Category: Politics

Posted on

Big Data, Big Tyranny

In the future, people will be controlled by data accumulated by the ruling class.

Citizens will be assigned a social credit number at the age of maturity—or perhaps even at birth.  Every purchase, business transaction, and social media post will be tracked and valued according to government notions of virtue.

Actions like taking care of an elderly parent, speaking well of an official or a law, and volunteering at an approved charity, will raise an individual credit score.  Unworthy actions and attitudes will lower it. The higher the score, the greater the privilege: discounts on utilities, preferential treatment for housing or school, even a wider pool of potential marriage partners.  The lower the score—well, go low enough and you may not even be able to buy an airline ticket.

Does that sound scary to you?  Then this will sound even scarier: in China, the future is two years away.

2020 is the target year for instituting a nation-wide social credit system.  In one sense, it’s a dream come true: throughout human history, unruly citizens have been controlled by threats.  It’s not very efficient and it breeds resentment.  But if a nation’s citizens could be controlled by rewards, they would voluntarily act in the public interest, whatever the government determines the public interest to be.

The program has been test-running in selected Chinese cities.  In Rongcheng, a city on the northeastern coast with a population of almost 700k, residents have willingly embraced it.  Pictures of so-called “civic heroes” are displayed on electronic bulletin boards.  Citizens have even taken it on themselves to police each other, debiting their neighbors for “illegally spreading religion,” for instance.  Writing in the online magazine Wired last October, Rachel Botsman compared China’s social credit system to a vast rewards program or video game: “It’s gamified obedience.”

Roncheng proudly displays its “civilized families.”

I can see how this might work there; China is traditionally a much more ordered society than ours.  But how far-fetched is the possibility of a similar program here?  Private entities like Amazon, Google and Facebook already have vast amounts of data on everyone who makes a purchase, enters a search term, or posts a picture.  They’ve used the information to sell targeted advertising, and in the process have become fabulously rich and powerful.  They’ve also come under fire for abusing that power.  Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, testifying before Congress last April, said he would welcome government regulation of Facebook to curb exploitation of data.  Whether he realizes it or not, what he’s proposing is the marriage of big tech to big government, and the vastly-expanded capacity for exploitation.

Throughout history power has been the rule, freedom the exception.  The freedom promised by the “information highway” thirty years ago turns out to have a cost when that very information can be used to manipulate us.  The biblical call to “renew your minds” takes on a new urgency for Christians: to know what we believe, and why.  Hold fast to the truth, and it will keep us free.

Posted on

When Is Sexism Not Sexism?

Sexism and misogyny are rampant in our culture, says Hillary.  Her #1 proof is, she’s not president.

If you’re not convinced by that, how about this: as she explained to Rachel Maddow, her audience viewed her superficially.  Instead of listening to what she was saying, the chatter was consumed by what she wore and how her hair looked.  Her appearance overshadowed her substance, hence, we live in a misogynistic culture.

Well . . . first of all, I listened to what she said and wasn’t too impressed.  The part that wasn’t anodyne platitudes sounded like bread-and-circus populism (free college!) or extreme progressivism (abortions all the way down!).  She insults all Americans, and women in particular, by implying that every woman who did not vote for her is a fashion-obsessed twit with no mind of her own.

When a professional woman hears a discouraging word, or fails to score a big promotion, or falters in her career path, sexism is the usual suspect.  And I know for a fact that women are treated differently from men, often not to their advantage.  It may be sexism.  Or it may just be sex.

One reason Hillary’s clothes and hair attract comment is that she doesn’t have to wear the same thing all the time.  If Donald Trump had appeared in a white suit to make his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, that would have caused some comment (and as a matter of fact, his hair and skin color do not escape notice).  Sometime in the early 19th century, by whatever common consent determines these things, men of the west gave up sartorial splendor in favor of more subdued colors and plain lines.  For the last 200 years, men’s fashion has not broken out of that tailored, creased and lapelled standard.  Ties and socks are the only avenues of self-expression in men’s clothing, and they had better not get too crazy or the wearer is asking for reams of press about it the next day.

This is not sexism; it’s the differences between two sexes.  Hillary has always been an attractive woman—not a great beauty, but certainly presentable—and I appreciate that she hasn’t indulged in face lifting or tummy tucking (so far as I know).  She’s earned those wrinkles and bears them well for the most part.  She uses color, makeup and hair styling to good advantage because she can.  She is a woman, and makes that point over and over.  This is what women do, and their wardrobe choices are going to be a topic of conversation whenever they are in the public eye.

Men and women are naturally different, and nature dictates how they act toward one another.  When men get together and the conversation turns to a particular woman, it should be no surprise that the mental aptitude, verbal agility, or sparking wit of the subject are not the first attributes under discussion.  This is not going to change; it’s built in.  There are other ways to challenge and deal with it than the blanket charge of “sexism” and “misogyny.”

Whether we are designed by God or designed by evolution, there is such a thing as human nature, and relationships between the sexes are part of it.  Should women fight that, or work with it?  Hillary tries to do both; she uses hair, clothing, and makeup to her advantage but doesn’t want anyone to talk about it.  She talks up her virtues as a woman continually, and complains when she’s not judged by the same standards as a man.  No female candidate will ever be judged by the same standards as a man, unless she dresses in dark gray suits, forgoes the mascara and eye shadow, and buzz cuts her hair (none of which is likely to get votes).

One day we’ll have a woman president, and I will vote based on her policies, not her appearance.  To any aspiring female candidate, here’s my advice: Be a woman.  Dress to your advantage, choose a flattering, easy hairstyle, smile at compliments and ignore petty barbs.  Thank any man who opens the door for you, cuddle babies all you want, have confidence in the feminine attributes God gave you.  Be very careful who you sleep with.  Answer pickup lines with clever putdown lines.  Don’t be shocked at the occasional pass or power play; be prepared.  Politely and firmly insist on what is due to you in the workplace.  Smile when you feel like it, and when you can.  This is not only more effective in a successful career, it’s also a lot more fun.

Posted on

American Expectationalism

When the American colonies erupted in revolt against the Stamp Act (1765), poor King George could not understand.  Weren’t these subjects well-treated?  Did they not prosper as a result of benign neglect? As for this taxation they were incensed about, part of it was to cover the expense of defending them, and what was their problem?

Our problem is basically the same now as it was then: whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long endure.*  The colonies were jealous of their liberties as Englishmen first.  All those stamp act protests, some of them very ugly and violent, stemmed from the assumption (not the revolutionary idea) that they could not be forced to fork over money involuntarily.  By the time the shooting started ten years later, the issue had crystalized: they were fighting for their rights as Americans.

Whatever that means.

Americans have always disagreed about what that means.  Has a nation ever clashed so often over what it means to be at peace?  Since we born unsettled, I suspect our differences will never be settled, even though they come from the same source.  Because they come from the same source.

O my America!  My new-found land!  John Donne described a woman that way (before getting into bed with her).  Not a bad metaphor for the nation, though: a new-found land for all conflicted ideals and idealists; “America” as the undiscovered utopia humanity is blundering toward.  Even those who hate her do so for what she might have been: O my America—you let me down.

Think of all those extravagant hopes, from 1630 until now:

A City on a Hill . . .

We hold these truths . . .  

The Last Best Hope of Earth

Give me your tired, your poor

That’s not who we are

We’re better than this!

Do other nations refer to their founding ideals anywhere near as often?  Are other citizens as prickly about their rights, as contentious over memes, as we are?  Do other peoples expect so much?  From their government, no less—from men and women inside a beltway who pursue their own interests first, as officials (with a few notable exceptions) always have?

I don’t know Colin Kaepernick and can’t judge his motives.  But when he takes a knee during the national anthem, his stated motivation springs from the same root as that of the flag-waving right-wingers (or presidents) who denounce him.

O my America . . . you’re not living up to your promise.

O my America . . . you’re not living up to her, buster.

High ideas make for high expectations.  And crushing disappointment when they’re not met.  The vitriolic chatter among the left is an echo of the vitriolic chatter from the right four years ago, and both sides are dreaming too big to be satisfied.

“Liberty and justice for all” can never measure up to our competing visions of what that looks like.  And yet, even from the beginning, there was a less extravagant vision: out here in the hinterlands we mostly just want to get along with each other and prosper a bit.  Never before, I venture to say, have so many accomplished their commonplace dreams through the efforts of so few.  Our founding fathers, scorning utopian dreams, set the ideals just high enough to strive for.  And then they set careful checks and balances on the powers that could hold people back from reasonable striving.

Humanity being what it is, we’ll never quite get there, and our failure to get there may have the unlovely consequence of pushing the bar ever higher.  The right pushes for liberty; the left for justice.  We in the middle can’t hear much but the shouting, and it leaves us feeling helpless and confused.  But listen: perfect justice will never happen here on earth, nor perfect liberty.  Bring down the bar, and let us reach what we can.

*A. Lincoln, Gettysburg Address

Posted on

That Hideous Strength: Denouement

Denouement is not a common word in everyday conversation, so for a long time I didn’t know how to pronounce it.  It’s day-noo-MAHN (go easy on the final n).  This is the resolution of the story, or (according to my dictionary), “the events following the climax of a drama or novel in which such a resolution takes place.”  As we saw last week, the turning-point climax of THS arrives at the end of chapter 12, but the dramatic climax, which sees the defeat of Belbury, is yet to come.  That defeat is not in doubt, though.  It’s like the history of redemption: the denouement in which we’re living has plenty of drama, but the turning-point climax came with the Resurrection.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: THEY HAVE PULLED DOWN DEEP HEAVEN ON THEIR HEADS

13-1 This may be the most difficult chapter of the whole novel for the contemporary reader.  I had to skim over whole paragraphs the first time I read it, because of all the references I didn’t get.  But there are also some interesting ideas that have affected my thinking.  I’ve mentioned elsewhere that The Once and Future King was one of the formative books of my youth, and the lovable, backwards-living, eccentric figure of Merlin framed my conception of the Arthur legends.  This Merlin is the polar opposite of of that one.  But if there was such a person, I have no doubt he would be much closer to Lewis’s version: a creature of Celtic paganism and early Christianity, with ties to the old spirits of earth.  He lived at a hinge in time, which Paul indicates in his message to the Athenians: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent . . .” (Acts 17:30, see also 14:16).  Lewis, drawing from Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man, makes a distinction between “good paganism” and “bad paganism” in pre-Christian societies, the good leading eventually to Christ and the bad leading to demons.  Merlin is of “good pagan” stock, and in fact a Christian—but very, very strange.

It’s interesting to compare his description of the moon with Filostrato’s in 8-3.

13-3  His accusation about Jane is disturbing to me.  Can God’s plans really be thwarted by human will?  We find ourselves at the intersection of destiny and choice, a question that has plagued philosophers, theologians, and even scientists since the beginning of time.  In Perelandra, Ransom decides that God’s ultimate will can’t be thwarted, but he holds several paths in mind.  If humans flub one plan, there will be another–but usually more difficult and with more painful consequences.

