Conservatives Flip-Flop On Individual Mandate Out Of Political Expediency

So let me see if I have this straight.  The principle most offensive to the TPM ultra-conservative types is the individual mandate.  It is the idea that the government would require an American citizen to buy something she might not want to buy.  I suspect most find the regulation of insurance company atrocities, such as dropping coverage when a person becomes sick, denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and charging higher premiums for women, somewhat acceptable.  It is the mandate that they hate.  HATE.

But what we are learning now is that conservatives almost universally supported the individual mandate as a sensible free-market alternative to the Clinton health care reform.  In fact, conservatives thought up the idea in the 70s and supported it for decades.  Mormon conservative hero and potential frontrunner in the 2012 Republican primary Mitt Romney passed an individual mandate as governor in Massachusetts and had this to say about it:  "We can't have as a nation 40 million people — or, in my state, half a million — saying, 'I don't have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay.'"

So when conservatives propose a health insurance mandate it is a nice free-market approach and a furtherance of that bedrock American principle of individual responsibility.  But when liberals propose a health insurance mandate it is socialism?  It is so horrible that they must resort to violence and intimidation?  It is an assault on our personal freedoms and liberties, and an indication of the decline of America itself?

What we are really seeing is that some conservative leaders have learned that appealing to raw emotion is a more successful political strategy than appealing to reason and compromise.  These are people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin, who are more interested fame and power than in solving real-life problems of Americans.  These are not intellectual conservatives who maintain a certain set of core beliefs and who are attempting to raise the level of discourse in our nation.  There are plenty of them still around, though their voices are being drowned out.  These are con artists who appeal to the lowest common denominator, who lower the level of political discourse, and who will do or say anything as long as the political winds are favorable.

So as I sit and listen to all the doomsday predictions associated with health insurance reform, listen to all the anger and the ignorant use of the words like "socialism," I put no stock in it at all.  They are led by hypocrites who are purposely arousing their emotions and who have no core political principles.  They only know that they will oppose anything proposed by Pres. Obama because it is good for them personally.  They have no ability to compromise and, as a result, they are bad for America.

On David Foster Wallace and Leadership

I'm requiring that all readers of this blog love the late writer David Foster Wallace.  If you can read through his essays in Harper's and the commencement speech he gave Kenyon College, and not want to go on and read his books, Infinite Jest in particular, you probably need to humble yourself and open your heart.  I'm not going to blaspheme and give you Moroni's promise here, but let me just say that I think the pure in heart will love his writing.  I know it's trendy to love DFW's writing right now, so sue me.  I love it.

So I was surprised that I had missed his article in Rolling Stone back in 2000 when he followed the McCain campaign around for a week.  He spends the last section of the article about leadership, which he defines as:

A real leader is somebody who, because of his own particular power and charisma and example, is able to inspire people, with "inspire" being used here in a serious and non-cliché way. A real leader can somehow get us to do certain things that deep down we think are good and want to be able to do but usually can't get ourselves to do on our own.

He then makes the point that we are less susceptible to real leadership today, as compared to JFK's presidency:

True, JFK's audience was more "innocent" than we are: Vietnam hadn't happened yet, or Watergate, or the Savings and Loan scandal, etc. But there's also something else. The science of sales and marketing was still in its drooling infancy in 1961 when Kennedy was saying "Ask not..." The young people he inspired had not been skillfully marketed to all their lives. They knew nothing of Spin. They were not totally, terribly familiar with salesmen.

          . . .

But if you're subjected to enough great salesmen and salespitches and marketing concepts for long enough — like from your earliest Saturday-morning cartoons, let's say — it is only a matter of time before you start believing deep down that everything is sales and marketing, and that whenever somebody seems like they care about you or about some noble idea or cause, that person is a salesman and really ultimately doesn't give a [I'll edit this, it is a Mormon blog, so use your imagination] about you or some cause but really just wants something for himself.

I really can't recommend this article enough.  It's long, but worth every minute you spend reading.  DFW wanted to believe that McCain was a leader, not a salesman, but admitted that making the distinction is very personal and by no means simple.  McCain, for him, had credibility as a leader because he actually sacrificed something, his time as a POW in Vietnam.  Other similar examples might be Joseph Smith, Martin Luther King Jr., and Ghandi.  But most people who we view as potential leaders are much more difficult to label.

