Morning Fog

A Museum's Role

The Smithsonian Institution began life with a bequest from one James Smithson, who also provided the mission statement that can be found even today on the Smithsonian's website (www.si.edu):

"I then bequeath the whole of my property...to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge..."

In its growth, and its adaptation to modern trends, I've always thought that the institution meandered rather far from that basic premise.  Perhaps it depends on what you think "knowledge" is, but to me, pop culture -- especially pop culture that's only hours old -- isn't a part of it.  Julia Child's kitchen?  The set from M.A.S.H.?   Archie Bunker's chair? And now, apparently, the desk the American Idol judges use.  A plain old desk, without much to distinguish it. 

So I thought the article "Artifact or Artifice?", appearing in the Washington Post today, asks a fair question: Is the museum performing its proper role in chronicling our culture?  But wait...actually that's not the museum's proper role, which (see Smithson, above) is "the increase and diffusion of knowledge."  The writer reaches the conclusion that keeping tabs on our popular culture is a legitimate function of the nation's museum.  I disagree.  If we ask the shorter question, "is the museum fulfilling its proper role," I'd say the answer is a resounding "no."  I just don't see the connection between "knowledge" and some beat-up old prop from a TV show.  If someone wants to warehouse these things, fine, but it's not a museum's job, nor is it the public's job to pay for them.

This tendency to accentuate the mundane and superficial seems to me to go hand-in-hand with another precept in which the Smithsonian's curators appear to believe deeply:  That museum exhibits have to be entertaining, preferably on the level of an eight-year-old.  This makes the various museums a popular attraction for visiting tourist families in the summer, but it doesn't make them institutions of knowledge.  Let's upgrade the content; kids learn by reaching and being challenged, and the rest of us may find that we can go to a museum without having our intelligence insulted.   

Health Care: Is Compromise In The Air?

Is it possible that we're past the blind fury stage on health care, and may be getting down to a more practical approach by all sides?  No guarantees, but there are signs:

• Washington Post Business columnist Pearlstein has recently outlined some reasonable ideas about what might be in a "compromise" package.
• Some people are actually trying to provide real, confirmable facts about aspects of health care and the problems we face, rather than opinions. One commendable effort is that of T.R. Reid, who's written a book, The Healing of America, about health care systems in other countries. Get the book from the amazon link in the right margin, or read his cogent piece from Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section here, in which he debunks some of the mistaken ideas people have about the Canadian, German, and other systems.
• I believe the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, longtime health care reform advocate, will have an effect on the dialogue. It won't sway a lot of Republicans out of their naysaying mode, but it may make the dialogue more civil, and it might sand some of the rough edges off some of the more extreme Democratic positions.

Even the rightwing columnist Charles Krauthammer is offering up "compromise" solutions, albeit spurious ones.  Krauthammer, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, is so one-track in his opinions that I'd seldom point anyone to something he wrote.  His piece "Obamacare: The Only Exit Strategy" is no exception -- in it, he proposes that the administration "win" by abandoning all its key goals and principles and accepting a Republican version of the world -- but he does point up one reminder of how our political system operates: 

Often, when important issues are at stake in the U.S., it requires a real crisis, a total logjam, to jar us and our representatives out of our complacency and make us deal with the problem.  Krauthammer says we're not at that point yet, and he's correct.  But really, must we wait for that point, or is it vaguely possible that with some serious thinking and a will to get the job done, we might actually succeed in throwing a switch before we have a train wreck? 

The Price of Steel(e)

Not to beat a dead horse to death, as State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler once said, but I'm going back to Republican National Chairman Michael Steele's "Health Contract" with seniors, which I discussed yesterday ("Geezers In the Crosshairs - Not").  Today, Steven Pearlstein points out another interesting feature of what Steele proposed -- namely that by committing Republicans to stand by Medicare and other expensive programs without cuts, he's really mortgaging the country's future, potentially leaving the national treasury with no discretionary funds at all. 

It's a valid point, as it highlights the GOP's recent resort to a rather strange, even phantasmagorical, policy on fiscal matters:    (1) When in power, bankrupt the country with a needless war and turn a blind eye to abuses in the financial system;  (2) When out of power, suddenly discover fiscal responsibility - we can't implement what the voters voted for, because gosh, we're broke!