13-4  “Time is more important than we thought.”  No kidding!  Anyone who attempts to write serious historical novels must come up against the fact that the past is, if not utterly lost to us, then permanently out of reach.  All our efforts to reconstruct it are tenuous at best, and if time-travel ever became practically possible we would soon learn how inadequate our efforts were.  Dimble’s observation about “things always sharpening and coming to a point” is useful for all ages.  He’s applying it to Merlin’s time, when a man could (supposedly) be semi-pagan and still justified, vs. the modern age, when people can no longer plead ignorance and must choose sides.  But I think the statement has lots of applications: political, social, economical, spiritual.  Vague principles come into sharper focus as a crisis approaches, and casual alliances no longer apply; people have to take sides.

13-5  Merlin learns that his pagan powers are no longer lawful (the image of his firelit face next to the bear’s–their earthy elemental kinship–is one of those literary pictures that will stick with me forever).  As the inhabitants of St. Anne’s were profoundly discomfited by his presence, now Merlin learns how out of his element he is.  The taint of corruption about him, due to his magic, is precisely what makes him useful to the cause.  He is not totally sanctified.  As Ransom says, “a tool (I must speak plainly) good enough to be so used, and not too good.”  Upon learning his calling Merlin’s response is a bit like Christ’s, sweating drops of blood in the garden.  Is there any alternative?  Any other principality or power that can be called on to help?  In the seventh paragraph from the end, notice his appeal to those who are not part of Christendom yet observe the “Law of Nature”—he’s talking about the Way, or the Tao, Lewis’s subject in Part Two of The Abolition of Man.  But all earthly powers are to some degree under the sway of that Hideous Strength.  Only powers beyond the earth can help now, and Merlin will contain them.  Like an old wineskin filled with new wine, he will last only long enough to serve their purpose.  And then he will lose his life, but save his soul.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: “REAL LIFE IS MEETING”

14-1  After almost a whole chapter devoted to St. Anne’s, we now go back to Belbury.  Mark’s conversion at the end of ch. 12 was real–he has no desire to go back, though it’s to his advantage to play along.  Frost’s dissertations in this chapter are easy to skim because he quotes people who were very consequential in Lewis’s day but almost unknown today.  (Lewis had several arguments with Waddington, either in public correspondence or in footnotes.)  However, the idea that “Existence is its own justification” carries on today in philosophers such as Richard Rorty and Peter Singer, and catchphrases like “Whatever is, is right.”  Thomas Huxley, whom Frost quotes in the fourth paragraph, was an early defender of Darwinism who, contrary to Frost’s interpretation here, denied that evolution provided any ground for morals whatsoever.  That didn’t stop his own grandson Julius (and subsequent deep thinkers) from trying to theorize morality from evolution.  Frost represents the dead end of such attempts.

The paintings in the room where Mark begins his training range from the obviously perverse to the slightly “off”—which are more dangerous?  Do you recognize any art styles?  In the 12th paragraph from the end, he recalls reading of: “things of that extreme evil which seem innocent to the uninitiate . . .”  Chesterton again, The Everlasting Man, ch.6.  A pure heart and mind would be unaffected by these evil things (“to the pure all things are pure,” Titus 1:15), but Mark isn’t there yet.  At least he recognizes the danger, and is soon delivered from it by a most unexpected circumstance.

14-2  Another difficult-but-rewarding section.  If you have no patience with Lewis’s interplanetary mythology, okay, but notice that Jane still has her hang-ups and preconceptions that Mrs. Dimble is untroubled by (Titus 1:15 again?).  Jane is not that different from present-day feminists who see sex as a power struggle; she may have some idea that her new “spirituality” has freed her from it, but the vision she sees in the Lodge says otherwise.  The sensual woman in the flame-colored robe is easily understood as some sort of fertility goddess, but where do the dwarves fit in?  Clearly, they’re all laughing at Jane, but further illumination will have to wait.

14-3  Tolstoy wrote a chapter of Anna Karenina from the POV of a dog—here’s a stream-of-consciousness from Mr. Bultitude.  He, and all mammals, occupy a territory inaccessible to humans: pure quality, “a potent adjective floating in a nounless void . . .”

14-4  Mark has been having his own encounters with an earthy soul—a common tramp who shares certain characteristics with Merlin and others with Mr. Bultitude.  Imagine how Mark would have reacted to him before his turning point in Chapter 12, and you can see some concrete effects of his altered attitude (it’s not quite a conversion—not yet).

14-5  Things are “sharpening and coming to a point” (as Dimble observes in 13-4) for Jane.  She can’t exist in a spiritual vacuum for much longer; she’ll have to declare, either for Christ or for Ashtoreth.  Which means necessarily that she will have to deal with her humanity, her place in the world. She’s been seeing herself as mostly a cerebral creature, a woman “without a chest,” made up of approved influences and pride and self-importance.  Her conversation with the Director sets her up for “real meeting,” not just with God, but with her real self.  Left to ourselves, we don’t know who we are; it’s impossible to disengage the true self from nature, nurture, and community.  But God knows.  Jane’s experience is hinted at in Colossians 3:3-4 and I John 3:2.  Earlier her world was unmade; now she herself is remade by meeting the One who knows her fully.  (Lewis was deeply impressed by Martin Buber’s I and Thou around the time he was writing That Hideous Strength.  The title of this chapter comes from Part 1, sec. 13, where Buber writes, “All living is meeting.”)

CHAPTER FIFTEEN: THE DESCENT OF THE GODS

The narrative will pick up and move faster from this point to the dramatic climax (at last! sighs the patient reader).

15-1  “The gods” of this chapter are not only the ruling spirits of our solar system (the “Fields of Arbol”), but pure qualities proceeding from our creator: Meaning, Charity, Valor, Age and Time, Festival Joy.  Notice the “inconsolable wound” that wakes in Merlin at the approach of Venus: this is a stab of what Lewis calls “Joy” in his spiritual autobiography Surprised by Joy: the inborn longing that no earthly remedy can satisfy for long.  Try listening to Holst’s The Planets before or during a reading of this section.

15-3  Both Frost and Wither are beginning to unravel.  How?

15-4  In 14-5, Jane was told she would soon have to take a stand.  This is the point where Mark will have to take a stand—his literal encounter with the cross.  Note the “non-religiousness” of his conversion, which reflects Lewis’s account of his own conversion in Surprised by Joy.

15-6  Jules, the figurehead director of the N.I.C.E. who imagines he’s the real director, has been mentioned twice before; now he makes his appearance (remember the rule of three).  He’s also a product of modern education, a character who might have been a decent-enough reporter or hack writer if he’d been brought up with traditional values. As it is, he’s mostly a fool.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN: DINNER AT BELBURY

16-1  Recall Ransom’s observation to Jane in 14-5 that the demons hate their own minions as much as they hate us.  This chapter will bear that out.  The confusion of languages obviously recalls the Tower of Babel; the release of the animals suggests the Fall, when man and nature were set against each other.  The plot to conquer nature has failed.  Soon the earth itself will rebel . . .

16-3 – 16-6 Each of the Inner Ring meets a fate appropriate for him—how?  Do they all get a chance to repent?  When?  Might Romans 1:14 have some relevance here?

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: VENUS AT ST. ANNE’S

17-2  The fashion show compliments 14-5 and the idea of our true selves being hidden: each woman has her dress picked out by the others; a dress that, once chosen, compliments qualities that they themselves didn’t fully appreciate.  Why is the least said about Jane’s dress?

17-4  “Britain” vs.  “Logres”: Lewis may get a little carried away here, with his idea of national “hauntings,” (any ideas as to what an American haunting would look like?), but the point is that humanity has had narrow escapes throughout history, some of them obvious and some not.  There will always be a Logres, until Christ returns.

17-7 and 17-8  Mark and Jane are reunited.  Recall that the novel began with their separation, and the narrative has pegged itself to their increasing distance.  But there have been intriguing parallels throughout.  They were each admitted to their respective Inner Rings in chapter 6.  Jane was introduced to “the Head” of St. Anne’s, and Mark to “the Head” at Belbury, in chapter 7.  Jane encounters the same holy fear at the beginning of ch. 11 that Mark encounters at the end.  Jane’s true conversion in 14-5 is closely followed by Mark’s in 15-4.

Their final meeting involves a mutual descent: Jane coming down from her pretensions and Mark from his arrogance; she in her festival garments and he most likely naked.  The world has been re-enchanted for them; they’ve rediscovered the magic of the commonplace.  What happens next?  A lot of baggage to work through, but remember Lewis called this “A modern fairy-tale for grownups.”

And so: “They lived happily ever after.”

Posted on

Can We Talk? Janie and Charlotte on Assimilation and Shared Values

Janie and Charlotte, good friends from college who have gone their separate ways politically, try to be reasonable about some hot-button issues.  We’ve talked about religious freedom, the proper role of government, and state-supported health care.  Most recently the topic was the wide-open one of immigration, which led to a slight narrowing of focus, as follows:

Janie: In our last conversation, we left off with a question from you: “Why does diversity cause such fear and anger in people? And how is unity possible when there is a fundamental rejection of our inherent diversity?”  We also agreed to look further into a widely-discussed Atlantic article by Peter Beinart: “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration.”

To address your first question: Diversity causes fear and anger in some people regardless.  I do believe that the majority of Americans, both conservative and liberal, have no problem with diverse groups who come to America wishing to be Americans.  It’s true that most of us are more comfortable hanging out with people who are like us, with common interests and goals, but that’s only human.  By and large Americans take a live-and-let-live approach to other cultures as long as we perceive no threat.  Most of us, I think, even get a little misty-eyed when a naturalization ceremony is televised, when new citizens of every shade and background express their joy at becoming part of this nation.

As for the second question, I’m not sure about your premises.  I read your blog about Unity in Diversity and found some of it puzzling.  You say, “Our unity has always, will always arrive out of our shared values and our common dreams: liberty and justice for all . . .  a union the Founders conceived in the midst of the creative diversity of their day and . . . still being perfected here in the ethnic, religious, and intellectual diversity of our own day.”  The stated shared values of the founders were “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but I would say liberty was the chief value that pulled all thirteen colonies together.  That was in opposition of many of their own citizens who didn’t see the need to separate from the mother country.  The “creative diversity” you mention wasn’t nearly what it is today—almost all the colonists were white, Christian (by identity if not practice), and of European descent.  Their very real regional diversity was not a source of strength—it was a serious weakness that tore the nation apart in a mere fourscore and four years.

Over the last thirty years or so I’ve been hearing that American strength lies in its diversity.  But that makes no sense on the face of it; strength lies in unity.  Diversity is great for expanding our little worlds, learning generosity and humility, and trying lots of delicious new recipes!  But diversity in itself is not strength.  We are stronger when can come together in spite of our diversity, not because of it, and that means discovering our shared values and being willing to defend them.

That’s what makes some of us nervous.  As Beinart says near the end of his article, “Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity.  They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity.”  What are those shared values, exactly?  What do we have to fear from immigrants and even native-born citizens who regard most of American history as a chronicle of injustice?  How should we feel about undocumented immigrants waving Mexican flags at protest rallies?  What about groups like LaRaza and the New Black Panthers, who don’t appear to have any interest in unity?

You asked about assimilation.  To me, that does not mean giving up your culture, your special holidays and observances, or even your language.  It does mean accepting the Constitution as the law of this land, obeying the laws, learning English (or at least encouraging your children to learn it), and pledging allegiance to the flag.  What about you?

Simple, no? Well, no.

