Obamacare and the Political Pendulum

I like the visual image of the pendulum to describe certain action-reaction events in life. Personally, I like to keep the pendulum close to its mid-point, avoiding the wild swings that risk breaking the apparatus.  I prefer the quest for continuous improvement over the complete overhaul, and dislike generally the outright repeal of law or overturning of precedent as a matter of principle.  It therefore concerns me when I see our political parties pulling further apart, guided by more extremist factions. I fear we are at risk of doing severe damage to our system of government.

Our recent dysfunction in Washington has focused on the nationally polarizing issue of “Obamacare.” Opinion pieces and press interviews have both sides blaming each other for a variety of sins. Many Republican barbs lately have focused on the fact that the Affordable Care Act did not receive a single Republican vote, suggesting it was therefore railroaded down the throats of Americans.  Although the voting record may be accurate, it is important to note that our political parties have made it impossible for anyone to step outside party lines. This is especially true for Republicans, with Tea Party challengers ready to pounce when there is the slightest sign of compromise.  The fact is that voting contrary to the party has become an incredibly dangerous act for anyone attempting to hold onto their seats in Congress – just look at the parade of intellectually independent leaders that have either resigned or been displaced from office recently.  The blunt truth is there would never be a bipartisan healthcare bill in 2010 or anytime soon – not a chance.  Republicans can try to claim how none of them voting for Obamacare somehow makes it a suspect law, but I’m not buying it.

It should be beyond debate that responsible regulation has a place in healthcare. Certainly some savvy Republicans had to be supportive of the general concept of reform over the past several administrations. Show me someone who thinks healthcare needed no reform and I’ll show you a fool.  I know Romneycare had some success in Massachusetts, and many of those provisions were at least loose models for the ACA.  We are even now hearing from Republican leaders that they would be willing to promote some of the key tenets of reform like a prohibition against denial of coverage based on a pre-existing condition.  And there had to be other good Republican-generated ideas on reform and a desire to develop thoughtful improvements to the national system.  Unfortunately, they waited too long, handcuffed over the last two decades by party leadership and an incredibly powerful healthcare and insurance lobby.  Healthcare reform was never going to be a Republican initiative.

I’m reminded of a movie (one of the “Babe” films – bear with me) that starts with the simple line “If only …”.  If only Republicans and Democrats in Washington had come together in the 1990s supported by business leaders and healthcare representatives to fix what everyone knew was then and still is a broken system….  If only people had stepped across party lines to create a bipartisan solution during President Clinton’s fledgling efforts or during President George W. Bush’s tenure….  If only people did not engage in delay and deferral tactics to maintain the status quo at all costs….  If only rational, thoughtful Republican and Democratic leaders had been able to sit down and create a law 20 years ago when it needed to be done…, we would not be in this mess today.

Sadly, we seem to be stuck in a political framework where wide swings of the pendulum are now the norm. Instead of staying near the midpoint with centrist minded, rational thinkers leading the way, tinkering with new or existing legislation, we get the extremes. Attitudes towards law and regulation shift to favor either a complete “laissez-faire” approach, benefiting the relevant industry capitalists, or to a near socialist regime with bureaucrats overlooking every move we make. Both of these are to the detriment of the average American.  Uncontrolled swings of the pendulum create uncertainty and hostility, and an unyielding resoluteness of position. What this country desperately needs is leadership and a return of the art of compromise – a political pendulum shifting gently left to right and back again, forsaking arrogance and recognizing the validity of at least some of your colleagues’ position.  What we are getting is polarization and, at best, stalemate. 

I cannot blame Democrats for holding firm on Obamacare.  They finally got healthcare reform passed after nearly 20 years of effort.  They arguably abused some political process to get the vote, but my goodness did the Republicans work hard over the past two decades to thwart any attempts at responsible regulation.  Again, plenty of blame to go around in Washington.

