Fear, Cowardice, and D.C. Politics
A president once said that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. He was wrong. Fear can be good. Fear, so long as it does not dictate our actions, can be a moderating influence.
Right now, a lot of people are scared, and there are plenty of reasons why. The question is what this fear has motivated us to do and how certain people are using it to achieve their own ends.
The responses to these challenges have run the gamut. Some point to our new charismatic leader as the beginning of the “change we need.” Others suggest clinging to traditional political or economic philosophies, from Reagan to FDR, Friedman to Marx. Others claim that the differences are too great, and that the Union is no longer worth saving.
The measure of a nation is its ability to innovate. When a country stops creating it dies. This is not limited to commerce or science. It is a political and economic matter as well. History does not repeat, it varies on common themes and precludes common responses.
But the premises that some are adopting, of dissolution or blind allegiance described as “post partisanship,” is unwise. Our union is cantankerous and disagreeable. But it is through our disputes and our compromises that we find our strength. No side of the political spectrum is right all of the time, and it is through conflict that we avoid bipartisan mistakes.
It is with this in mind that we have to turn to the official beginning of the Obama administration; the stimulus bill. It is representative of the stalest type of thinking. Keynesian economic theory is nothing but a justification for the argument that if you can’t work your way out, buy your way out. Government spending to “beef up” GDP is nothing more than a cheap parlor trick to scam the masses, much like dishonest CEOs used accounting rules to bump up earnings. These would be the same CEOs that President Obama railed against as a candidate, and still vilifies today.
But even if I were a staunch Keynesian, this bill represents a type of political cowardice that makes its passage unpalatable. There are plenty of provisions within that are stimulus related. I have nothing against those provisions. Granted I would not necessarily vote for them, but those provisions belong in such a bill.
However there are other provisions which are included, not because of their potential to stimulate the economy, but because these programs will be easier to pass while hidden in a “needed bill.” Because time is limited, there will be less debate than would otherwise be generated if the provisions stood alone. One initiative I find especially repugnant deals with health care.
Contained within the stimulus bill is an initiative to create a unified electronic system for the transfer of medical records. While seemingly innocuous on its face, the bill makes participation mandatory with fines being assessed for those who refuse to join. The privacy concerns involved for those who do not want to participate are deemed irrelevant by the party that is supposedly privacy’s champion. Further, the initiative also creates the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, which will assess a doctor’s treatment to make sure it is “efficient and effective.” Essentially, it creates a Big Brother for doctors in determining how to treat people. It has all the worst traits of socialized medicine, without the benefits.
Instead of having the courage to separate these more controversial provisions from the stimulus, and permitting the debate that these proposals deserve, President Obama hides the ball and then calls those that would oppose him foolish and mean spirited for holding up needed aid to America’s most desperate citizens. I call that politics as usual.
President Obama ran on a promise that he would elevate public discourse, change how politics is done in Washington, and then challenged us to do what is hard and right as opposed to the expedient and insubstantial. This is a promise and a challenge that did not even last 30 days. Not only did President Obama fail to achieve these goals in his first major piece legislation, he took the opposite approach and revealed himself to be just another politician. Those that would throw on the brakes in an attempt to form a better bill, to point out these distinctions, are drowned out by those that are paralyzed by fear or by those that would capitalize on other’s fear. Either way, legislation that should at the very least be highly scrutinized is being fast tracked merely so people can believe that “something is being done.”
One president told us that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Our current president wants to use fear to achieve his own ends. By allowing President Obama to dictate the agenda by playing on our fears, we sacrifice any semblance of personal autonomy. President Obama should either stop lecturing about sacrifice, courage and innovative thinking or start living it. Either way, it is time for a change.
Editor’s Note: George Will came out with a column today playing with the Fear Itself quote, and talking about the stimulus package. I considered not posting this, but hell, I wrote it before Will posted his stuff, and I bring the cowardly comment, so screw it.
Comment by Brandon on 13 February 2009 at 8:58 am:
“Our current president wants to use fear to achieve his own ends.”