 

Charlotte: I said at the outset of these conversations that I believe you and I can find much to agree on and I think we are finding some of that agreement here. For example, I can certainly agree with your description of assimilation above and I appreciate that you don’t think assimilation demands giving up one’s culture. Of course all people who live here should accept and obey the laws. But I have to wonder if your statement implies that immigrants and newcomers disrespect and disobey laws more than natives do. You said before:

What some fear…is allowing in more immigrants, “legal” and not so much, who do not subscribe to American ideas and want to change it to something else. Or they’re coming for welfare benefits or criminal activity or outright subversion. These are the minority, I know, but there are significant numbers to cause concern.

Where is this coming from, this conviction that there are “significant numbers” of immigrants who do not subscribe to American ideas and what to change it to something else? I know it’s out there; I see it too. But I don’t believe it’s nearly as real as many Conservatives think it is.

Stereotyping is rampant and over the top these days: Hispanics are all illegal and here to steal your jobs and rape your daughters. Muslims are all terrorists and secretly plotting to subvert the Constitution into sharia law. A LOT of people actually believe this stuff! How do we combat such harmful prejudices?

You say you don’t understand the premise of this question of mine: “How is unity possible when there is a fundamental rejection of our inherent diversity?” Then you quote from my blog and say some things there “puzzle” you. I am puzzled why you are puzzled; it seems pretty straightforward to me. I have been a huge advocate for unity for years and I thought my blog portrayed that passion.

Old and Young. Rich and Poor. Gay and Straight. Religious and Humanist. Black and White and Brown. E pluribus unum. From many, one.

When we move out of our uniform, homogeneous tribes and recognize the shared humanity inherent within our wide-ranging diversity, that’s when we will discover a glimpse of a true unity that is far better than any sort of uniformity.

So I am agreeing with you that affirming our shared humanity and our common goals is an important source of our unity. See my blog post, “The Problem with Unity Is Uniformity.”

But then again, I have had experience talking to people who seem to believe even naming our differences is divisive. I’ve heard people say they are “color-blind” and they only see how we are alike. But that’s just not possible. We ARE different. Our diversity is a fact. And honoring each person’s uniqueness honors their humanity.

I do believe that both our variety AND our commonality provide strength for America. Tapping into people’s different perspectives, abilities, experiences, insights and then crafting all that varied wisdom into approaches that help us attain our common goals is what this nation has done again and again. Our variety gives us a broader base of resources. If my husband and I are unified in our desire to buy something we want but really can’t afford, then that unity is no strength. On the other hand, if one of us says: “Wait. Let’s look at if from another perspective,” then it’s our differences that make us stronger.

Our disagreement here is slight. (I would not say our strength is “in spite of our diversity.” That’s too negative a phrase.) But we both make the point that our strength lies in coming together from our diversity into unity. (But not uniformity, as I say in my blog.)

Here is a moving essay from Parker Palmer, wise Quaker. He too celebrates the strength of our American diversity and understands its valuable contributions to our efforts for unity.

I’m arguing from my perspective on the Left and I asked an honest question about “Why does diversity cause such fear and anger in some people” from the Right. And I have to say that all my reading and pondering and conversing brings me to this conclusion: White Christian America is being displaced and diluted and I believe much of the anxiety we see has to do with that loss of power and privilege. When we look closely, it’s pretty obvious that the immigration debate is primarily about Brown people.

Back to the Peter Beinart article in The Atlantic. He says this:

Studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam…suggest that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.

Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age…

This echoes my own diagnosis. And it repeats my question: why does greater diversity reduce trust and cooperation? Are we doomed to such a small practice of our shared humanity? Or can Conservatives and Liberals find our common ground and widen it into a great space?

Janie: Okay, I’ve been thinking about this.  I do believe conservatives and liberals need to find common ground in order to make policy, but I’m afraid “shared humanity” is so broad as to be unworkable.  Let me offer two examples.

In 1867 Karl Marx published Das Kapital.  By the end of the decade hundreds of Eastern European immigrants to America were committed socialists.  The years between 1878 and 1898 saw bloodiest labor wars the USA has ever experienced.  There were lots of reasons for this, not just immigrants with bad ideas.  But in most of those riots and shootouts, eastern Europeans were prominent players.  There were some positive effects in focusing attention on severe labor abuses and gradually bringing change; I suppose you could say diversity helped bring about eventual unity.  But it was at a great cost over an issue that could have been handled other ways, and made socialism seem like a viable alternative for the US, at least for some.  I don’t want to debate the virtues of socialism just now (!), only to say that, in my opinion at least, socialism as a system is not compatible with the nation that was founded in 1776.

Another system incompatible with the US, and with the western tradition generally, is Sharia Law.  I have no idea how widespread the notion of imposing Sharia Law in this country might be.  In some areas of high Muslim concentration, such as Dearborn and Detroit, judges are trying to figure out how to balance practices connected with Sharia (such as female genital mutilation) against American civil law.  But the huge influx of Muslim immigrants is becoming a significant problem in Europe.  A couple of weeks ago I came across this article with a scary title:  “I’ve Worked  with Refugees for Decades.  Europe’s Afghan Crime Wave is Staggering.”  The point is not that Muslims should be barred from safe havens in Europe, but that certain Muslims who subscribe to a radical form of Islam (which includes imposing Sharia Law) are wreaking havoc by their utter contempt for Western standards.

Could that happen here?  The US is very different from Europe, culturally and geographically, so I don’t know.  But I think that is what some are afraid of, and an example of what I meant by certain  immigrants wanting to make this country into something else.  What are we willing to allow?  What are we prepared to defend?  What principles of this nation must be protected at all cost, and (this is crucial) what policies will help protect them?  “Liberty and justice for all” is not a policy; it’s an ideal.  As we encountered before in our debates about health care:  Nobody is arguing about the ideal, but how do we institute these noble goals without bankrupting ourselves or committing suicide?  More to the case, what policies do we need to continue as a welcoming nation committed to liberty, free speech, and opportunity?

Charlotte: A lot of my liberal friends and I wonder if the agenda of far right white Christians is our own homegrown version of a kind of “sharia law.” I have to say some of the proposed policies of my Texas legislators are “alarming” and “wreaking havoc” in our communities. Here’s an article for you to consider with a fair number of comments that voice some of our anxieties. https://www.facebook.com/coffeeparty/posts/10156438091398327

How bout I read your article and do some homework so I can respond to your concerns and you read my and tell me how you would help allay my fears? Sounds like another challenging topic for our next conversation. I’ll start.

Janie: You’re on!

Posted on

Can We Talk? Round and Round on Immigration

Janie and Charlotte, good friends from college who have gone their separate ways politically, try to be reasonable about some hot-button issues.  We’ve talked about religious freedom, the proper role of government, and state-supported health care.  Then . . .

Janie: So here’s what happened: I threw you a short list of topics, and you chose this one.  Thanks a lot!

Seriously, I haven’t said much about this subject because I don’t keep the figures and stats on hand (figures and stats tend to fall out of my head anyway).  But it strikes me that a lot of people who debate this question do so on the grounds of broad principles, not precise numbers, and broad principle is where it starts anyway.  So I can do that.

As you suggested, we may have area of broad agreement here.  So let’s see—as a way of opening the discussion, which of these statements would you agree with?

  1. No nation in the history of the world has been more open to immigration than the United States.
  2. The Statue of Liberty symbolizes the mission of the U.S. to offer a home to the homeless, a new start for the destitute, and a shelter for the oppressed.
  3. Legal immigration is not a problem, but illegal immigration is, and can become an even bigger problem.
  4. Sanctuary cities are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
  5. The rule of law is a casualty of our incoherent immigration policies.

I realize some of these statements can be interpreted different ways, and some of them can be qualified on a scale of 1 to 10.  Feel free to throw some statements and/or questions my way, too, and we might choose the most contentious as a way to start.

Charlotte: This is what you get for letting me choose the topic. Ha! You are very welcome!

Okay – I’m good with this approach, so here’s my quick response to your five points. Then we can continue the conversation by unpacking the “contentious” ones.

  1. No nation in the history of the world has been more open to immigration than the United States.

This may well be true; the USA has done a remarkable thing. Not exactly a “melting pot;” it’s more like a fascinating “buffet.” However, there is some ugly history that we need to discuss, especially since our entrenched national bigotry continues to affect immigrants today. (see point 5)

  1. The Statue of Liberty symbolizes the mission of the U.S. to offer a home to the homeless, a new start for the destitute, and a shelter for the oppressed.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; the wretched refuse of your teeming shores.

Send them – the homeless, tempest-tossed – to me.

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

I LOVE this! I typed it out without even googling it because the words are fixed within me from the time I sang this song with the passion of a young, idealistic girl. But if this is the “mission” of the US, it is an aspirational one, a high ideal because we both know the Statue of Liberty bears no legal weight.

  1. Legal immigration is not a problem, but illegal immigration is, and can become an even bigger problem.

I think you mean that people who immigrate through the legal process are not a problem. I agree with this. BUT the immigration laws as they currently function in the US are definitely a problem. (see point 5)

Also, many people initially came to the US through legal means but have overstayed their limit. Most of these people are hard working, law abiding, tax paying contributors to our society. (Here is a Pew Research Center article with some interesting charts and graphs about the current situation.)

But yes, there is definitely a practical problem of what to do now. Deport 11 million people? Rip apart loving families, separating mothers from their children and removing the financial and emotional support of fathers/husbands? Find a way to incorporate them and help them become citizens? Yes, I see this as a huge problem that needs practical solutions grounded in compassion. But I’m guessing this kind of problem is not what you are referring to. Help me understand.

  1. Sanctuary cities are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

This one made me suck my breath in. What on earth are you talking about?!?

Sometimes laws are just flat wrong. Sometimes Supreme Court decisions are wrong. Protesting and resisting unjust laws is the DNA of Americans arising from foundational acts of the Founders of this nation.

  1. The rule of law is a casualty of our incoherent immigration policies.

I don’t know what you mean by this one either, even though I heartily agree we all suffer from incoherent policies in numerous ways – immigration being only one. Actually many of our laws are incoherent as well as our policies and (as laws always have) they can reflect cultural bias and even bigotry.

Consider the plight of African Americans, for example. 12 million human beings were legally imported as slaves, legally defined and generally considered to be not completely human, legally restricted from becoming citizens even though they were born on American soil. Finally, in 1868 the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was passed in order to remedy the “rule of law” that held sway in many states.

I include a link here to a helpful article if you are interested in reading it. One quote:

By the early twenty-first century, the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment served as the basis for a broad range of protections extended to both citizens and immigrants in the United States.

Non-citizens as well as citizens have rights under the US Constitution.

I hear Conservatives talk about “the rule of law” quite often. Please tell me what this means to you.

Janie:  All of my original propositions are debatable, and I’m still thinking through them.  For instance:

1) If the US is not THE most welcoming nation in the history of the world, it’s certainly the largest and most prominent.  You don’t have to remind me about ugly history.  Ugly history is everywhere—all nations have had their blind spots and national sins, as do we.  Some of our vices owe to our virtues—if Americans did not recognize early on that our harbors should be open to later arrivals from other countries, walls would have gone up and ships turned away from the very beginning.  But immigration has been our history from the start, and in its very nature—shifting demographics, gullible foreigners making for easy prey, native fears, evolving law—abuses developed as well as benefits.  To my knowledge, no nation (except Canada, to an extent) ever tried to populate itself with large numbers of immigrants.  The process wasn’t flawless, but taken overall it was an amazing success.