President Clinton eliminated the deficit after a decade of mindless Republican spending. We can do it again; the new deficits are only a fraction of what Bush 2 left us with, and just as no one supposed Clinton could really eliminate the deficit within 6 years, resumed growth in the economy (more tax revenues, more employment, a better economic picture) can result in their being reduced much more quickly than any of the  current estimates suggest.

The concealed trap in Steele's approach is to focus on a few trillion in deficit now, while ignoring the elephant in the room, the burgeoning costs of health care that will make us a financial basket case if we don't deal with it now.  Everyone (except apparently Republican thinkers) knows the principle of investing a smaller amount, even when it's difficult, to prevent much higher future costs. It's a lot like patching that little leak in your roof, before it can magnify into much more serious damage.

Geezers In The Crosshairs - Not!

Old folks (like me, for example) might look around them these days and think somebody's really trying to do them in.  No social security COLA for two years, they're monkeying with health care, ex-Alaska-Governor Palin is suggesting "death panels," and dad-burn it, we're not even first priority for swine flu shots!  On top of that, Republican national chairperson Michael Steele is waving around some kind of "contract" he claims to have with older Americans -- where did that come from all of a sudden, and what's it going to cost?

Well, if all this is making you feel as confused as the guy who lost his chewing gum on the floor of the henhouse, don't get all upset.  It's not as terrible as it sounds.  Once again, there's a lot of politically motivated fear-mongering out there, along with some really bad media reporting.  Here are a few points worth considering:

Social security:  That 5.8% last year was pretty nice, wasn't it?  And even though we all know that the cost-of-living calculation is an imperfect instrument that usually trails real inflation in the things that seniors have to buy (health care, utilities, food, shelter), it's nice that it can't be taken back.  So in times like these, when the economy is weak and inflation is low, we can be happy that we're really not losing anything.  In fact, Chuck Blahous, the Director of Bush's social security commission in 2001, points out that for most older folks, "zero COLA" still results in a net gain.  Far from feeling deprived, seniors should pat themselves on the back; no COLA means that more government resources can be focused on helping their sons, daughters, and grandchildren -- all those younger people who are losing their jobs or their houses or having trouble making ends meet.

Palin's "death panels:"  In my experience, older people are often far more realistic about the Grim Reaper than their kids or other caregivers.  Many have very specific ideas about DNRs, end-of-life care, and such, but those who do not, or may not have thought about it, might find that an opportunity to discuss such issues with their doctor would be welcome.  Some versions of health care reform bills suggest that such a consultation be required.  Is "mandatory" necessary?  Maybe not, but I don't see a lot of harm in it.  On the other hand, Sarah Palin has dreamed up a concept of government "death panels" that she says would make life-and-death decisions for people, push the old toward euthanasia, and so forth.  What can she be thinking?  I think that's a terrible idea!  Again, though, I'm not concerned; I believe that wiser and more humane heads will protect us from Palin's Panels.

Then, there's the new "Seniors' Healthcare Bill of Rights," touted recently by Republican chairperson Michael S. Steele.  Wow!  It's a tapestry of lies and misrepresentations, starting from the point where he says Republicans "believe reforms are necessary."  If they did, we would already have had reforms about six years ago.  Could it be accidental that the letters of Steele's name, rearranged, spell out "Scheme, lie, steal"? I don't know about the "steal" part, but I can tell you, I stepped out my front door Monday morning and tripped over Steele's nose.  Moreover, this "Bill of Rights" has nothing to do with health care, and everything to do with politics.  Because seniors vote in larger numbers than other groups, the Republican Party has carefully crafted this masterpiece of pandering to appeal to, or frighten, seniors. 

Most offensive about all these efforts that seem to "target" seniors, I think, is the assumptions they make:  Seniors are befuddled, dumb, and selfish; they can't think for themselves; they will allow themselves to be stampeded by fear.   Fortunately, that's not me, and it's not the elder population I know.  The "greatest generation" is/was characterized by their commitment to independence, justice, and duty, and by their shared sense of our unity as a nation.  I presume they will resent attempts to mislead them, assess facts (not allegations) for themselves, recognize that most of the dire scenarios they're being warned of are illusory, and reject selfishness in favor of solutions that work to everyone's benefit. 