Yes because that is so far distant from what was used during the last administration. Be a PATRIOT or you hate America eh? :-P
You and I have talked about this bill a bit, I know where you stand generally, and you I. By the way, you could have come up with better examples than the electronic medical records. The concept (though not the specific method of implementation) has been endorsed across the spectrum from Newt Gingrich to John Kerry (they did a Times Op Ed on it). The general concept is that if we have electronic records of treatment, we can finally conduct realistic empirical research to determine which treatments are most effective, and yes, cost effective. Technically it would only really control or even pretend to control medicaid and SSI payments to doctors, not private insurance. If private insurance picks up on it and runs like a bandit, that’s probably more incidental (though likely) than specifically intended. It’s an effort to curb spiraling costs in tough times when medical costs are trebling inflation generally. It’s an effort to curb off-label treatments of dubious effect. It won’t bring about the apocalypse. . .yet. That’s waiting for 2012.
Comment by James Prescott on 13 February 2009 at 9:55 am:
I do not claim that this is different than what the last administration did, in terms of how the Obama administration is acting and motivating people to pass things. But President Obama was elected, in part, because he was going to be the anti-Bush. Part of the point of the post is that Obama is a hypocrite by conforming to these tactics, so he should either follow through with what he said he was going to do or shut up about this being post partisan, new politics America. Either way, “its time for a change.”
I would address the second part of your point, but I have this gnarly headache right now and have had it for a while, so I will come back to it when my head is not thumping.
Comment by John Monchhichi on 21 February 2009 at 4:33 pm:
How’s that headache coming, Prescott?
Comment by James Prescott on 22 February 2009 at 10:24 am:
Sorry about that. As Brandon alluded in his original post, we already had this conversation off blog after I posted. Life distracted me, and since I thought the matter was, if not settled, then at least those that were interested knew my views, it was done for now.
I took a little time to come up with more concrete responses to Brandon’s second host of points. First, Brandon’s standard of “only doctors who accept federal funding” as a significant restraint on this was a little misleading. Based on my research into another related matter, it is my understanding that if you accept any sort of federal funding at any time for any patient you have to comply with federal standards for all patients, regardless of their source of funding. So I have a hard time imagining this restraint of “only if you accept funding” as precluding a large number of doctors or patients from this area. Also, the bill didn’t limit these new reporting standards to SS and Medicaid; but to all organizations (including health care providers, health plans, or health insurance issuers) that contract in any way with federal agencies. (Title XIII, Sec. 13112) In this section, it compels those organizations to comply with the electronic standards and programs as defined by the bill. As it is almost impossible to get a smoothie in this country without contracting with some federal agency, I think, but cannot prove conclusively that this would include almost the entirety of patients and organizations. Well, thats a lie. I could find evidence, but I got homeword today, and an Illinois game, so I don’t want to spend time looking. Sorry for the laziness on that account.
My second issue with Brandon’s second point is don’t we have agencies already that deal with this issue in the form of the FDA and state licensing boards? I wonder if there might be federalism claims based on this bill overreaching and going into areas which are considered to be governed by state boards, regulating doctors actions? I do not know how this would work out, exactly, but its an argument. Either way, we already have organizations which monitor doctor’s actions. Is it in medicine’s best interest to have another organization curtailing growth and progress?
That being said, the concept of a better electronic exchange of medical records is appealing to both sides of the aisle. But it is how this is achieved that is vital, especially given the nature of the information. Going back to my original point, this is something that should have been analyzed separately from the stimulus package. It is important enough to be give due consideration, which was obviously not granted to the stimulus package.
Comment by John Monchhichi on 23 February 2009 at 6:38 pm:
Politics is the art of the possible, though. It would be nice if everything was debated on its own merits and passed or failed on those alone, but that is not the world in which we live. I do not hold Obama’s acknowledgement of this reality against him. Jimmy Carter, for example, had nothing but disdain for the legislative process. Understandable, but it resulted in a general failure to get things accomplished.