2) Is it the mission of the United States to offer a home for the homeless, etc.?  No.  The mission of any nation is to sustain itself and its citizens.  That said, the US is different from most nations because of its founding on a set of ideals that have a lot to do with benefitting mankind.  The mission expressed by Emma Lazarus is a secondary principle developing from our first principles of liberty and equality, and her words have a strong appeal.  (I don’t have to look them up, either—memorized them in sixth grade back when kids still had to memorize stuff.)  They’re beautiful words.  But not the primary mission of the USA.

3) I think we agree, at least in part, on what “the problem” is: what to do about people who didn’t go through the legal hoops to get here, as well as those who have overstayed their visas.  By and large, they aren’t criminals; they’re good folks who are looking for opportunity and a decent paycheck.  Can’t blame anybody for that.  So there’s a problem of people, but there’s also a problem of policy, and of not being able to talk about immigration reform without one side being accused of mean-spiritedness.  The term “anti-immigration” is a case in point.  Conservatives by and large are not anti-immigration—most of them are descended from immigrants like everybody else and recognize the importance of immigration in our history.  We’re willing to revise the laws as long as the laws are followed (and seem reasonable and safe!).  But a swirling dust storm of inflammatory rhetoric from both sides obscures the issue enough so that nothing can be done about it.  The confusing messages going over the border are not fair to immigrants, either, many of whom risk their lives to get here only to be turned away or put on hold.

4)  Okay, so I looked it up: what, exactly, is a sanctuary city?  My impression was it’s a municipality that declines to come under federal oversight in deporting overstays or identifying criminals.  It’s more complicated than that—in fact, it’s pretty darn unclear exactly what a sanctuary city is.  If it’s a city that refuses to enforce federal law, that strikes me as unconstitutional because immigration is a federal matter.  But that’s one of the many murky areas that need to be clarified.

5) Rule of law: this might be where most of our discussion centers.  It was John Adams, I believe, who coined the phrase, “A nation of laws and not of men,” by which he meant the government should respond to written precept rather than the opinions and ideas of whoever happened to be in power.  I’m sure he was realistic enough to know that the law was occasionally going to be ignored, overstepped, and misinterpreted, but with a solid enough foundation the US could still avoid sliding into monarchy or dictatorship, where whoever held the power made the rules.

Third-world countries often operate like that: their laws sound just and fair but everybody knows the only way to get ahead is by and sucking up to the big boys, whoever they are.  That is rule by men.  Governing by misuse of executive order is also rule by men.  Making law from the bench based on the majority of nine black-robed jurists is also rule by men.

There have been unjust laws and there always will be.  The only way to correct unjust law, though, is by just law—overturning, not overruling.  Legislative remedies are slow but they keep the structure in place; extra-legal remedies eventually break it down.  And sidestepping or ignoring the law altogether, as when immigration laws are not enforced, leads to confusion, suspicion, and cynicism.

That’s what just happened with Trump’s revised executive order: the Fourth Circuit overruled it with, as I understand it, invalid reasoning—reasoning based on what candidate Trump said during the campaign rather than clear constitutional guidelines on what a president has the authority to do.  I’m not a fan of Trump, or of that particular order, but court decisions like that may do more long-term damage to the system than an ill-conceived executive order.

I’ll concede that non-citizens have certain rights—as human beings, of course they do.  But it’s unclear how far they extend.  Should we talk about that next?

Charlotte: Again, thanks for this conversation, Janie. I find I have much to talk about here.

For starters, you say: “The mission of any nation is sustain itself and its citizens.” Maybe. I offer that, in particular, part of the key mission of the United States of America, as stated in our Constitution, is “to establish justice” and “promote the general welfare.” This mandate applies to all persons and not just citizens. (see below)

You say: “By and large, [undocumented immigrants] aren’t criminals; they’re good folks who are looking for opportunity and a decent paycheck.”

I can’t tell you how glad I am to hear you say this. You probably know, one of my “jobs” is to follow comments on a large political discussion Facebook page and I confess I grow so weary of the ugliness and hard heartedness of too many Conservative commenters. Many of these folks define “criminal” as any kind of law breaking, and so by virtue of the fact that anyone is living within our borders without proper documentation makes them “criminals” and the only proper response is to deport them. This group insists on nouning these human beings as “illegals.” I’m sorry, but these kinds of comments do feel “mean spirited” to me. So again, thank you for your compassion. I wish I could believe most Conservatives think as you do.

I agree that the “swirling dust storm of inflammatory rhetoric from both sides” complicates our ability to converse. Conservative accusations that all Liberals want open borders are ludicrous and offend me. I can see how Liberal labeling like “anti-immigration” would offend you. As I said at the outset, I really believe this is an issue in which we probably share much agreement. I believe if Liberals and Conservatives would speak gently and listen deeply to one another, we could find some sturdy places from which we can build solutions.

That said, our current president has intentionally basked in the power of inflammatory rhetoric. Suggesting that large groups of people – simply because of their ethnicity or religion – are “criminals, drug dealers, rapists” or “terrorists” is grossly irresponsible. Following his lead, too many elected officials have made outrageous comments about immigrants (and even American citizens!) How are we ever going to pull off immigration reform if so-called public servants refuse to serve the public good and continue to stoke the fires of fear against anyone who is “other?!” These are far and away Republican spokespersons and I hold Republican voters responsible to stand up them and demand civility and bipartisan cooperation.

Secondly, you say about sanctuary cities: “If it’s a city that refuses to enforce federal law, that strikes me as unconstitutional because immigration is a federal matter.” We are on thin ice here because neither one of us is a Constitutional expert. In some ways, this is over our pay grade.

Even so, every citizen should remember that the Founders originally did not write the Constitution to apply to cities and states; the US Constitution is the law of the land, of the nation. And yes, citizenship and immigration are the purview of the federal government. So again, it was the 14th Amendment that extended national citizenship to former slaves and thus states’ laws were overturned (to the ongoing chagrin of too many unrepentant confederate loyalists.) Since then the 14th Amendment has appropriately (in my understanding) addressed numerous areas where states’ laws were not providing “equal protection” for all persons. So now yes, increasingly, states have greater obligation to adhere to the US Constitution.

(Look over this explanation from the Constitution Center to see how Constitutional law has evolved over time. The Constitution doesn’t just mean what it says; it means what the Supreme Court says it means. This is my paraphrase of Justice John Marshall’s famous quote in Marbury v. Madison. I think this topic definitely needs more discussion.)

So where do sanctuary cities fit into all of that? Beats me. We’ll see what the Courts do with this. But, for me, as a Christian, such protection for the vulnerable is a foundational tenet, no matter what civil law says. And for me as an American, I would have been proud to provide sanctuary for the Suffragettes and the Underground Railroaders and the Sitters at the Woolworth counters. Protecting those who protest unjust laws is a good and noble thing in my mind. Sometimes the process for overturning unjust law demands and includes such bold resistance.

You reluctantly concede that non-citizens have basic human rights but question how far those rights extend legally. Here’s a helpful article from Forbes that discusses some of the history of the development of legal rights for non-citizens. It is much broader than many “rule of law,” Constitutional Conservatives think it is. Yes, let’s go there for our next conversation. I’ll begin and get something to you very soon.

Janie: A couple of points, and we can wrap this up.  We often hear that the U. S. is a “nation of immigrants,” and that’s true as far as our ancestry goes.  But a few years ago a conservative writer (I forget who) made what I believe is a necessary correction: we are a nation of citizens.  Assimilation is key.  In the naturalization ceremony, newly-minted American citizens are asked to renounce their former allegiances and promise to support the laws, ideals, and founding documents of the United States.  To the extent that anyone is willing to do this, they are welcome, and most conservatives would agree.  (I might suggest that Facebook is not the best place to evaluate conservative thought.  I certainly don’t go there to figure out what progressives are thinking!)

What some of us fear is allowing in more immigrants, “legal” and not so much, who do not subscribe to American ideas and want to change it to something else.  Or they’re coming for welfare benefits or criminal activity or outright subversion.  These are the minority, I know, but there are significant numbers to cause concern.  Stronger border security and vetting would alleviate some of these fears if we could settle down long enough to stop insulting each other and make some reasonable compromises. I can compromise on amnesty, for example, if we could get a more secure border.

Rule of law, judicial review, Constitutional protections for non-citizens—all sufficiently weighty, wormy, and worthy of discussion.  Have at it!

Posted on

Let’s Talk: Can the Affordable Care Act be Improved? and Should It?

Here we go again: my college friend Charlotte and I, Ms. Blue and Ms. Red, discuss how to improve government-subsidized healthcare. Is anyone on Capitol Hill listening?  Charlotte goes first this time.

Charlotte: You and I wound our way through a couple of discussions that brought us to a shared conclusion that Americans should have access to affordable medical insurance and health care. Now we are considering our differences of opinion on the role of government; should federal and state funds be used to provide health care and subsidize insurance plans? Is that a proper function of government? I say yes.

You said in an earlier discussion that many governors resisted Medicaid expansion because they couldn’t figure out how to pay for it. A recent Vox article shows how Medicaid expansion has actually worked better than anyone expected it to. Even Republican governors were vocal in their protest against the failed Republican plan to decrease that program.

Jim Wallis of Sojourners reminds us that “a budget is a moral document.” How our government leaders propose to spend our pooled citizen resources demonstrates their core values. The current budget Blueprint and the proposals in the failed ACHA display efforts to increase the advantages of the already advantaged and compromise the lives of the already vulnerable. I say such inequitable use of our common funds is inherently immoral.

A recent op-ed by Paul Krugman says building on Obamacare and improving it doesn’t have to be that complicated. He gives several good suggestions, as do Sarah Kliff and Ezra Klein in the Vox article. I think you and your Republican friends can make a big difference here by speaking out for reform and insisting the Republican leadership collaborate with their Democrat colleagues. It’s high time for some bipartisan cooperation. Letting the current system implode when it can be tweaked and improved is ludicrous. And again – immoral.

State and Federal governments will be able to figure out how to pay for these kinds of crucial services when they take their responsibilities seriously to put people over profits. “Promoting the common welfare” is not only a Constitutional mandate; it is also the moral and ethical obligation of government.

One other thing on my mind: in an earlier conversation, you pondered why health costs in America are so high. I’m not smart enough to understand all the complex reasons, but my default response to problems like that is: “Follow the money.” The medical industrial machine in this country wields immense power. I found this quote in the Vox analysis:

“Regulating health care prices was never a serious part of the Affordable Care Act debate. The Obama administration made a conscientious decision, at the start of its health care effort, to get all major industry groups to stand behind the law — or at least not work against it. Regulating health care prices would have meant that hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies would all earn less. The idea was a nonstarter…”

It was a “non-starter” because of the out-of-proportion weight lobbyists hold in our political conversations.

Did you know that in America, 9 out of the top 10 highest paid professionals are doctors? American orthopedic surgeons earn three times what their counterparts in France will earn in a year. Of course this is complex as well: education and insurance are more expensive here than in other countries. But when we look at the costs involved with paying our doctors exorbitant salaries; the costs of our hospital services, especially in light of some of the over the top salaries of too many CEO’s; the costs of our medications, especially in light of some of the highly publicized price gouging by pharmaceutical companies (plus the bombardment of advertising. Why the heck should a pharmaceutical company be advertising anyway!?) … This is just a beginning. Reining in the medical industry is no small challenge. The money-is-power principle will continue to hold sway over our health care system until enough wise, courageous politicians finally step up and confront this problem.