Victimology of Lockerbie

When Scotland decided to release the terrorist Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who was convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, critics latched on to the reactions of victims' families as a reason to cry foul.  Scotland's First Minister continues to defend the decision to release, in part because other victim-families say it's time to forgive and forget.  Both sides seem to ignore a basic principle:  the views of the victims and their families are totally irrelevant.  While media rush to report them, actually the opinions of distraught and very biased families, even at a remove of 20 years, cannot be the basis of decisions in any part of the criminal process - not in investigation, prosecution, conviction, sentencing... or release. 

To understand why not, we only need to look at other cases, such as the recent "Norfolk Four," in which the victim's relatives, confronted with solid evidence that the parties convicted of a rape/murder years ago were actually innocent, nevertheless voiced their preference for keeping the erroneously convicted men locked up.  

Did politics and other factors play a part in Scotland? Probably (just as they would here in such a high-profile case).  One theory that I've heard holds that the Scots, who take pride in a reputation for frugality, probably took into account the high cost of keeping and treating al-Megrahi.  Will letting this terrorist go "encourage" other terrorists, as some in our government have argued?  That seems dubious; an individual willing to meet certain death by becoming a human bomb isn't likely to be deterred by considerations of prison time. 

No, Scotland's legal system, we are told, permits the release of convicts who are terminally ill.  As a rule, one shouldn't suppose that a legal system unprepared to execute the perpetrator of such a crime would balk at releasing him.  If the Scots decided al-Megrahi met the conditions for compassionate release, Lockerbie victims and others will just need to live with it.  Things might be different (ARE different) in other countries, but Scotland isn't Iran or North Korea.

Of course the corollary of international respect for countries' varying legal systems is that it has to be reciprocal.  That means that countries that have adopted anti-death-penalty positions ought not hesitate to extradite accused criminals to the U.S. just because we do have a death penalty.  

Health Care: Tories To The Rescue

Back in colonial times, before our nation was a nation, and when we were fighting to establish our independence from England, people who remained loyal to the British crown were known as Loyalists, or Tories.   Not all Tories are dead.  Some went to law school and became strict constructionists, preferring to interpret the U.S. Constitution literally, and they live among us defending the life and society of the late 18th century as the only possible one.

Such, seemingly, are David Rivkin and Lee Casey, authors of "Illegal Health Reform," an op-ed piece in the Washington Post today.  They are Loyalists in both the throwback-to-1776 sense, and in the sense of their allegiance to the Republican Party, as former Reagan/Bush Justice Department officials.  They've been unleashed by their party to attack health care reform on a new front.  We all know that health care, in the GOP view, is anathema; that it's a socialist plot; that it's a government takeover, and that it's immoral.  Now Rivkin and Casey argue, with the same impeccable logic and incisive analysis that supports those other Republican arguments, that it's also ... unconstitutional!  (Their line of attack is a slightly more sophisticated version of the manifestly loopy argument we heard from those anti-health citizens at recent town hall meetings, i.e., "there's no guarantee of health care in the constitution.")

Specifically, our intrepid strict constructionists say that the "individual mandate" - a requirement that everyone must obtain insurance - is illegal because the Constitution grants Congress no power to enact such a requirement.  The "interstate commerce" clause (the legal grounding of many federal government regulations), they assert, is not applicable because a mandate to have health insurance could never be justified as "quintessentially economic."  Further, they claim, the government's taxing authority is insufficient because of precedents, according to which the government can't use its taxing authority to get at an activity over which it otherwise has no power.  (Let's credit the authors with at least acknowledging the Constitution sometimes may be "interpreted," though I'm sure it really sticks in their craws to admit it.)

