Data mining is based upon algorithms written by analysts. It is governed by the same potential for error that pervades every human endeavor. Analytic errors, however, are the least of the problems with data mining. In a typical algorithm, there are many variables that can be manipulated to attain pre-specified objectives. For example, suppose a large property leasing company wanted to increase its profit margin by raising its income. Among the many variables it might consider—cutting costs, reducing vacancy rates with longer term leases, increasing income by building new units in high costs housing regions, automating lease management procedures, etc.—it might include the universal economic element of demand. One of the byproducts of bloating the demand calculation is that it can be self-fulfilling. Market analysis of demand is behind the co- location of so many fast food vendors within a stone’s throw of each other. Interestingly, co-located fast food chains in malls do seem to increase demand because of their ready availability to shoppers. But in the case of our property leasing company, as much as a 20 to 30 percent increase in rents can be justified by simply tweaking the demand variable. Alleged market forces instead of a desire to increase corporate profits can then be credited for gouging tenants.

Now apply the same principles of analytic data mining to politics, specifically to politically based polling. Electorate data collection and interpretation can be effective in directing a political campaign to win its identified target audience. But do you see the potential problem here? The same process can be easily manipulated to influence public opinion—which explains the contradictions between polls conducted by the opposing political parties in the same political contest. In the last presidential election, for example, both parties told the voting public that their candidate polled better and would win. (One Party went so far as to actually believe their own skewed polls.) Having stated this problem, I’m not claiming that all pollsters are fudging the results. I’m sure there are reputable organizations doing their best to cull data they think helpful to politicians, as well as the electorate. But how should we the public evaluate the usefulness of this information? If a majority of polls agree with me, should I feel affirmed in my position? If they disagree with me, should I merely disavow the poll results as biased? Or should I consider the pros and cons of every campaign issue or candidate on the merits of respective policy positions? In other words, should I just ignore the polls?

My last question seems to imply the obvious answer. But the problem I’m identifying cannot be so easily ignored, for it is both pervasive and even subversive. To be succinct, we are living in an era of massive data manipulation where basic trust in institutions, industries and government is being undermined, often by these very players. The goal is not just to inform or even to influence the public. Within the realm of politics, polls can be used to obfuscate facts and positions, making the development of practical policies nearly impossible. Here are some examples:
➣ According to the polls, a majority of Americans agree that reducing deficit spending and its antithesis, taxes, are both necessary.
➣ According to the polls, Americans want to reform the safety net while neither cutting benefits nor increasing the taxes that support it.
➣ According to the polls, Americans support the Second Amendment and gun control legislation. (These positions are actually not contradictory, though they are presented as such.)
➣ According to the polls, Americans believe in global warming, but not in legislative restrictions on the use of hydrocarbons (e.g., the carbon tax) or in major government investment in alternative sources of energy. (Our government’s spending on these alternatives lags behind many European nations and China, even though Americans seem more than willing to install solar panels and drive hybrid cars.)
➣ According to the polls, Americans believe in sustainable development but not in the role of government to shape it. (It seems likely that sustainable development might not be understood in any relatable sense. It was defined a quarter of a century ago by the World Commission on Environment and Development, as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”)

This list can be extended, but it suffices to make a point. Pollsters can ask questions and manipulate variables to justify positions that are never specified. In other words, the questions answer themselves without ever dealing with actual policy. For example, how would Americans respond to actual legislative bills that would reform specific elements of the tax code, Medicare, and Social Security? Likewise, would Americans support a carbon tax, environmentally sensitive restrictions on development, and investments in alternative energy sources if the costs and benefits to our posterity were fairly presented? Rarely are we debating actual policy formulae. Instead, we seem to lose focus amidst alleged value conflicts. For example, support for the Second Amendment is used as the argument against background checks. The polls that support the right to bear arms are quoted to advance this argument. But these polls are irrelevant to the real problems we face. Recently it has been reported that 30% of the weapons used in the Northern Triangle of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador were purchased at American retail outlets. Do the polls address this issue and its impact on young immigrants from that region trying to escape the violence? And what right of gun ownership belongs to mass executioners here or abroad? Why do we seem unable to form a gun control policy that does not in any way conflict with the Second Amendment? Perhaps we are responding to a pollster’s question that might read as follows: “Do you support background checks that infringe on your right to own a gun and violate your Second Amendment rights?” I have received poll questions with this type of construction. They elicit a desired response based upon strongly held values, but offer no actual policy formula to address the real problem.