As to the impact of Obamacare, I for one am hard-pressed to believe that this law will cripple American business and send us all to the poorhouse as many have suggested in the press. In thinking about it, similar arguments were certainly raised when Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Clean Air and Clean Water, and other landmark legislation passed. I honestly believe you could go back through our 200+ years of history and find numerous examples of legislation that detractors found “doomed to ruin forever the American way of life.” And none of them did.  American business is resilient, and I do not believe it is the mission statement of the US government to cripple American business and bankrupt all of us in the process. Regulators, lawmakers, and don’t forget the judges, have ways of interpreting and implementing these laws.  It takes time, but the impact of laws usually gets modified through regulation, future amendments, and judicial interpretation of key provisions. Repeal should almost never be an option as it sets a horrible precedent for future pendulum swings.  How can any of us know what to expect when a law or its repeal is up for grabs depending on who is in power? How could that possibly be a way to run a country?

I remain hopeful that someone in Democratic and Republican leadership can emerge to navigate a way out for both parties where they can each save face with the American people. I am now 20 years weary of the politics of polarization which has only become worse with every passing election cycle. We need leaders who don’t seek power as an opportunity to screw the other side.  That’s so un-American.  Rather, we need leaders who engage their counterparts and work with them to ensure consistency and continuous improvement – words like “repeal” and “recall” should never be rallying cries for our political parties as they have been currently.  This country has been the envy of the world in part because of our ability to have seamless transitions of power and compromise after thoughtful debate on major issues.  I fear we are quickly becoming like so many countries where the law of the land is plagued by volatility.  I fear the pendulum of politics in America is gaining speed.

 

Standard

Courage:  An essential ingredient of ethics.

I have had the pleasure of teaching a class on Business Ethics to undergraduates the past two years.  One of the biggest challenges is to keep them optimistic about the business world after reading so many cases detailing the failures of managers in Corporate America.  Students can become rather jaded in their perspectives, and “Business Ethics” becomes the butt of scholarly wit much like “military intelligence” and other notable oxymorons.  To combat this, I would often remind them of the many positive attributes of business and benefits of capitalism seen in our community every day. We would also engage in some free ranging discussions on points of interest to keep them thinking about how they could and would do better. 

One of my favorite recurring themes to discuss was the role of courage in the study of ethics.  So many of our tragic heroes and villains in the case studies were tripped up, it seemed to me, by a stunning lack of courage.  I reminded students that many of the people we studied were just like them 20 years prior – students in business or undergraduate school, figuring out their career path, excited about the future. I don’t believe there was one such person who sat at a desk in a university at age 20 and thought “I know how I’m going to make my first million – outright fraud sounds like a good plan!” No, most of the characters in our unfortunately true case studies were good, hard-working individuals who simply lost their way.

And while some of them clearly went down a very dark path, the vast majority simply seemed to lack courage. They were incapable of standing up to their boss, their peers, or perhaps themselves or families. They could not stop the train once it started rolling, often consumed by fear of what it might do to them personally or professionally if they were to stand up and speak out.  Instead of blowing the whistle or taking a less antagonistic approach and walking away, our subjects continued to toil away hoping for some (perhaps Divine) intervention.   

These people may be purely “wallflowers” who silently go about their business, not wanting to cause a stir and perhaps lose their job or create hardship for their coworkers or company. Or they may be order-takers.  In either case, they consider themselves ethical because they do not themselves cause harm by any overt act. They shy away from conflict, safe in the knowledge that comfortable retirement is theirs if they keep their head down and play the game.  Many have perhaps seen the treatment of whistleblowers and know the challenges of stepping forward without a net – potentially sacrificing years of one’s life to uncertainty and litigation, and a possible trip to the poorhouse before it all (hopefully) gets straightened out. They want to be able to just do their job and figure it will all work out in the end.

So can you be ethical if you lack courage? 

Many people would argue yes.  The innocent bystander who witnesses a murder isn’t considered unethical if they avoid the police.  They are protecting themselves and their family from years of trial and possible reprisals for their testimony.  Similarly, a lower level accountant who becomes aware of some potential fraud at the company may feel justified in taking a passive approach to the issue, especially if it is not in their direct area.    

We can look at these people and say they are still ethical.  They may lead exemplary lives and have never harmed anyone.  At most, theirs is a sin of omission and our society tends to view those much less harshly.   Their lack of courage is understood – we empathize with the wallflower.