The appropriate response to both arguments - to use a term from the Tory era - is "balderdash!"  Not economic?  Perhaps not, if you live in the 18th century, or believe the world is flat, but it seems to me that today's jurists would have little trouble seeing that in the "service economy," the purchase/sale of health care is just as real an economic activity as trading wheat.  As for taxation, if the authors are correct in their reading of existing case law, it's surprising they are not arguing against the precedents.  After all, the Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes to ... provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."  (My emphasis.) 

Of course the difficulty is that strict constructionists prefer to apply their principles only when it's helpful in blocking something they don't like.  (Should they be called "strict obstructionist? It suits them.)  Otherwise, I'm sure they would have objected in the 1960's when (at Republican insistence) the profitable segment of the post office mail monopoly was handed to private delivery companies (Constitution: Congress has the power "to establish Post Offices"); and it certainly would have been necessary to leave ourselves defenseless against our enemies, since the Constitution authorizes Congress to "raise and support Armies," and to "provide and maintain a Navy," but says nary a word about an Air Force.  Such is the quandary of the literalist.

Of course, some of what I've written above is tongue-in-cheek, but for me, the bottom line is this:  The strength of our Constitution has been its adaptability.  I'm confident that serious politicians can find ways to ensure that our government can function effectively to provide the services and protections that people everywhere quite reasonably expect their government to provide.  If not -- if Rivkin and Casey are correct and the Immutable Document truly prevents us from providing our citizens something as basic as equal access to health care -- then we need a new Constitution. 

Unsympathetic

Today's news headlines seemed to me to present an extensive gallery of people not wanting to face the reality of their own actions or situations.  I, for one, can't generate much sympathy for:

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber who was released yesterday by the Scottish government on "compassionate" grounds.  Even if, as some suspect, he was only a sacrificial lamb served up by the Libyan government, he took the deal.  Al-Megrahi, and others convicted of the most heinous crimes, should serve their sentences.  Period.  If compassion were needed, relatives could choose between his remaining incarcerated or euthanized on the spot.

Howard Dean and the die-hard left wing Democrats for whom he speaks in continuing to insist on a "public option" in health care.  In the real world, they'll need to recognize that the ideal is not always (should I say, hardly ever?) realizable.  The public option might not be dead yet, but if it dies, it's dumb to keep insisting on it.  The answer to their question, "Where's the fruit of our labor?" is that any improvement in health care will be the fruit, since the GOP went for years without proposing anything.

Senator Charles Grassley, who on the same issue has decided to follow rather than lead, to cave in to disruptive protesters.  Grassley himself has helped to propagate some of the scary lies being peddled by opponents of change, which led to the confrontations he experienced.

Car dealers who now say they are getting out of the "Cash For Clunkers" program because they aren't getting their money fast enough.  They wanted this program bad, they got it bad.  Actually I'm pretty sure they've just figured out that what's already been processed is going to exhaust available funds anyway.

More Pragmatism

Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein argues pragmatically today that "It's Time To Give Up On the Public Option."  I've written in strong favor of a "public option" insurance plan in the past, but as a pragmatist myself, I certainly wouldn't fall on my sword over a public option IF a  different mechanism could achieve similar results. 

Pearlstein argues that serious reform can still evolve from current efforts if "public option" is dropped, but he admits that some of the ideas he mentions have not even been proposed in any of the draft legislation to date.  Further, he relies heavily on the power of cooperatives - inherently weak in bargaining power, untested on a national level, offering no effective competition to the powerhouses of the industry.  I'm not convinced, but I'll keep an open mind (while noting that anti-reform forces are already bad-mouthing cooperatives, too.)

Obama's Pragmatic M.O.

Through the long debate over health care, it had always seemed to me that the President was less fully engaged than he might be in pushing a specific vision, and in countering attacks against reform.  Undoubtedly part of that reticence was an effort to avoid the errors of the Clintons -- if they were criticized for trying to dictate a plan from the White House without input from "interested parties," then this time around, let there be a thousand points of light.   And so there were...a confusing welter of different plans and different ideas originating from Congress and elsewhere.  The lack of a center in turn made it easier for opponents of reform, better-organized and generously funded, to pick apart ideas one by one, and to seize the politically effective low ground (i.e. "death panels" and "government takeovers").