Which is all to say that the question of whether or not Barack Obama is a leader or salesman is perhaps the most hotly debated in American politics right now.  Some on the left were genuinely inspired by his candidacy, as witnessed by the volunteer network of millions and the unprecedented ability to reach young voters.  They believe, for example, that health care reform is painful but necessary and that his vision and leadership can guide us through a legitimately difficult period in our history.  Some on the right believe that Barack Obama is a salesman, that he has duped the fawning millions, that he is all rhetoric and no substance.  They simply cannot understand how so many seemingly intelligent people could be so blinded.

Now, you don't care whether I think Pres. Obama is more of a leader than a salesman and I truthfully don't care where you stand.  This is personal.  Probably 99% of the people that would read this blog believe that Joseph Smith was a true leader, in every sense of the word, but we have to admit that many people think he was a salesman.  That he lied for personal gain and was very successful.  It doesn't change the fact that we are inspired to live better lives and make hard choices because of his leadership.

It is important, though, to think about this sort of thing explicitly, and to be as objective as possible.  The thing I hate most is when someone blithely dismisses another person's source of leadership because they disagree with the underlying ideology.  If you are genuinely inspired, as DFW says "in a serious and non-cliché way," then who am I to question that?  Don't we want a nation of people, or a religion of people, or community of people, who are inspired?  Isn't that better than apathy and cynicism?  If we're inspired to do things differently, at least we're engaged and having a real conversation and pulling people into the process that otherwise would not involve themselves, and are therefore more likely to find good solutions to problems.

So don't insult me by telling me that the leader that inspires me has me duped, just be glad I'm inspired, I'll be glad you're inspired, and we'll show mutual respect.

A Faltering Africa

I read an article about the state of war in Africa and have been rolling it around in my head for the last few days.  Sometimes you read something about the world which just slaps you in the face, and this was one of those times for me.

I tend to be an optimist on both a micro and macro level.  Many would call this naivete or willful delusion, but I consider it asset.  I believe that things will work out okay for me personally during difficult times (my wife might say this causes me to be less proactive than I should be, and maybe she's right), and I believe that the world is actually doing okay.  Sure there are problems, big ugly problems, but there are also a lot of good people doing their best to solve those problems.

We live in a world that has less slavery than ever before, less racism and sexism, more tolerance and understanding.  Mass communication has allowed us to perceive and react to inhumanities worldwide where before they would go unnoticed.  For every war or earthquake there are aid groups like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders who rush in to help improve the situation.  And, of course, our church and many others donate hundreds of millions of dollars worth of supplies and volunteer time every year to help the disadvantaged.  For every instance of cruelty in the world I look for and see equal instances of charity.

But, man, Africa.

That article from Foreign Policy is sobering.  The county is teeming with armed groups whose only goals are crime, banditry, rape, and terror.  But not terror in the sense of terrorism with a political motivation, terror for terror's sake.  You cannot negotiate with them because they want no land, seek no political power, have no demands.  They only want to keep committing crime.  And because the people hate them, they can't muster up recruits, so they steal children from villagers and teach them to be killers before they reach puberty.

It's not that I didn't know things were bad in Africa, we've all heard about genocides, failed states, blood diamonds, military coups, oppressive totalitarians, famine, hunger, and disease.  But we also know about the temples, the fall of apartheid, and successful nations like Kenya.  When I served my mission in France there were many Africans who had immigrated and they were generally good, humble, God-fearing people.  They really don't deserve what is happening.

So the hard question is what to do about it.  There is always the no-action alternative where we do nothing because it's not our problem.  There is the military alternative where we go in and maintain the peace by force.  There is the foreign aid option where we try to pump money into African economies and the World Bank/IMF and hope the improved economic conditions can lift the countries out of chaos.

America spends about 25 times more on military matters than foreign aid.  We spend about 0.1% of GNP on foreign aid, well below other developed countries and below the NATO goal of 0.7% of GNP.  As a side note, the church has spent tens of millions of dollars in supplies, volunteer hours, and loans to Africa over the past 25 years.  Pres. Obama promised to increase America's foreign aid, but with a faltering economy has not had the political capital to increase that spending.