I would argue against this.  I believe anyone claiming to be ethical must also be courageous. You have to be able to speak up when you see wrongdoing – either directly or through anonymous hotlines or other channels. One of the reasons corporate scandals continue for so long and are repeated in future years is the lack of early-stage intervention by supposed ethical bystanders. We watch and wait, hoping the problem will fix itself, or that a courageous whistleblower will emerge.  I believe people have an absolute responsibility to bring problems to light. It does not necessarily mean shouting it from the mountain tops – there are many ways to relieve your burden of knowledge. But to act ethically, to me, requires action.  And action requires courage.

END

Courage: An essential ingredient of ethics

Aside

A lot has been made over Ariel Castro’s suicide in jail. Some are wondering how this could possibly have happened and question the safety and security in our prison system. I personally am ecstatic over the result, happy he was able to find a nice substitute for rope in the cell. This is the scumbag who, beyond a shadow of doubt, was responsible for 10 years of terror for three Cleveland area women. My only concern is the impact on the women who suffered at his hands over the last 10 years. Do they feel cheated at all by his suicide, or are they relieved to know that he is no longer on the face of this earth? I don’t know the answer to that, but I am very supportive of quick and clean endings in cases like this.

I am not a huge death penalty advocate, and realize the difficulties with society condemning a person to death through its application. I do support it wholeheartedly in cases like this, however, where the crimes are horrific, and guilt is certain. For cases like his, I am a fan of the “take them out back and shoot them” approach to justice. There is a wonderful line in Pulp Fiction where Marcellus refers to Zed as “Mr. Soon-To-Be-Living-The-Rest-of-His-Short-Ass-Life-in-Agonizing-Pain-Rapist.” I wish Mr. Castro could have experienced some agonizing pain before he died. But assuming we can’t go back to a hanging on the public square or medieval disemboweling like the good old days, the next best thing in my mind is to have a ready supply of belts, razor blades, and cyanide strategically placed in the prison cell of a guy like Castro. If our society has unfortunately “evolved” to prevent swift justice for guys like this, then I welcome their decision to take themselves out of the gene pool. I hate to think that we would spend years of taxpayer resources on a guy like that and find it very hard to argue that his action requires any inquiry. I’m glad he is dead.

I promise a more uplifting post next week.

Ariel Castro – Suicide Prevention in Prison?

Aside

A “Waste” of Money?

Some people like to talk about certain projects as a colossal “waste of money”  as if the dollars spent literally go into some hole in the ground, never to be seen again. I honestly do not have a specific, current government project in mind here. This is more along the lines of asking the potentially stupid question that I have harbored for a decade or more. 

If a government entity (or any private citizen for that matter) decides to take on a project and spend beaucoup bucks to construct a new building, stadium, or a new IT system…, that money will, in fact, be paid to some hard-working contractor, vendor, supplier, or other third-party provider.  The  perceived “wasted” dollars will go to the coffers of those business owners and their employees, to be used for food, shelter, and clothing of their families, and some beer I suppose.  Assuming those people are local citizens and businesses (or even just Americans), many of those dollars will come back in taxes and other spending, and all of the $ will keep flowing through the broader economy.  I know this isn’t a real in-depth analysis, but I think people forget that the money is simply redistributed – it does not disappear as the term “waste” and commentary surrounding such expenditures often implies.   

Now this in no way condones the current increase in the monetary supply by our federal government.  My musing here assumes a static amount of dollars in the system. And I do not have a political bent or any specific project in mind.  I’m simply suggesting that a project considered  to be “a complete waste of resources” really has a lot of positive economic impact as those dollars flow through the system and continue to be an active part of  the economy.  I would like to see a study of some major project from 10 years ago that tracked the dollars  paid from government coffers to see where those dollars flowed over the next decade.  I know  they did not get buried in the ground or burned up in a funeral pyre. Some of them may just be sitting in your wallet.

END 

Standard

Office Ettiquette – Trash Cans as Personal Property?

Just a quick humor post this week.  This was inspired by a work colleague a few years ago and dusted off the shelf for some fun.