We know from before his election, and even before his decision to run for President, that Obama counts himself a pragmatist.  No harm in that.  Politics is the art of the possible, and compromise is always required.  But pragmatism need not imply a lack of leadership.  While Obama continues to say he "prefers" a public option, for example, he has clearly placed it in the "expendable" column.  Could he have effected a different outcome on this point by being more engaged, by grabbing lapels LBJ-style?  Or has he wisely avoided too deep a personal commitment, waiting for his party's liberal wing to come to terms with the political impossibility of the idea?  Is this a young, inexperienced President misjudging the ground, or a canny master of persuasion who will confound the expectations of his opponents?  We don't know yet; we may never.

The test will be what emerges from the Capitol Hill sausage works at the end of the day.  If key goals (reducing the rising costs of health care, covering everyone or nearly everyone) aren't achieved, and we're left with a few marginal improvements (nobody can be denied for an existing condition), we've expended a lot of heat and light for an outcome that could have been achieved with a single match.   

All manner of pundits and politicos from both sides of the aisle assure us that there will be "some kind" of health care reform bill this year.  Some analysts suggest that the passage of a bill - any bill - is the key to Obama's maintaining some momentum and his ability to complete other legislative initiatives.   But that's just a fig leaf.  Passage of a weak bill will be a recognizable defeat for the administration, and will embolden obstructionists in other areas (energy, climate control).  Maybe Obama still has a rabbit or two to pull out of his hat.  In the meantime, I'd offer the following thoughts for pragmatism in the next battle:

• Congress needs adult leadership; it seldom comes from within.
• Pragmatism must guide the actions of both sides on any issue; that's not currently the case, as the Republican party remains steadfastly disinterested in engagement.
• Corollary: Know your opponents. There is little excuse for being blindsided by them, as White House staff admitted they had been.
• Attacks, especially false ones, should be countered.

 

Corporate Snoops Are Your Friends, Mr. Orwell

Yesterday I wrote about the privacy of your personal information in the modern world.  Another aspect of privacy, of course, is the privacy of not having anyone watching your every move, meddling in your private life, or even dictating every step you make.  That was the specter raised by George Orwell in 1984.   

In the contemporary health care debate, people are railing about "government takeover of health care" and express their fear of too much government in their lives.  Maybe it's because Orwell wrote about government, rather than General Motors, Nestlé, or Shell Oil, that makes people more afraid of what government may do.   Perhaps it's the example of now-defunct totalitarian states like the Soviet Union.  (Yet these states are mostly defunct, and even the remaining ones are shifting away from total-control mode, realizing it doesn't work).  Actually, I think the Orwellian threat could come just as easily from the "private" sector as from government. 

The great irony of the healh care discussions at this time is that there's plenty of evidence available of extreme corporate power and the abuse thereof, yet the opponents of government "interference," (whenever they aren't cashing their social security checks or selling their "clunkers" in exchange for a government handout) seem oblivious to, or perfectly willing to accept, the equally insidious control that private enterprise exercises over their lives. 

One of the clearest examples is near at hand, in that selfsame health care debate.  Let me honest here: if you believe that so-called "public option" is really about the government making health care decisions for you, I think you've allowed yourself to be duped; you just haven't done your homework.  It is no such thing.   

Companies that have something to lose from lower prices in health care are spending millions to save themselves billions in profits.  They're also engaged, like "Big Brother," in every aspect of the process; fighting a propaganda battle, bribing your Congressman to look the other way, denying existing problems, beavering away to shape legislation to their liking, making indefinite promises of future "savings" in return for guarantees that nothing will change.  Oh, and today the Washington Post reports that roughly 94% of physicians have a "relationship" with at least one company in the health care industry.

Health care companies would like to convince you that government will "stand between you and your doctor," because they would hate for you to realize that currently, they stand in that position, limiting what they will pay for, denying treatments, charging whatever rates they want, tracking your medical problems and prescriptions, denying coverage for your "preexisting condition" (such as being human).  They're in that position, and they love it.  They'll be happy to distract you from thinking about the cost of health care, because higher costs, under current conditions, are not something they wish to control.

Is it possible Orwell had the right idea, but was 50 years too early, and was looking in the wrong place?