I am not a legislator so I probably should not specify possible bills without the debate and compromise required by our system of government. But I think you can see my point: poll data can affirm public opinion as justification for a lack of actual policy. Both sides of the political spectrum can claim public support for doing nothing! Therefore, no legislative action is undertaken. Remember the so-called “grand bargain” that the President and House Speaker had nearly reached several years ago. Its failure seems to be the demarcation between any possible policy compromise and the current situation in Washington. Rhetorical flourish has replaced policy debates. Accusation substitutes for self-examination and accountability. One-upmanship parades as political virtue; and compromise is a political vice. In this surreal context, the polls are used to serve political gridlock and become nothing more than arrows in the political quiver. They justify the lack of policy proposals and the opportunity for any debate on the matter. Without these proposals and relevant debate, there is no opportunity for compromise. Without compromise, there is no policy.

We are polling for non-action. It’s like fishing for dead fish.

The title of this blog may seem like a premise for me to heap verbal abuse on the press. But it would be duplicitous of me to do so, since much of what I have learned comes from the press. There are many journalistic periodicals and newspapers that adhere to the highest code of fair and honest reporting and that provide thoughtful and in depth commentary. Unfortunately, cable news reporting sometimes fails to follow their example, catering instead to the viewing experience. Whether it is the sight of some news anchor bracing hurricane winds or taking position near billowing tear gas, we are taken live to the scene and held captive to our TV set. Sometimes I find myself anxiously anticipating the moment the news maker is blown off my screen or imagining John Stewart in a gas mask directing rioters and police in the street. I suppose this type of reporting has some value in a world where context no longer matters: it is sufficient just to be there vicariously, like a voyeur. Unfortunately, we live our lives in context.

My real problem with some cable news “shows” reaches to the core of their mission. I have labeled them “fable news” and question their relevance to the role of a free press in our tripartite system of government. When the relationship between the legislative and executive branches becomes stagnant or inept at solving problems, we debate them in the public forum where democracies ultimately live and either prosper or die. For us that public space for dialogue is at home, at work, in communities, and via social media. Much of that dialogue depends upon input from the free press. How the news is presented, how unbiased the commentary, how accurate the reporting are all critical to this ongoing dialogue. In our ideal America, we all assume that the press wants that same honest dialogue that we so desperately need. But is that what fable news wants? At times they make little effort to hide their bias and diligently report what they believe their viewer base wants to hear. Why they do so is made obvious by the manipulative information morsel introduced before the commercial break. It is designed to whet your appetite to hear more. They want you to “stay tuned” for their next offering of salacious, scandalous, frightening, repulsive, and/or provoking tidbit of little or no news value. The danger in this approach is that it conflicts with the traditional role of the so-called fourth estate. Fluff reporting may “make news” by creating controversy, but ignores the journalistic code of getting the story right. The latest example of fable news coverage is the characterization of the President’s major failure (at worst) or his “unartful” faux pa (at best) in last Friday’s briefing before the White House press corps. The President is quoted as saying he had no strategy for dealing with ISIS in Syria. The video clip of his statement to that effect has been run on every network ad nauseum, apparently because it supports the current politicized refrain of an incompetent Administration. The problem with this sound bite is that it was taken out of context. It has metastasized into a serious debate spawned by initially inaccurate reporting. The President was answering a specific question that addressed whether the Administration would bomb ISIS in Syria and, if so, whether he would seek support for Congress first. Everybody in that room knew that the President had authorized reconnaissance overflights to determine the feasibility of such a mission. His answer specified what was already obvious: the Administration had not yet concluded that a bombing mission would be effective and, if they did determine such a strategy, he would consult with Congress so that “the people’s elected officials” would have the opportunity to debate his strategy. There was no real news value in distorting the President’s message other than to support what some might think newsworthy, specifically, Administration incompetency. This theme seems to support what the polls show as a declining popular approval rating. Fable news wants to ride the tide of popular perception rather than report actual context or, for that matter, anything in depth. Many questions to paid consultants on these shows begin with “do you think the President’s failure to . . .” or “how would you grade the President’s response to . . .” These leading questions have been used to affix blame. They beg the question by assuming the President failed at something or needs to be graded like a naïve youth still in school and is therefore culpably or naively responsible for some undesirable outcome. They have been used to explain the existence of ISIS or the escalation of the Syrian civil war or the breakup of Iraq or delay of the Keystone Pipeline or the spike in immigrant children at our borders or IRS misguided implementation of tax law or whatever else can be made to support the incompetence narrative. This “piling on” is not truly newsworthy, since it is unsubstantiated. But it feeds the direction of the polls regarding the President’s approval rating. It is also embarrassing since it is more about the reporting of the news than its actual substance. The issues just enumerated can easily be made to illustrate my point. For example, here are a few facts that call this type of reporting into question:

• ISIS is an offshoot of al Qaeda which immigrated to Iraq when our invasion became the pretext for Jihadist to join the fight against the great Satan. Its leader is a former inmate of one of our military jails; and many of ISIS’ cadres are former generals and officers in Hussein’s army whom we disenfranchised and prohibited from any future government role. Was our current President responsible for that invasion or the policies of exclusion implemented during our occupation of Iraq? If not, then he cannot be responsible for the creation of ISIS.
• The supposed failure of the President to back up his stated redline by bombing Syria was the result of two juxtaposed occurrences: Congress did not call for a vote on his request to authorize an attack, as is required under our Constitution; and Assad agreed to give up his chemical weapons (at the urging of Putin who likely sensed the threat to his hegemony in Syria). Given these circumstances what constitutional power would have allowed the President to wage war on Syria? And, if he had been given Congressional support, under what pretense would he execute his threat if Assad had already agreed to remove his chemical weapons? Would we simply have inserted ourselves into the middle of a civil war where most of the combatants were equally undesirable—including ISIS? The President did not bomb Syria because he was not given the authority and because he no longer had cause. Even if he had, it is not clear that bombing would have changed the course of the civil war. Arming and training the rebels earlier, a separate issue, might have had an impact. But the secular moderates were mostly civilians and their leaders, in many cases, were part of the Syrian diaspora and unfamiliar with the circumstances on the ground. It may be that we failed to help them in time of need; but it is not clear whether their fighting ability could have been raised to a level that would have turned the tide against the Baathist generals and seasoned fighters of ISIS. They may have turned over American weapons to ISIS faster than the Iraqi army. It is difficult to make the case that the President is responsible for the conduct of a civil war where there are so many bad actors actually participating in its escalation. Remember: hindsight is always 20:20. We would have done well if we had done more to help the moderate rebels. Whether that assistance would have turned the tide still remains questionable. In any case, using that supposed “failure” as an impetus for invading Syria now opens a much bigger Pandora’s Box.
• No serious analyst would remove Malicki from responsibility for the splintering of Iraq’s government. Even if he had agreed to allow 10 or 20 thousand American troops to remain in Iraq, those troops would not have had any more political sway over Malicki than the thousands of American Foreign Service workers who remained there in the largest American embassy compound in the world. Could the President have violated the agreement already made by a previous administration and used an occupying US military to force our will on a disagreeable Iraqi government? I think not.
• By law, approval of pipelines rests in those States traversed by these pipelines. In the case of the Keystone Pipeline, additional approval would be needed by the US State Department because it is designed to cross an international border. There are also Federal regulations regarding pipelines, including the EPA assessment, that are required by law. At this point, the Keystone Pipeline has obtained all regulatory approvals and a free pass from the EPA. It would be inappropriate and absurd for the State Department to approve of this pipeline before the States affected by it have made their assessment and approved its construction. This is not just a State’s rights issue, but a matter of natural law regarding eminent domain as interpreted in every State’s constitution. The Keystone Pipeline has NOT been approved in one of the States, because the Courts have ruled that its Governor’s use of eminent domain was unconstitutional. The Courts’ ruling has made some local farmers happy and, apparently, has served well the fable news theme about Administration incompetence and indecisiveness. One might understand why a Democratic President would be reticent about aggravating environmentalist before a decision is even warranted. But how would his approval of this pipeline allow its construction anyway without approval of the State? He cannot be blamed for a decision that would be irrelevant at this point because it is not yet a decision he can make.
• By now it should be obvious that the President did not create the violent and abusive circumstances in Central America that drove parents to send their children to America. The fact that smugglers misrepresented a Presidential executive order is not the fault of this Administration. That order only delayed the deportation of children who have lived in America for over 7 years (pending legislation to address the underlying issues). What more can the President do other than follow existing law and asks Congress for additional funds to address the unique challenge of processing children through our immigration corridor? The President is dealing with the hand given him and without any help from Congress. (Note: at this date, Congress still has not acted on the President’s request for funds.)
• The IRS fiasco was the result of tax law that has been misinterpreted by the IRS for decades. Their attempt to apply it in the current environment where so many alleged “non-profit” organizations appear to be political fundraising entities presents an unsolvable dilemma. Are these organizations “primarily” non-profit as the IRS was endeavoring to determine? Or are they “exclusively” non-profit as the law actually specified? Clearly, the latter question is easy to answer, whereas the former presents some difficulty. The IRS, under pressure from Congress, has clearly given up: they are abandoning attempts to weed out the bad actors, that is, political fundraising organizations parading as non-profits. (It should be noted that Congress could easily settle the issue by affirming the law as written. But that action would endanger a significant source of campaign funds, would it not?) Did the President’s policies or actions have anything to do with the IRS handling of this affair? No!