 

OFFICE ETTIQUETTE – TRASH CANS

THE SCENARIO:  It’s 9am and your colleague arrives in your office for the meeting with an apple and coffee cup in hand.  He proceeds to devour the forbidden fruit as you explain the issue de jour, slobbering a bit as he washes this breakfast supplement down with a hearty swig of swag coffee.  After a brief discussion, you watch in horror as the backwash laced coffee cup and saliva infused apple core are deposited in your trash can and your colleague heads to the head.

 

THE QUESTION:  Is this legit/cool/kosher?

 

THE ANSWER:  Absolutely NOT.  Your co-worker has violated your personal space by depositing his slobber-soaked waste in your office trash, leaving it to slowly rot and fester throughout the day as you try in vain to ignore it.  No, my friend, this practice should not be tolerated.  It is your trash can, not a dumping place for others’ waste.  If you fear conflict, here are some helpful tips:

  1. Hide your can under the desk far away from the door (though this can seriously backfire with a persistent guest);
  2. Make meeting times with an offender later in the day to reduce the risk of “snacking” or to at least reduce the time his waste sits in your office;
  3. Make a joke about how nasty a day old apple core or banana peel smells;
  4. If all else fails, meet in his office and bring with you a slab of liverwurst and limburger cheese which you casually discard in his can after a brief discourse.

 

NEXT ISSUE:  The used tissue…

Standard

Organized Religion and the Search for Spirituality

I have been thinking a lot about the role of organized religion lately – both in my own life and for society in general.  Although I originally scribbled notes for this article in 2005, its roots go back to high school when I first realized I was a bit “different” than many of my fellow students at our Catholic high school.  I was never comfortable with the rote mechanics of Catholicism, and liked to challenge established concepts of God.  This led to a few extra demerits, but it started me on the path of questioning not only the Catholic practice but also Christianity itself.  A World Religions class and further study in college opened my mind to the possibility that Christianity didn’t have all the answers for all people.  And, more importantly, that many answers come from within ourselves. 

I came to believe that although organized religion is often the principal vehicle, the search for spirituality should be a uniquely personal journey.  Some of us need rote mechanics and recognizable symbols to feel connected with God. Others may use new-age techniques to transcend the corporeal. Most of us, of course, seek a connection with God through some combination of our participation in an established church — which gives us our sense of community and shared purpose — and personal spiritual development in our own customized way. 

I should have taken more courses in the field of religion, but the value of thinking and questioning stuck with me as I have continued the struggle for truth.  And I now believe I have come to a wonderful insight on the topic.  Namely, that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and the world’s other major religions all provide a perfectly legitimate channel for followers to connect with their creator or otherwise achieve spirituality, but none of them has an exclusive on the soul salvation market.

I believe we must drop the arrogant assumption — reinforced by generations of social conditioning throughout the world — that only our view could possibly be correct. The major religions, and I believe the vast majority of humans, share a common belief that a benign higher power created the universe and in some way continues to guide our path.  We don’t hear enough about these similarities, unfortunately.  And to make matters worse, followers often focus on the differences (even within their own tents) and have persecuted each other for most of recorded history as a result.  If only we could accept the fact that spiritual oneness with God (as you define Him) can be achieved through a multitude of means, no one of which is better or more effective than the other. 

This is my fundamental belief.  Jesus showed us one path. His teachings are pure and clearly establish a way to commune with God. I do not believe Christianity is the only way, however.  There were (and are still) others with the special ability to connect the masses with the ethereal concept of God.  I’m not a religious scholar, and will not force details into this piece.  I will just say what I believe, and what I think millions of others silently believe to be possible as well — that Jesus was an incredible human being who continues to show millions and millions of us a “Way” but not necessarily “The Way.”  I believe following closely the teachings of the Buddha, Mohammed, or other spiritual leaders can also lead a soul to salvation, enlightenment, or other satisfying end-game, and create a wonderful, meaningful life in the process.