But I don’t see this confrontation coming from the current Republican leadership in Congress. From what I can tell, Republicans are all about increasing the advantages of the already wealthy. If regulation of health care prices was too big a battle for the Democrats, then I’m thinking the Republicans – in their disdain for regulations in general – will not engage this fight either.

Here is an excellent example reminding us that “regulations” are actually “protections” against corporate abuses of their customers and the general public. I know you have taken issue with my position on this before. I would be interested to hear your critique of regulations and restrictions appropriate to the health care industry.

In our last discussion, you insisted that governments should be “impartial” – that is, “government should not favor either rich or poor, but protect both.” Isn’t it the purpose of regulations to work towards this goal?

Okay, your turn.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Janie: I appreciated the Vox article—it was reasonably balanced and somewhat fair, and a clear exposition of where folks on the center left stand, so that’s useful to know.  I’m sure the ACA can be improved, but can’t intelligently address how because a) the thing is over 2000 pages long, with ten times that many pages in regulations already, and 2) I’m not at all sure it’s the best option for the most people.  In fact I’m convinced it isn’t.  Here’s a quick summary of the main problems with it: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12146/11-biggest-problems-obamacare-aaron-bandler

Like you, I can’t track the ins and outs of why medical care is so expensive now.  I do know one thing: it was simpler and cheaper before the government got involved with Medicare and Medicaid and regulation of the insurance agency.  Don’t get me wrong: I’m not against regulation per se, and I’m not opposed to all government aid for the indigent and the elderly.  But remember how my family was able to pay for life-saving medical treatment for me, including an entire month in the hospital, on the income of a humble credit-union employee (my mother).  She got her insurance (Blue Cross) through her employer, which of course was a big help, but it was also cheap at the time. That’s mainly because it was market-based; insurance companies ran the actuarial tables and balanced the risks and figured out how much they could charge to cover expenses and make a profit, which is what business is all about.

That’s not to say insurers are the good guys.  When business gets involved with government, market factors go by the wayside.  The main reason why consumers can’t purchase insurance across state lines, which would force insurance companies to compete for their business, is because the insurance industry wants to maximize profits without competition.   The big players influenced laws in their favor, as they always have and always will.  They don’t just influence Republicans; they also influence Democrats.  No party is immune from this, and no law will eliminate it.  The rich and the powerful will always find a way around the law and regulations; that’s one reason why they got to rich and powerful.  The only real safeguard against undue influence is a free market (which I’ll admit is never really free, but nothing’s perfect).

The ACA attempts to blend private insurance with heavy government subsidies and mandates, and it wasn’t so great.  The AHCA tried to build on that platform, only by eliminating the mandates and a few free-market gestures, and it might have been even worse.  But since I don’t like the platform I can’t address how to improve the ACA in detail.  The healthcare reform I’d really like to see is very different.  I know I’ve mentioned elements of it, but here’s the capsule version, for future reference:

Most citizens responsible for their own basic care and maintenance.  This used to be taken for granted: you paid for your doctor visits and routine medications out-of-pocket.  Is that too expensive for most of us now?  No.  I realize that with medical advances come higher costs, more expensive equipment and drugs, etc.  Still, the market keeps those prices down better than price controls do—just think how cheap smartphones have become in a mere ten years!  Competition works for doctors, too: at this moment, in Springfield, Missouri, there are at least ten fee-for-service and medical concierge centers that charge anywhere from $50 to $150 per month for a menu of routine health services and 24-hour consultation.  Even surgeons are banding together to establish cash-only surgical centers.  With paperwork cut to a bare minimum and no time wasted on checkboxes, they cover their costs and make a profit.

Affordable catastrophic health insurance available in an open market, for emergencies, surgeries, and life-threatening illnesses like cancer.  That’s what Blue Cross was for my parents—my dad also spent weeks in the hospital due to back issues, but they could afford it.  Nobody was turned out on the street to die or to suffer without treatment, even before Medicaid!

Religious organizations encouraged to open and operate their own health ministries for the poor.  A lot of Christian, Jewish, and probably Muslim organizations are doing this already, and I’ll admit I don’t have a clear idea how governments could “encourage” more of it.  But this is the kind of personal, hands-on care that homeless, rootless, and hopeless people need most.

A government safety net, such as a scaled-down Medicaid, for the truly needy.

Health-savings accounts for each citizen, to which the federal government contributes a small amount during the citizen’s working years, to be increased after retirement age.  Perhaps Medicare could be incorporated with something like this.

Having said all that, I recognize that once we’ve started down the road of government control of health care, it’s very difficult to turn back.  That’s why Canadians and citizens of the UK and other countries with single-payer programs don’t want to give it up: they can’t see the alternatives and can only picture themselves adrift without any support at all.  Yet the single-payer model has its own problems, namely an expanding bureaucracy, rationing, and lowering standards as it’s less able to pay for itself.  Besides, single-payer plans always develop a two-tiered system with the best care going to those who can pay for it and everybody else getting the leftovers.  It can still work okay in a smallish country with a relatively stable population, but the U.S. is a big country with an extremely dynamic population, including legal and illegal immigrants.  For us, I believe the more options, the better.

A couple of postscripts: First, could we refrain from ascribing motives to people we disagree with, such as, “From what I can tell, the Republicans are all about increasing the advantages of the already wealthy”?  No doubt some of them are.  No doubt some Democrats are as well.  But Republicans are people too—even the politicians!—and are, like me, sincerely concerned about making health care affordable but have a different opinion about what works best.

Second, you say,  “Reining in the medical industry is no small challenge. The money-is-power principle will continue to hold sway over our health care system until enough wise, courageous politicians finally step up and confront this problem.”  I’d say the money-is-power principle will always hold sway in government, because government is about power, and something will always influence power.  In our system it’s money because we don’t have aristocracy.  This isn’t cynicism; it’s realism.  The genius of our founding fathers was in assigning legitimate powers to the federal government and leaving the rest to local (state) governments and individual citizens.  It’s not perfect, because people aren’t perfect, but it spreads the power around so no single entity has too much of it.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Charlotte: You’ve talked about your childhood illness before and the good care you got because of your family’s coverage by Blue Cross. I’m so glad! Above you claim that this employer-provided insurance was affordable mainly because it was market-based. Maybe that was a factor. But according to the history of Blue Cross, the primary reasons your coverage was inexpensive were because it was subsidized by non-profit hospitals and because it was offered as a community service.

For more than forty years, virtually all BCBS plans were organized under federal law as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations which were “engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. Such an organization is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about “civil betterments and social improvements.”

501 (c) (4) corporations were non-profit and tax exempt.

I mention this because you seem to put quite a bit of faith in the free market. You say: “The only real safeguard against undue influence is a free market…” I strongly disagree. Governmental protections are safeguards put in place because businesses and corporations demonstrate repeatedly that they will take advantage of people every chance they get.

This one anecdotal experience with Blue Cross worked for your family in a simpler time. Much has changed in our society since then so that today charities and non-profit associations must find help and partnership with local, state and federal government. We cannot go back to a simpler time; it doesn’t exist. We must move forward.

For me, single payer is a very logical, tried and true approach for moving forward. In most every Western nation, single payer insurance and governmental health care has worked and worked very well.

Jerry and I spent several years in the Navy where all our medical care was provided by the federal government. It was excellent care offered by conscientious and competent people. In my opinion, Medicare insurance for all and public clinics would be a huge step forward.

To your request that I not ascribe motives to people I disagree with: I try very hard not to lump people into categories. I know full well Conservatives are not a monolithic group just as Liberals are not. In my opinion, you are the poster child for the classic Compassionate Conservative and I know there are many other good people like you out there.

I disagree that I was “ascribing motives” to the Republicans in the White House and Congress. Rather I will argue that I am judging them by their actions. Here’s my edited sentence. I can’t back down on my opinion any farther than this:

“… the current Republican leadership in Congress. From what I can tell, these Republicans are all about increasing the advantages of the already wealthy…”

So basically, you don’t trust government and I don’t trust the free market. You think the ACA is not worth fixing and I think it is. Looks like we are at an impasse in this discussion.

I asked Jerry to read this before I sent it to you. I think he makes an important point:

The problem for both of you, as I see it, is that you are thinking in either/or categories. And both of you are right: Janie doesn’t trust government because government too often is corrupt and inefficient, and you don’t trust markets because markets too often are corrupt and greedy. Both opinions are well-founded.

What is needed is democratic tension, not ideology. How can we work together to solve problems, realizing that any solutions necessarily are imperfect, provisional and in need of constant revision? The willingness to solve problems with creativity and compromise is what’s missing in the current political climate where everything is polarized by ideology. At some point, if our politicians want really to accomplish something, they have to say, to hell with ideology, let’s figure out something that might work. And let’s fix it when it doesn’t work the way we thought it would.

You and I disagree on several fundamental issues, Janie, but we do agree that there is too much polarization in our current public conversations. That’s what started us on this shared blog quest in the first place. I truly am good with “democratic tension.” Here is another brilliance of our Founders: united but independent states, three branches of government, numerous and various representatives. It’s our broad diversity that makes us stronger and wiser.

None of us has all the right answers; we need each other. But we need to listen to each other better, respect each other more and collaborate with each other in good faith. I feel helpless to influence our tone-deaf politicians and this outraged public. Maybe what you and I are trying to do doesn’t really matter. But then again, maybe it does.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Janie: That’s a good way to wrap this one up.  I appreciate Jerry’s point of view: both of us have good reasons to distrust both governments and free markets, since every human institution is prone to corruption.  That’s why I don’t totally trust any human institution, including the free market, and believe it’s a good idea to spread power around so nobody has too much of it.  I understand Jerry’s to hell with ideology, too, if what we mean by “ideology” is a certain set of core principles each side identifies with and won’t budge on.  Still, everyone is driven by ideology to a point; that is, we all ascribe to certain broad principles that we believe to be true, either from experience or prior commitment (or both).

To sum up my end, I’d like to quote from an article in National Review: Repeal and Piecemeal: a Better Obamacare Strategy.  It’s mostly about policy and process, but I’m in agreement with the writer’s general idea about what public health care should look like (emphasis in the original):

Modesty means recognizing that nobody in Washington is smart enough to design a better health-insurance system on his own.  The best system is one that is relatively simple, doesn’t try to do everything at once, and leaves the largest possible amount of power in the hands of individual consumers, and the power of experimentation in the hands of all 50 states.  A system that is designed to solve all today’s problems for all time—even if it succeeded—would cast in stone an inability to respond to tomorrow’s problems until they reach crisis proportions.

Whatever happens, I’ll live with it.  But it’s vitally important that we keep talking to each other, in websites and on debate stages and over cups of coffee.  We are not enemies, but friends.  Thanks for being my friend!

Charlotte: My pleasure, dear Janie. Our think our friendship has grown even deeper through these conversations.

So your Right leaning National Review and my Left leaning husband both agree: Let’s figure out what works and then keep improving as we go along. (By the way, my friends on the Left would benefit from reading this analysis by Dan McLaughlin. It’s calm and well reasoned and helps us understand our friends on the Right a little better.)