In a world where our foreign policy is most concerned about stopping terrorism and rogue nuclear weapons, we have to put an emphasis on Africa.  The lawlessness and despair in many African countries is a cauldron for the creation of terrorists and failed states.  America has to be dedicated to improving conditions in Africa just like we are dedicated to spreading democracy in the Middle East.  I am truly grateful to be a member of a church that has donated so much in humanitarian aid to Africa, but I realize that it is not enough.  Our nation has to increase our reach in Africa.

But we shouldn't just do it as a mechanism for self-protection, though that is a persuasive political argument.  If we want true success our motivation will be purely humanitarian, what Christians would call charity.  We should do it because it's right, because we are all God's children and as citizens of the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth we have the added responsibility to help those that are in need.  I can't think of any people in greater need right now than Africa.

Another one Bites the Dust

Okay, another one is misleading. What I should say is "The first one bites the dust."

Arizona has become the first State to eliminate it's children's health insurance program (CHIP or SCHIP). The state legislature cited budget shortfalls and a "fiscal crisis" led to the decision to eliminate the program that served "38,000 children living in families with incomes between 100% and 200% of the federal poverty level ($22,000 to $44,000 for a family of four)."

As with other states using a similar program (i.e. Utah), states only pay about 35% of the cost needed for coverage, while the other 65% comes from the federal government. To me, one of the most interesting comments came from the Governor:

"As an Arizonan, as a mother, and as a person who feels great compassion for the vulnerable and less fortunate," she said, "it is only with great reluctance that I advocate a number of deep reductions in funding. . . . As governor, I have a duty to preserve State government's fiscal integrity and to ensure Arizona's long-term health."

I see contradictions throughout this statement. How does compassion for the vulnerable and less fortunate lead to cutting programs that help the vulnerable and less fortunate? Does Arizona's long-term health only include fiscal health and not physical health?

I hope for a land were people talk-the-talk, and then walk-the-walk. Maybe it's my "socialist" heart coming out, but I hope that other States don't follow the "responsible" move just made by Arizona.

When One Party Rule Goes From Uncomfortable to Appalling

Appalling: adj., inspiring horror, dismay, or disgust.

Utah State House Majority Leader Kevin Garn getting into a hot tub naked with a 15 year old when he was 30 is appalling.  Paying this woman $150,000 to keep quiet about it so as not to ruin his political career is appalling.  Expecting the public to believe that nothing else happened between them is appalling ($150,000 for just sitting there?  Hmmmm).  Only confessing 25 years later when the story was about to become public anyway is appalling.  It is made more appalling that he is a member of the church and an elected leader of our state.  This is all appalling.  The story inspires me to horror, dismay, and disgust.

Perhaps the most appalling thing, though, is that when he finished making his speech at the end of the legislative session on the floor of the state House, he received a standing ovation from his fellow legislators.  They congratulated him on being so brave and coming clean.    And if you are masochistic enough to read the comment section of the Deseret News story I linked above, you will find the vast majority of commenters applauding his courage and eviscerating that poor girl.  I feel like we are living in some bizzaro world where up is down, dark is light, courage is cowardice, and right is wrong.

This is not an attempt to go after Republicans.  I am fully aware that awful scandals like these happen to politicians of every political persuasion.  This is about one-party rule.  Republicans have ruled the legislature in Utah for decades by huge margins.  As a result they have become insulated, detached from all consequences of their actions, and completely out of touch with Utah voters.  So when one of their own admitted to being a pedophile on the floor of state House, a crime that would have required years in prison if the statute of limitations had not run, they applaud him and refuse to call for his resignation (he resigned anyway).  He is one of the club, they like him personally, and full-throated support of his actions would carry no consequences politically.  That, my friends, is the definition of appalling.

I lived in Oregon for a little while after graduating.  Oregon is the opposite of Utah (though to a lesser degree).  It is a liberal state with Democratic control of the legislature and governship.  While I vastly preferred its policies to Utah's (strict urban planning, environmental protection, health insurance for all, emphasis on public transit), I had every intention of voting for a Republican for governor just to keep the Democrats honest and to make sure they didn't get too comfortable with their power.  We didn't live in Oregon long enough to make that election, but I know that the problem cuts both ways.