It is not my intent to give carte blanche support to presidential policy. As in every Administration, there have been legitimate failings. . (Think of Truman’s use of the atom bomb, of Eisenhower’s failure to sign the Geneva Treaty that would have precluded the Vietnam War, of Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs disaster, of Johnson’s conduct of the Vietnam War, of Nixon’s Watergate and his politicized extension of that War, of Reagan’s Iran/Contra affair, of Clinton’s impeachment, and of Bush’s lame justification for preemptive war in Iraq. The only recent President not on my list was the first Bush—perhaps because the one thing for which he was severely criticized was the right and courageous thing to do. Yes, that was his raising of the income tax. Remember “read my lips.”) Among the negatives on President Obama’s resume I would include the health care website fiasco and lack of an effective strategy beyond air support for the Libyan insurgency. The problem I’m addressing here, however, is with malfunctioning news teams that foment distrust of government for the sake of “making news” and servicing their sponsorship or corporate bottom line. The current fable news hype is about the likelihood of American combat troops on the ground in Iraq and possibly in Syria. If that does not bring viewers to the news broadcasts, maybe reports on the dangers of an Ebola epidemic or the imminent onslaught of terrorists from the Middle East wars will. The irresponsibility of fable news can be trivial and even harmless when it touches on wardrobe malfunctions and such. But when it purports to address serious matters that affect the governance of our country, the disservice it can render is unconscionable. Matters of state that require attention are made impenetrable for lack of factual reporting. Blame is attributed inappropriately, further obfuscating any possible solution. Irresponsibly promoting distrust in our elected officials can lead to distrust in government. And that distrust can foment either general apathy or violent revolt.