Think about it for a moment. Is it more likely that hundreds of millions of people and their brilliant, dedicated, scholarly leaders are completely wrong, or that we all have it mostly right? I believe there is a God who watches over us and who has sent us multiple prophets to help guide us on the path to spiritual enlightenment.  Could you imagine what might happen if we all allowed ourselves to feel this way? Instead of focusing on differences and feeling threatened by one another, we would actually recognize the overwhelmingly powerful benefits of living a spiritual life on our own chosen path.  The “Us” vs. “Them” perception that continues to dominate our world would slowly recede and we may, just may, find some harmony in our shared humanity.

Idealistic?  You bet.  But can anyone doubt that the key to world peace lies in finding a solution to the problem of religious intolerance?  I find it tragic that so many followers believe that their way is the only way and that the rest of us are condemned souls.  This is the height of arrogance in my opinion.  Let us proclaim the mystery of faith….  No one will ever know for certain what happens to us mortals after death.  We can only believe.  And if you believe that your religion is the best way for you to achieve oneness with God, I applaud your faith and wish you well. If, on the other hand, you believe that your religion is the only way for me to accomplish this life goal, then we have a serious problem.  We should respect others who have a different belief and truly (not with lip service and hidden disdain) appreciate their chosen path as a very real avenue to their desired outcome in life, whether that term be “salvation,” “enlightenment,” or another state of being.  END

Standard

Wherefore Civil Discourse?

This is a test for a first blog.  I wrote this last year and the Cincinnati Enquirer published it in April, 2012.  Thought I would start with this to see how blogging works.  I still like the piece, and some news out of Washington makes me hopeful that we will once again see some leadership out of our political leaders.  In the meantime, hopefully all of us keep pushing for civility and respect in our own discussions on challenging topics.  Paul Haffner 7/27/13

Wherefore Civil Discourse?

A disconcerting thought has been gnawing at me for a while now.  I am now certain of its truth and it truly saddens me.  As a society, we have slowly become incapable of civil discourse and would rather shield ourselves in ignorance than listen to an opposing point of view.  I have not gleaned this from watching MSNBC or listening to Rush Limbaugh. That is too easy.  No, I slowly found this by watching and listening to regular folks.

Two recent snippets of conversations really drove this point home. One was a colleague who expressed utter contempt for President George W. Bush.  Another was an acquaintance who explained that he would rather have bamboo shoved under his fingernails (or something akin to that) than watch President Obama address the nation. Now I know these people well enough to know they are educated and well-intentioned. And this is not about two isolated comments.  This is about a national trend of intolerance I have witnessed in recent years.

There have always been people on the fringes who assaulted “the other side” and made it their mission to lambast or lampoon any idea generated from across the aisle. But this has somehow become the new normal. We have grown so distrustful of our perceived adversaries that we cannot even stop to listen (even critically) to their ideas. Compromise is gone; leadership is a lost art.

I am a Republican that often votes for Democrats. Yes – that is absolutely possible and the way it should be. I listen. I think. I vote.  And if I cannot get enough education on a particular issue, I abstain. There are no party lines that mandate my voting record.  And here is a real bombshell — I am perfectly willing to have my opinions on political and other “taboo” issues swayed by persuasive arguments from the other side.  There are few, if any, absolutes in this world, and I have no fear of modifying my beliefs if a compelling argument is made. This nation was founded on democratic principles of debate and discourse — not distrust and contempt. One of the greatest framers, Thomas Jefferson, said the following: “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”  Amen to that.

So why do we now look so hard to isolate ourselves in various ideological camps and refuse to even give grudging respect to the other point of view?  I for one actually respect a politician whose voting record or other past acts show independent thought.  Give me a “flip-flop” over a party-line automaton any day.  In my opinion, this often shows an actual ability to think — to hear the other side, work to a resolution, and perhaps to do what is best in the end after serious soul-searching. It may also show personal growth over a long career — something laudable indeed.

My wife and I hate it when people assume they know the way we think because of some perceived stereotype. We are both free thinkers and are working diligently to raise two kids who will do the same. I don’t do this for the sake of unpredictability. I do this because I seek personal growth which can only come through hearing and studying other points of view on important topics. I may stay right where I am, but I will listen, consider, and weigh the points offered by my friend or adversary. And though I may disagree, I will not disrespect. This applies to my friends, adversaries, and certainly the current or former President of the United States of America.

END

Standard