I think “we the people” need to lead the way and remind our so-called leaders how to sit down together, talk and listen to each other and actually solve some problems; our politicians seem to have forgotten how.

What’s next? I wonder if any of our readers have a topic they might want us to explore.

 

Posted on

Can We Talk? What is Government, and What’s It For?

Janie and Charlotte continue our discussions from opposite sides of the political spectrum–but we’re doing it politely!  In this one we get philosophical.

Janie: Some classic Christian traditions teach that from the beginning God ordained three organizational entities: the family, the civil government, and the church.  These three have their separate spheres of influence, which are distinct even though they overlap.  The family is not just a basic economic unit but a home (for raising responsible adults and providing companionship and care to individuals).  The church is not just a fellowship of believers but a prophet and moral conscience to society.  And the government is not just the enforcer of social order and law but guarantor of national security—if only it would!

When one sphere tries to take over the purview of the others, trouble always follows.  When a family becomes law unto itself, you get oppressive cults like David Koresh and Jim Jones (remember them)?  When a church takes over civil functions you get the Inquisition.  And when the civil government assumes family functions you get widespread dependency and a welfare state that looks like The Blob.  Or totalitarianism.

Those distinctions aren’t always cut and dried, and I’m not saying civil authority has no part whatsoever to play in helping people.  But the essential power of government is coercive.  That’s what Paul means in Romans 13:4: “He [the governor] does not bear the sword in vain.”  Government exists to stop corruption, police neighborhoods, throw crooks in jail, defend against attack; “to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good” (I Pet. 2:14).  Praising, encouraging, or rewarding good behavior is a legitimate function; enforcing good behavior is problematic.

Government by nature is impersonal and (at its best) impartial, and the larger it gets the more impersonal.  But we’ve come to think of the United States Government as a kind of extended family, which must take over family functions when necessary.  It’s also a kind of church, which must correct false doctrine when necessary. Your reference to the federal government as a “wise parent” in our last discussion implies something like this.  Thus it imposes on the responsibilities of the other two God-ordained spheres, one organic and the other moral and spiritual.  And we got trouble, my friends.

I think the federal government has actually done more to break down community than build it up.  Here’s how: when parents die or fail to meet their responsibilities, extended family members have traditionally stepped in to fill gaps.  When a house in the neighborhood burns down, neighbors have traditionally pitched in to help rebuild.  Churches have performed heroically in supporting widows, feeding orphans, building schools and hospitals, and voluntary organizations have formed to provide other needs like scholarship and benevolence funds.  All these functions build community because they are horizontal—people reaching out to people—with strings attached.  Local or church-based charity often comes with some sort of obligation to the receiver—that she take a life-skills class and get a job, for instance.

Those strings represent connectedness.  With the introduction of federal aid, those horizontal bonds break down; rather than reaching out, people are reaching up.  Rather than forming a network of mutual obligations the strings are all connected to a faceless bureaucracy that sends the checks.  You don’t have to sheepishly confess to Uncle Mike that you drank up that loan he extended on your next paycheck—you don’t even have to worry that much about the next paycheck, because that pittance from Uncle Sam will come regardless.  I’ve had personal experience with this attitude; it’s not something I read in National Review.

I think anyone would agree that there’s been a widespread breakdown of families and neighborhoods in the last fifty years.  I don’t blame government aid for all of this, and I don’t deny there should be a safety net.  But the safety net has become wider and wider as our meaningful personal connections get thinner.  The expansion of welfare from The Great Society has not produced a great society, and I don’t see any likelihood that it will.

Charlotte: I can agree with much of what you say. We share concerns about the breakdown of American families, the cycles of poverty and the effectiveness of welfare. We both see fracturing within too many personal relationships and the subsequent isolation away from healthy community. The reasons for our social ills are deeply complex and the burden of responsibility must be shared by all of us.

But I disagree with your fundamental understanding of church and government. Our topic today is government but we do want to get to a discussion about how religion and politics might appropriately intersect in America so I’ll wait to talk about my own understanding of what “church” is to be. Here are some of my thoughts about what “government” is to be within the American context.

You say: “..the federal government has actually done more to break down community than build it up…” I say community breaks down because of our human brokenness and government should act as a kind of check on our natural self-centeredness. Of course the idealistic Great Society did not produce an actual great society but that doesn’t mean the efforts failed. Lots of people had work and food and homes because of that critical safety net during those hard years. And we made a national shift in some of our understandings about how government can properly function to “promote the common welfare.” But no human institution or program will ever produce perfection. We can only work towards it and try to keep making things better.

I used the metaphor of government as a “strong wise parent” in an earlier discussion because I am arguing that our society functions as a kind of far-flung, eclectic family. This metaphor is not my own creation; the mythology is deeply embedded within our story. We speak of George Washington as the “father” of our country. We send our “sons” off to war. We still celebrate the “Daughters of the American Revolution.” This is our “homeland” and “Uncle Sam” models for us what we are about as a people together.

I don’t think of government as the extended family as you imply. Rather We the People are the family, and government – in its appropriate role – ensures that the “family” values we claim in our founding documents are actual practices that we all share. And not just in our Constitution; but also in the traditions we have come to cherish. For example, hospitality to others seeking refuge, asylum and opportunity. Immigrants are people who become part of our family and government (as a strong wise parent) makes sure the table is big enough and we all make room for one another.

Have you read George Lakoff at all? He’s a cognitive scientist who has been offering insights for years now on how we relate to one another in our political system, and he is one who has been informing and expanding my understandings lately. Lakoff looks at the ways Conservatives and Progressives see the role of government and uses parental images to help us recognize how we make meaning of our relationship to government and to one another. Conservatives, he says, see government as a “strict father” while Progressives see it as a “nurturing parent.”

Much of what I hear Conservatives say makes sense within this “strict father” frame: actions have consequences; strength is better than vulnerability; traditional morality and national patriotism are high values; obedience is moral and disobedience is immoral. Don’t hear me knocking these values; I agree up to a point but as a Progressive, I find myself valuing other things more. Like equal opportunity, compassion and second chances. I hear Conservatives say government should leave them alone and let them tend to their own business without interference. I hear Progressives say government should leave them alone and stay out of our bedrooms and doctors’ offices. Both are right, in my view. A strong wise parent launches strong wise children who can make their own decisions. But since we humans (children and citizens) don’t always make wise decisions, there still must be some protections and safe guards that government should have in place.

So I do see America as a community, a family forced into relationship by virtue of our shared society and geography. And I think the various governments of America are responsible for nurturing our civic relationships in ways that are compassionate and equitable. That means honoring those who are strong and successful; celebrating their gifts and advantages. But also, at the same time, in appropriate balance, honoring and protecting those who are weak and disadvantaged; celebrating their inherent human dignity and finding ways to level the American playing field so they too have a shot at the American Dream.

Two things going on in this discussion: 1) who are we together as Americans? And 2) what is government and what is the people’s relationship to government?

A caveat, however; since America is a representative democracy, “We the People” choose people to represent us and govern in our stead with our approval. So in a very real way, WE are the government. Bureaucracies may be impersonal but governments and public servants should be lively and responsive to real people and real needs.

You say: The church is not just a fellowship of believers but a prophet and moral conscience to society. Please talk more about this. Is this how you understand the proper relationship between faith and politics, between church and state, between the religious and the secular? Thanks for this conversation; this is helpful for me.

Janie: A few responses before I answer that question:

  • Of course civil government has a role as moral arbiter.  Its function is making and upholding the law, after all, and law should have a moral base (even if it doesn’t always).  I don’t disagree that government can act as a check on our natural self-centeredness, but governments are made up of broken individuals with their own self-centeredness.  We agree that society and government are not the same, but I notice that progressives sometimes speak of them interchangeably.  What does government have that society doesn’t?  Authority.  Sometimes governments have to force people to behave better, if they’re stealing or mugging or neglecting their kids or otherwise behaving badly.
  • But you cannot force people to be compassionate.  I believe Americans are basically generous and don’t mind contributing tax money to provide a safety net for those who truly can’t take care of themselves.  However, the more government sets itself up as a social cop, determining who gets what and who has to pay for it, the more resentment will be created on one side and a sense of entitlement on the other.
  • Governments can’t nurture; only people can do that.  To the extent that there are compassionate individuals within an agency who can make a personal commitment to those they serve (and I know there are some of those), well and good.  But that’s not primarily how an agency operates, nor can it.  Government agencies are not primarily about people, they are about money: getting it, appropriating it, allocating it, doling it out, and keeping track of it with endless paperwork.  Even if that wasn’t the intention going in, that’s what it becomes.
  • Yes, we elect our representatives.  What’s happened in the last 50 years or so, however, is the growth of a vast, overlapping array of agencies and initiatives and programs and staffers, none of whom are elected and all of whom tend to be permanent.  They are accountable to no one and, as time goes on, many of these agencies become more about perpetuating themselves than meeting the needs they were originally created to serve.  Many, if not most, of these employees have good intentions, but ask them how much time they have to get personally involved with their clients.
  • You’re talking about admirable principles; I’m saying they don’t work so well in practice.  Government solutions should be evaluated like any other solution, and they almost never are.  No program is ever eliminated, regardless of how lousy it turns out (and yeah, they all do some good, but at tremendous cost and often with unintended consequences).  Some programs, I believe, have done actual harm, and they all tend to become politicized.
  • Finally, government is necessary, but it’s made of broken people.  Government must “bear the sword,” as I mentioned before, but the bigger the sword, the greater the potential for abuse.

That’s where the church comes in.  Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” meaning he didn’t come to set up a theocracy.  Still, the church has a voice, and she is supposed to use it. “You are the salt of the earth.”  I believe every Christian is called to be the not only the hands of Christ (serving others) but also the voice of Christ (speaking truth in love).

If a Christian is elected president, he or she must operate within the law, while at the same time using the bully pulpit to do good wherever possible.  This may mean operating within constitutional limits to withdraw federal funds from Planned Parenthood, or working diplomatically to relieve persecuted Christians in other countries, or lobbying for laws that encourage marriage, or sometimes, in rare cases, even going to war.

Individual Christians in government can do these things; the church as a body can’t do any of these things, because they are the prerogative of government.  Still, the church can and should be visible “salt and light” within a society.  Individual Christians are not called to violently protest, but to live peaceful lives and do good.  They are not called to stage political revolutions, but to work within the system to push back on government actions they consider unjust or ungodly.  They are not called to disobey the law, except in extraordinary situations where “We must obey God rather than men.”  The church as a whole is called to reach out, help meet needs, set a godly example, and speak out when necessary.  I’m thankful we live under a government that allows us the freedom to do this, at least so far.

Charlotte: Oh my, Janie! I hardly know where to begin. In some ways we see many things similarly but in many other ways, we have fundamentally different visions.

You seem to be using the words “government” and “bureaucracy” as synonyms. You say: “government by nature is impersonal and (at its best) impartial…” I can see why you say that, given your paradigm.

But in contrast, when I speak of “government” I am talking about the people who do the work of governing within the framework of our guiding documents. In this understanding, the persons who govern should not be impersonal but must act with wisdom and compassion on behalf of the persons within their area of responsibility. In this understanding, the “government” should not be impartial but rather must work to protect the poor and the vulnerable from the rich and the powerful.