Now, lest you think this will be a strictly non-partisan post, I want to also make a point about intra-party orthodoxy.  Besides the fact that the Republican party has somehow become entangled with religious belief among many Utahns, the reason why one-party Republican rule is dangerous is because it is a party that requires a higher degree of orthodoxy than Democrats.  The current Senate Majority Leader is a pro-life Mormon who opposes the legalization of gay marriage.  Can you imagine Republicans electing as their congressional leader a pro-choice atheist who supports gay marriage?  The strongest pro-life voice in Washington right now is Democrat Bart Stupak.  Can you imagine the leading voice of the pro-choice movement being a Republican?  The strongest conservative voices right now are Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the Tea Party Nation.

There are no strong moderate voices in the Republican party right now (which has not always been the case).  The Democrats, as evidenced by the health care debate, are ruled by moderates.  If it wasn't so we would have a universal health care system right now (or a public option at the very least), stronger environmental protections, no lingering military presence in Iraq, no fear of trying terrorists in criminal court, and tough regulation of the runaway financial system.  Some call the inability to unify the party behind important issues a weakness, and from a political standpoint it is because they are less likely to make the big changes we need.  But a diversity of voices within a party is actually a good thing.  Orthodoxy, like the threatened house cleaning of the Republican party by the far right wing, is bad.  It's bad for democracy.

I would love nothing more than principled liberals with upstanding moral character, the voters' best interests at heart, and a George Washington-like ability to eschew power, to dominate our politics.  But I'll repost the quote from Joseph Smith that seems more and more prescient every day:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

The decades-long one-party rule by Republicans in Utah has created a generation of untouchable Republicans.  Even states viewed as traditionally one-party dominated like Massachusetts, the Dakotas, Washington, Oregon, and Kansas regularly elect opposite party governors and Senators.  But Utah doesn't, and the consequences are appalling.

Sure, Let's Keep Talking About Health Care Reform

As the Democrats in Congress and Pres. Obama renew their efforts to pass health care reform, I thought I'd take the cue and go over the case one more time.  I know it is overkill, but overkill is the true spirit of blogging.

We have an unmistakable health care problem in America.  Most everyone can agree with that (except the wealthy).  There are about 47 million Americans without health insurance, and about 10 million children, most of whom want health insurance but either can't afford it or have been denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition (which can range from big problems like heart disease to something menial like heartburn).

Even if you are lucky enough to have health insurance the picture is not pleasant.  Premiums are rising at four times the rate of inflation and wages, and have doubled over the past ten years (has your earning capacity doubled in the past ten years?).  Insurance companies are also notorious for avoiding paying out for ostensibly covered procedures based on any technicality they can find, or for no reason at all.

You see, health insurance companies are in it primarily and overwhelmingly to make money for their shareholders.  While that may be something acceptable for, say, a toy company or a chain home improvement stores, it is not desirable for our health insurance industry.  It has lead directly to the problems we are experiencing now:  In order to make as much money as possible they do all they can to make health insurance unavailable to the average American.

In the face of this mountainous evidence of a broken system, many will claim that increased regulation, a public option, or a single-payer system would destroy the best health system in the world.  The WHO ranked America's system as 37th internationally.  We are 33rd in infant mortality, 38th by life expectancy, and usually the around lowest among industrial nations in terms of satisfaction and self-appraisal (in other words, Americans hate their system more than almost any other nation hates their own system).

We have hardly the best system in the world.  Maybe the WHO ranking is a bit low, maybe a bit high, but we have nowhere near the best system.  The critics will point to the anecdotal evidence of people coming from Canada and other countries to have procedures done in America.  I would respond in two ways.

First, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence of Americans who go to other countries to get work done faster and cheaper than they could have in America.  Second, and this is the key, if you are rich enough to be able to come to America to have a medical procedure then, yes, we have the greatest health care system in the world.

America has the greatest health care system in the world if you are wealthy.  If you are not wealthy, we have a terrible system.  Like all other facets of our great nation, if you are wealthy our system is the best.  If you are wealthy unfettered capitalism is the best system in the world.  If you are wealthy you have access to the best education system in the world.  If you are wealthy and can buy politicians, we have the best system of government in the world.  If you happen to be like the vast majority of Americans and are not wealthy, well, too bad.  You are not rich and powerful enough to change the system, so you get to be told how great it all is while looking around and seeing nothing but problems.

I don't think the Democratic plan will save health care, but it is a start.  It's something.  What we are doing now has failed, so trying something new that has worked in other countries is not a bad thing.  And if it takes the reconciliation process to overcome Republican filibusters and obstruction, so be it.