coulter gave a passionate case against the "absurd accusation" that Obama is a Muslim and stated that he is "obviously an atheist."

Readers that are unfamiliar with Coulter might read this accusation in the first line of her blog with the expectation that she is putting on some sort of satirical front ala Steven Colbert. She's not. She's dead serious.

In fact, It turns out that Obama is in good company, according to Coulter: "All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God. "

Her argument for Obama's disbelief in God is simple: he went to Christian church for 20 years.

Not just any church, but Crazy Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church. Ann Coulter's only argument to support her incredible claim is that Obama's pastor has made some racy remarks-- and Ann Coulter knows a thing or two about racy remarks. I'll give her this much: Rev. Wright has said some pretty whacky things in the wake of all of the media attention he has received these past couple of years. But Obama has taken a very aggressive stance towards Wright's comments, expressing outrage, anger, and sadness toward his former pastor. That last part somehow didn't make it into Coulter's blog.

But even if Obama agreed with the statements that Rev. Wright has made (which range from the US being involved in AIDS to the government knowing about the pearl harbor attacks before they happened), it's hard to follow Ann's logic, which is almost non sequitur. None of Wright's statements undermine a belief in God. Crazy? Sure. Hypocritical? You might argue that. But if Rev. Wright was an atheist (he is a liberal, after all) or promoting atheism, it's not in anyway apparent in his sermons.

Coulter's blog reflects a sad state of affairs for political debate in America. It seems that more an more, outrageous claims resting on paper thin logic will continue to circumvent rational discussion.

Don't Ask Don't Tell: A Pragmatic View

There are many issue's in the contemporary political landscape that are riddled with complexities.

What's the best way to fix an economy that has crashed from the top down without ignoring the middle class? How can we make meaningful and much needed healthcare reform without sacrificing some of the benefits of privatization and without aggravating record high deficits? How can we best reform our educational system to better empower students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed?

These are tough questions. When you try to start thinking about some of these issues, you may find yourself in a mental dialogue that runs in circles and ends up at a dead end. That's not to say these questions don't have great solutions, it's just that the solutions to these questions aren't obvious.

But not all questions are like these questions. Some are quite simple.

Should openly gay citizens be permitted to serve in the military?

A New York Times editorial titled "Don’t Enforce ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" gives an emphatic yes and argues that repealing this legislation no difficult leap in logic on the sheer basis of observable evidence.

The article draws wisdom from the judicial opinion issued by Viginia Phillips, which provides a pragmatic case against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by examining the effects this legislation has had on the armed forces. The author pleads to everyday Americans to take an objective view of the damage that this legislation has caused, citing that "13,000 men and women have been discharged in the 16 years since the law was enacted," many of which posess "critical skills" like "fluency in Arabic, medicine and counterterrorism." The fiscal cost of replacing these troops is also stated to be high. In addition, the article mentions that the judge's opinion found "no convincing evidence" that openly gay men and women have had a negative effect on unit cohesion.

In a time where America is juggling multiple wars, the practical reality of a troop shortage may be a more persuasive argument to the average American than the ideological civil rights arguments (although those are just as valid in my opinion). This legislation is very clearly weakening our nations defense by refusing to tap the valuable resource of gay citizens who are willing and able to serve.

The article's call for action is right in the title: "Don’t Enforce ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." The article ends by suggesting that Judge Phillips should not wait for Congress to get its act together and "should issue a strong injunction to enforce her decision."

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that she will hear this message.

Pre-existing conditions? No problem.

One of the major victories for the recent healthcare reform has been making insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions. This accomplishes the important goal of making healthcare accessible to everyone. However, since this legislation increases the risk taken on by insurance companies, the legislation has also taken measures to compensate this by expanding the pool of insurance customers. At the same time insurance companies cannot turn away new customers, American citizens cannot turn away insurance companies without having to pay significant penalties. The healthcare bill put into place administers progressive financial penalties for Americans without insurance and promotes a symbiotic relationship between insurance companies and their customers. Citizens will not be able to freeload on insurance companies by waiting until they are sick to get insured, and insurance companies can not freeload on customers by revoking coverage from people who have paid premiums for years based on a minor preexisting condition that may have been omitted from their original paper work. Healthcare coverage will be extended to more Americans and private insurance companies will have more customers.

The healthcare bill redefines the relationship between an insurance company and the client in a way that will lead to lasting benefits for both. However, if you ignore the part of the bill that protects the insurance companies, it seems like the insurance industry in America is on the short end of the stick. Former Arkansas Govenor Mike Huckabee recently tried to get away with ignoring the full scope of healthcare reform to paint a lop sided picture, and I'm glad that Talking Points Memo is keeping him honest.

I think it's important to realize the type of rhetoric that our politicians are using. As American citizens it is our duty to keep our politicians honest!