You argue that government per se is “God ordained.” I will agree with that but I can only understand what it means based on theological reflection of God’s own way of governing creation. What do the ancient stories and psalms say about God’s stewardship of the earth: its people, its creatures, its water and lands? What do the ancient rules within Israel’s national life say about equity, caring for the poor, and welcoming the stranger? What do the prophets say about governmental leaders, “Shepherds,” who plunder the flock, who abuse the widows and orphans, who make themselves rich at the expense of the poor? I think these are the biblical insights into “God-ordained government” that should best inform a Christian’s understanding even in our own day.

I confess your description of a “Christian president doing good wherever possible” startled me. You will actually claim that defunding health care for poor women is “doing good?” I think you are probably talking about abortion, but Planned Parenthood has played an active role in increasing contraception and family planning so that the abortion rates have dropped dramatically in the past few years. (Federal monies are not used to fund abortions.) How on earth can a pro-life, “Christian” lawmaker justify defunding an organization that promotes life and health in such a variety of ways?

And as I recall, our last Christian president did lobby for laws that encourage marriage; marriage equality – and the Conservative community was up in arms. You speak as if there is only one way to be “Christian.”

“The Church” in America has a long proud history of challenging government prophetically. The Christian community (across several denominations) worked to abolish slavery, to ensure civil rights for people of color, to protect children who were basically enslaved in factories and warehouses. Today many churches and congregations offer sanctuary for immigrants, protecting families from harsh and unforgiving governmental policies. In my understanding, these are appropriate ways Christians can be “the hands and the voice” of the Christ for our world.

We promised to engage in this dialogue with an honest effort to hear each other out, not to try to change each other’s minds. I’m glad for that commitment because we sure do see some things differently, don’t we? How do you think we need to continue this conversation next time? Is it time to get back to a discussion on health care in America?

Janie: Thanks for hearing me out.  By “impartial,” I mean that government should not favor either rich or poor, but protect both.  It’s not a crime to grow rich and spend your money as you see fit in this country, but there have been times in our history when our government aided and abetted the rich.  That had to be corrected, and I’m sure it will still need to be corrected, because the rich tend to be the powerful.  And the powerful will always, always, always have an outsized place in government, whether Democratic or Republican.  In fact, the bigger the government, the more clout they will have.  My point is that that the apparatus is too big, too costly, too awkward, too impersonal—and yes, governments are always bureaucratic.  How could they not be?  I still think I’m talking about things as they are, and you’re talking about things as they should be.

Speaking of things as they are (sigh), it looks like the ACA is here to stay, until we get a single-payer system.  Pros and cons?

 

Posted on

The Cult of Intersectionality

(If you don’t know what that is, don’t feel bad.  I didn’t either until about three months ago.  Chances are you do know what it is, just didn’t know the proper designation.)

To Charles Murray, it looks like the end of liberal education in America: “What happened last Thursday has the potential to be a disaster for American liberal education.”  Maybe an overstatement, but cut the man some slack, after he was literally assaulted by students on a liberal-education campus.

If you have an ear to the news, you probably heard about this.  Students involved with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), of which Murray is a fellow, set up the March 2 event well in advance and anticipated the usual protests for a controversial speaker.  Charles Murray may be controversial but he’s also consequential: I first encountered him with Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980.  His analysis of state welfare and its destructive effects on American society was philosophical mainspring of welfare reform in the mid-1990s.  His latest book, Coming Apart: the State of White America, 1960-2010, describes the failing family and social structures of the lower class, which keeps poor whites poor.  What David Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy does with personal narrative Murray does with data in Coming Apart, which is the book he was supposed to talk about.

But to a sizable group of students at Middlebury, only one book mattered: The Bell Curve, co-written with Richard Herrnstein and published in 1996.  The Bell Curve is a study of measured intelligence (such as IQ) as an indicator of future success. A small section of the book reported on lower levels of intelligence among African Americans and speculated on the reasons for it.  Murray and Herrnstein never claimed that blacks were best suited to field labor, but rather than stimulating conversation fodder (such as how to improve learning situations for all) critics took one message: Murray thinks blacks are stupid.

“Racist, sexist, anti-gay; Charles Murray go away!” (Charles Murray publicly supported same-sex marriage before Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did. Do your homework, kids.)

That’s the setup; the drama played out like a horror movie.  First the protest outside the lecture hall.  Then the protests inside the lecture hall, where a large minority of students stood, turned their backs to the podium and chanted slogans about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.  After a solid 20 minutes of this, Murray and faculty moderator Allison Stanger adjourned to a nearby room where they broadcast a back-and-forth conversation of opposing views while protesters pounded on the windows and set off the fire alarm.  Murray and Stanger then left the building to attend a scheduled dinner with students, but protesters with signs noisily blocked the way to their car.  Burly security guards kept the more physical debaters from knocking Murray down, but someone grabbed Prof. Stanger by the hair while someone else pushed her sideways, twisting her neck.  When they got in the car and locked the door, the protesters swarmed the vehicle, rocking it back and forth.  The car nosed through the crowd and motored on to the dinner venue, but Stanger and Murray barely had time to remove their coats before being warned, “They’re coming this way!”—like a pitchfork-waving mob in a Frankenstein movie. Kill the monster!  After a quick consultation, everyone mounted up again and drove to a restaurant off campus, where they fortified themselves with martinis before dinner.

Murray and Stanger conduct their discussion against wall-pounding and fire alarms.

“The worst day of my life,” Prof. Stanger wrote on her Facebook page, sometime after returning from the hospital with a neck brace and a concussion.  She insisted that the mayhem did not justify accusations against the college.  “We have got to do better by those who feel and are marginalized. Our 230-year constitutional democracy depends on it, especially when our current President is blind to the evils he has unleashed.”  After a couple of weeks to think about it, she moderated but didn’t retreat from the “because Trump” rationale.

With all due respect, that particular evil did not emanate from the White House.

The day before the event, in The Middlebury Campus newspaper, senior Nic Valenti explained “Why I’m Declining AEI’s ‘Invitation to Argue’.”  He described his own epiphany: “When I first arrived at Middlebury I was clueless to the systems of power constructed around race, gender, sexuality, class or ability.” His efforts to talk about issues before receiving the proper framework from which to talk about them were met with stony silence.  “As a young bigot, I can recall thinking: ‘I thought at Middlebury I would get to have intellectual discussions, but instead it feels as though my views are being censored.’”  In other words, when Nic arrived at Middlebury innocent of his own white male privilege, no one bothered to discuss issues with him until he got his head right–groveled at the altar, received the proper instruction, signed the statement of faith.

His point: Charles Murray’s head isn’t right, and therefore to debate him would only be granting him validity he doesn’t deserve.

His evidence: nothing Charles Murray wrote or said.  The only source Valenti quotes is the Southern Poverty Law Center, an advocacy organization known for its slap-happy designations of extremist, hate group, white supremacy, etc.  The SPLC’s classification of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group (for its traditional definition of marriage) allegedly led to a shooting at FRC headquarters in which a guard was wounded.  Not the most reliable organization for handing out labels, but Mr. Valenti accepts as gospel that Charles Murray is a eugenicist and white supremacist.  Murray is no such thing, as a reading of The Bell Curve would have shown.  You wouldn’t even have to read the whole book; just one chapter.  Or an article.  Or an interview.  Anything where Charles Murray gets to speak for himself.

That didn’t happen at Middlebury.  I wonder if Nic Valenti was in the chanting crowd at the lecture hall.  Did he, caught up in the moment, join the jostling crowd on the sidewalk outside, where Mr. Murray was shoved and would have fallen if Prof. Stanger and a security guard weren’t supporting him?  Think about that: Murray is 74 years old and a respected scholar with numerous books and degrees to his name.  If he had fallen on the sidewalk among an emotional crowd of young people (granted, they might not all have been students) who had worked themselves up into a religious frenzy, what might have happened to him?

I’m not the first one to say it: some college campuses have become temples of the Cult of Intersectionality, where all truth claims are subjected to one standard: Who’s the while male bastion of privilege oppressing, and how?  The storyline of oppression is so thin and boring (nobody will admit that, but it’s true), it’s bound to wear itself out sooner or later.  The incident at Middlebury has been a wakeup call for some, so pray for sooner.

Posted on

Can We Talk? What to do about health care, part two

Charlotte and Janie Talk about Health Care, Education and NASA

.Janie and Charlotte are best friends from college who have diverged spiritually and politically until we don’t agree about anything (almost).  But as friends, we occasionally get together to talk over some of the issues of our time.  Our first discussion was about religious liberty, beginning here.  Today we wrap up a debate about a hot topic soon to get much hotter.  The first part of this particular debate can be found here.  

(I’m the one on the right!)

 

Charlotte: I’m pleasantly surprised and grateful to see that you and I agree that there should be a basic right to health care in America. I think this is a growing belief for more and more people and probably the Affordable Care Act contributed to that expectation. We are seeing reports from town hall meetings in numerous states where Republicans as well as Democrats are loudly challenging their representatives not to disrupt their access to affordable insurance and health care. With all its problems, the ACA has helped millions of people and saved numerous lives. I agree with you that it would be political suicide for the Republican Congress to repeal Obamacare without a solid replacement. If they mess this up, Town Hall meetings will only get noisier and rowdier.

I’ve been thinking about the similarities between this current process and the process America went through to provide free public education for all our children. I think there are numerous comparisons and we might be able to learn how to do this better if we will look back at our recent history.

For many years, there was no expectation that all children should be educated. Education was a privilege not a right. Before the Civil War, some states made it illegal to even teach slaves to read and write. Countless children worked the land and toiled in factories instead of going to school. I wonder how many men proclaimed that girls should tend the home and not fill their pretty heads with too much learning.

So how did America move to the place where we are now? Where our society as a whole assumes every child should go to school? And where there are often legal consequences for parents and children when they are not in school.

One reason public schools developed is that we figured out that our society as a whole is better when we have an educated population. All of us benefit when all of us function together in this community with basic knowledge and skills. All of us benefit when each of us is allowed to grow to our potential. All of us benefit when the geniuses among us are discovered and nurtured.

So it makes perfect sense to me that all of us will benefit if we will assume that everyone among us should have access to basic health care. If we will see health care as a right and not a privilege. I believe our entire nation will be healthier and more productive if we can make that societal shift in our expectations.

 

Janie: I disagree that there was little or no expectation in the U.S. that children should be educated.  It was not something we figured out along the way–education has always been important in American public life, but it was local-community-based rather than government-based.  The Northwest Ordinance, which opened US territories up for settlement after the War for Independence, divided the land into townships, with one section of each township dedicated to the support of the school.  The New England puritans and others were extremely zealous for education.  The only ethnic group that demonstrated a more casual attitude were the Scotch-Irish who settled in the Appalachians and southern foothills.  But then, the South was a much more stratified society (big divide between the landed gentry and poor whites) in colonial days, and for a long time after.  That’s one reason slavery was able to dig such a foothold there.  And yes, it was illegal in many southern states (as slavery became more entrenched in the early 19th centuries) to teach blacks to read.

The first big step toward public education as we know it today occurred in the second half of the 19th century, when (mostly) northern intellectuals became enamored with the Prussian model and decided that was the way to go: strict age-level divisions, certified teachers, pre-determined curriculum.  Lots of school districts adopted the model, but it was still local control.

 

Charlotte: I really like talking with smart people! Obviously you know quite a bit about American education and I appreciate your passion. I think you and I definitely need to talk more about school choice, vouchers and Secretary DeVos. (I’m holding my nose here but I’m willing to listen.)

But for now, I want to go back to my original point in this conversation: America as a whole did not have an expectation that all children should be provided with a basic, free education until about 150 years into its national life. I believe the process by which America came to this expectation that all children should have a right to education is similar to the process in which we are currently engaged: America is slowly but surely coming to understand that all citizens should have a basic right to health care.

Notice in my first foray, I did not say people did not value education. Of course, throughout human history many people have valued education; but for many societies – as for our own – the education of all children was not the common expectation. Horace Mann moved the needle on this issue in America; his advocacy for Common Schools was controversial but his ideas finally took hold. By 1918, every one of the 48 states provided public schools and had compulsory attendance laws on their books.

So my question to you: should affordable, accessible health care be a right for all our citizens much as a free, public education is now considered to be a right for all our children? Do you accept my comparison?

And secondly, since you take issue with “Obamacare” but you agree with me that there should be a basic right to health care in America, do you have any ideas for an equitable system to replace the Affordable Care Act?

 

Janie: Okay.  I was a little confused about where you were going.  I don’t think it’s entirely an accurate comparison, because education was considered more an obligation and necessity for free citizens than a “right.”  I still disagree with your statement that “America as a whole did not have an expectation that all children should be provided with a basic, free education until about 150 years into its national life”—I think that was the expectation from the beginning (in most of the country, anyway), but the disagreement was in how to provide it and who should be responsible for it. Before the late 19th century, communities generally took responsibility for it themselves.  As the population became more diverse over successive waves of immigration and as governments, both federal and state, grew more centralized, the idea of free public schools grew along with it.  For a lot of reasons, though, not entirely as a matter of individual rights.  Education was seen—and is still seen—as a way of molding the populace, assimilating immigrants, and preparing future citizens to participate in public life (e.g., by reading newspapers and following political debates).  I don’t mean to quibble, but I think there is a difference education as a right and education as a necessity.

That said, we can certainly agree that by this time in our history a free basic education is a right as well as a necessity.  The controversy over Betsy DeVos is mostly about how much control the federal government should have, and there’s a comparison I can get behind: how much control should the federal government likewise have over health care?  The argument over Obamacare is not about right.  Over time, as I tried to demonstrate in our earlier conversation, most Americans, including Republicans, have accepted that there is a right to some kind of health coverage.  The argument is now over control.  To what extent should the federal government step in and regulate insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, treatments, etc., etc.?

The basic idea behind Republican reform—and I sure hope they hurry up and get to it—is less top-down control and more individual choice.  This would involve several elements, including 1) individual Health Saving Accounts, or HSAs, to which the government contributes (and which go with the person, not the job); 2) shopping for insurance across state lines, which we currently can’t do, 3) high-risk pools for chronic conditions, 4) safety nets for those who are unable to make decisions for themselves, 5) incentives for healthy choices, and more.  I expect any reforms will include all of these, and I think we’ll have some concrete proposals within a couple of months.  That will give us something to talk about.

 

Charlotte: I’m remembering something you said in our first published discussion on this topic. Something about it bothered me and I couldn’t put my finger on it until now.

I wonder why Obamacare prescribes a one-size-fits-all solution by requiring all insurance to cover a wide-ranging “essential benefits package” for everyone, whether they need it or not: maternity care for retirees, for instance.  I assume the purpose of that is to spread the burden equally, but I think there are other ways to do it besides making the young and healthy shoulder some of the costs for the old and sick—especially if we bankrupt ourselves to the point where the funds won’t even be there when today’s young people need it. 

I think it’s your phrase “making the young and healthy shoulder some of the costs for the old and sick” that jumped out at me.

First, I believe that shouldering the costs of living together within a society certainly ought to be part of what it means to function as a connected community. Our federal government was tasked from its inception to “promote the general welfare.” Our public schools are expected to educate every student who walks through their doors. Our interstate highway system lies ready for any vehicle to travel with convenience and comfort. Likewise, our health care system ought to be accessible and affordable to everyone who needs care.

So who pays for all of this? We all do. Our tax dollars are our contribution to this broad, complex society we live in – not just to our own advantage, but for the common welfare. Retired Americans who don’t have children or grandchildren in the public school system still pay for the education of our young people through their tax dollars. I’ve never been to Wisconsin but I’m happy to contribute to the highways that allow the dairy farmers there to transport their wonderful cheeses. I’m also quite happy to help pay the costs for contraception for American’s women as well as pre-natal care and safe deliveries for America’s children.

Before the ACA, people who were not able to afford insurance coverage went to emergency rooms whenever they got sick. Who paid for that care? We did. Those of us whose insurance covered our hospital stays paid higher premiums in order to cover unreimbursed hospital expenses. And/Or our tax dollars went to reimburse hospitals for some of that medical care. I would much rather help pay for people to stay well or to get more efficient, affordable care when they are sick.

Insurance companies have always based their business on the concept of insurance pools. Lots of people pay into the system but only a few people have exorbitant medical expenses. Those who stay well help support those who are sick. It’s a gamble companies make, and based on the way they have been jacking up the cost of coverage in the past few years, their gambles are paying off. We regular people are paying more and insurance companies are raking in outrageous profits.

But here’s another thing, Janie. You and I both operate out of our Christian faith with Christian values. Isn’t “carrying one another’s burdens” part of our spiritual ethic? The old support the young and the young serve the old. The strong care for the weak and the weak offer whatever they are able. The privileged stand up for the oppressed and we who have a voice speak out for the silenced.

I don’t think secular governments ought to function as religious societies, but I do believe in the prayer I pray every Sunday: that God’s kingdom may come on earth as it is in heaven. The more human societies live into kingdom values of grace and compassion and equity and inclusion the better off we will be. My own journey away from fundamentalism into progressive Christianity changed not only my theology; it also shifted my politics. The answer to the question: Who is my neighbor? is much larger and wider than it ever was before.

 

Janie: You’re bringing up an important point, and a very basic disagreement between the groups we label “conservative” and “progressive.”

I remember a slogan from the 2012 Democratic convention: Government is another name for what we do together.  Hillary Clinton capitalized on that idea in one of her campaign slogans: Better together.  Look, I understand that sentiment.  But a government is not a community.  As a nation, Americans can feel a sense of community when we are attacked, as at Pearl Harbor or 9/11.  We can come together when a president is assassinated or a city experiences a natural disaster.  To ask a nation to “come together” to provide for each other’s personal needs is a stretch.  The preamble to the constitution mentions providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.  Those verbs are not the same and I believe they were carefully chosen.

An army “for the common defense” is something the government has to provide, first because only the government should have that kind of power and second because private armies would be too prone to run amuck.  Other big projects, such as an interstate highway system, could be considered a legitimate federal expense, since no one else could finance it.  The space program was also thought to be something only the feds could do.  (But something very interesting is happening with the space program, as I’ll get to in a minute.)

When it comes to people’s personal choices and commitments, the picture gets cloudier. The ACA was built around the individual mandate, and that’s where it has run into trouble.  Younger people don’t want to pay for something they see no immediate need for.  Of course I understand your reasoning: young people pay now for something they’ll use later, like social security, and in the meantime they’re contributing to the common good.  But they are already burdened more than we were at their age: huge college loans, high mortgages (if they even take out a mortgage), fewer jobs appropriate to their college degrees, an increasing federal debt and deficit that will mean trouble down the road.  Why aren’t we more concerned about them?

Of course taxpayers have been supporting Medicare and Medicaid for two generations, but this is different: the ACA is an obvious hand reaching into your pocketbook and pulling out money to pay for people who don’t take care of themselves, or to pay for people who are here illegally, or to pay for older folks who have 401(k)s.  I know that’s not an entirely fair judgment; but that’s the way it looks to families whose insurance premiums have doubled over the last year.  This kind of “bearing each other’s burdens” does not build community.  Instead, it drives people apart by pitting them against each other.

What builds community is freedom and personal relationship.  It’s people, organizations, families, even businesses pitching in where they see a need.  It’s doctors foregoing insurance and charging a flat rate for basic care.   It’s surgeons forming their own insurance-free surgical centers where you can get a knee replacement for $10,000.  It’s Christian cooperatives like Medi-share where each family pays a monthly premium directly to another family who needs help.  It’s urgent-care clinics and private arrangements between doctors and patients with no third party in the way.  It’s being able to purchase insurance across state lines so you can get exactly what you want or need: low-cost catastrophic coverage, for instance, instead of full-range coverage for stuff you don’t need.

I’m not saying that the federal government has no role to play: Individual HSA’s that are not tied to an employer can “promote the general welfare” while allowing families and individuals to make their own decisions about which doctor to see or what treatment to pursue.  Government-supported free clinics can help provide basic care for the truly needy.  But a top-down, one-size solution is no long-term solution at all: expensive, inefficient, and more so as time goes on.   We won’t bear the burden; our kids will, and they won’t thank us for it.

(One quick word about the space program, because I think it’s relevant.  Since NASA gave up the shuttle program—and I’m really not sure what they’re doing now—entrepreneurs are stepping into that gap.  There’s a plan in the works to go back to the moon on the backs of private companies like Space X (headed by Elon Musk) and Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos).  That’s what is still so great about America: the space to dream and opportunity to make it happen.  I used to hear this a lot about 15 years ago: “If we can send a man to the moon then surely we can . .  .” create a world-class education system, eliminate poverty, provide affordable health care for everybody, etc.  What strikes me about companies like SpaceX is that they are free to employ the best people and aim straight for a goal without politics and bureaucracy getting in the way.  If we can send a man back to the moon without NASA, maybe we could be making better use of the private sector more for health care—and I DON’T mean insurance companies.)

Charlotte: Oh my! This dialog has gotten long and complex. It’s like we’re sitting together in comfortable space with a good cup of coffee letting ourselves go wherever the conversation takes us. I like this. But let’s wrap this one up and start our third effort soon.

So here’s my wrap up: I appreciate you pointing out that we are talking about a very basic disagreement between the groups we label “conservative” and “progressive,” that is, our understanding of the character of America. You say conservatives understand that what builds community is freedom and personal relationship. While I don’t disagree with your premise, I will say progressives understand it is our shared humanity that creates community and thus our governmental policies should foster that sense of care for one another.

You say: This kind of “bearing each other’s burdens” does not build community. Instead, it drives people apart by pitting them against each other. I say it is our human brokenness that pits us one against the other and creates within us a fundamental self-centeredness. I say sometimes the government, like a strong wise parent, must intervene to ensure the weak are not oppressed, the poor are not forgotten and the silenced are able to find a voice.

I have mentioned my own journey from conservative to progressive Christianity and how that has influenced my politics. I would love to hear your understanding of how religious faith ought to intersect politics. Your own personal way of doing that and your take on how public Christians should (and should not) allow religious views to influence public policy. Can that be our next conversation?

Janie:  Sure—but I’d lay some groundwork first.  You compared government (at its best) as a “wise parent.”  How else do you understand the role and function of government, and how does your faith inform your view?  Does that seem like a good place to start?  If so, I can share my ideas first.  I’ll bring the coffee!