For the most part, I believe cable news wants to perform the press’s traditional role in our democracy which is informing and educating the electorate. Within the political sphere, their function can be critical in cutting through political jargon, talking points, official spin, and position papers to the core issues we need to understand. When functioning within their traditional role, we owe them a debt of gratitude. But for the practitioners of fable news, we need to change the channel. When you hear a leading question that presumes unsubstantiated judgment, change the channel. When a controversial sound bite is presented without context, change the channel. When facts are presented without offering credible sources, change the channel. When you are told the roof is falling, check the supporting beams. In other words, research the facts yourself if you have any anxiety about what has been reported. If you find out you have been duped, email the news broadcaster, his/her show, or the network. And, yes, change the channel. Maybe we can eliminate the “talking heads” spouting their nonsense and pompously reading scripts designed to gain viewer share. The issues I have referenced in this blog are real and deserve serious consideration, not self-serving fables. So I have to ask why . . . ?

A bedraggled congressman sat on the steps of Congress bemoaning his sad plight. Out of earshot to any eavesdropper, he recanted the first lines from Article 1 of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .” But every attempt he’d made to propose legislation for the people he represented was rejected by his Party’s leadership. In fact, nearly every bill proposed to “promote the general Welfare” was tabled. Further, even discussion on matters of national interest was sidetracked into endless debates, whether it addressed immigration, tax reform, infrastructure renovation, a balanced energy use/environment protection plan, or even basic civil rights for minorities and women. He buried his head in his hands in total despair. But a bystander saw his despondency and took pity on him. Placing a hand on the congressman’s shoulder, he asked what troubled the poor man. The congressman replied, “How can I be part of a legislative body that refuses to legislate, a government that refuses to govern? My position is a joke. I think I should just quit.” The bystander sat down next to the congressman and asked, “Have you heard of the parable of Ferguson?” The congressman shook his head from side to side. “Then let me tell you the story,” the bystander continued. “Once upon a time, there was this small town. It was co-habited by two distinct groups. The smaller group held all the positions of power. But one day a member of the ruling minority killed somebody from the majority. The ruling minority appeared unwilling to investigate the circumstances of this crime or determine accountability for the death of one of its citizens. The majority rose up in protests. But the protests drew a draconian response which infuriated the protesters, led to civil strife and violence, and highlighted the underlying problem. Do you know what the real problem was in this town?” The congressman wearily looked up at his storyteller, wondering what this story had to do with his predicament. “Well, I’ll tell you,” the storyteller eagerly carried on. “There was a longstanding lack of trust between the governed and the governing. That’s where the story had to turn. Though they represented nearly 70% of the town, the majority made up only 6% of the voting electorate in municipal elections. In the next election, however, they voted in a more representative local government.” The congressman’s interest was now peaked, prompting him to ask, “How do you think this town’s solution applies to my predicament?” The bystander looked down at the pitiable congressman and patted him comfortingly on the shoulder. “That’s simple,” he answered, “in a democracy the governed have to elect the governing. You’re off the hook, my friend, until the electorate assumes its responsibility.”

The preceding, as you may have guessed, was inspired by the parable of the Good Samaritan, though the parallels are rather uneven. The Good Samaritan “was moved to compassion” for somebody of a different tribe or class. The people in the Ferguson parable are moved to act in behalf of the general welfare of all its citizens, not just the fallen one. The artifice of this parable attempts to encapsulate the story of our American democracy and of its uneven evolution. Past setbacks to securing the general welfare, for instance, started at its outset with an African slave being counted as a 3/5 inhabitant of our new republic. Eventually, that injustice was corrected in law, as were other injustices affecting suppressed classes of people. Since our democracy has always been conjoined with an equally “free” economy (initially called laisse faire), it has brought wealth to millions, a growing middle class, and a standard of living for our citizens that became a model for the world. But, in that free-wheeling economic evolution, we too encountered setbacks, where the excesses of capitalism impinged upon our freedom, creating monopolies, unsafe working conditions, pollution hazards, dangerous products, and so on. These setbacks presented Americans with decision points in our progress. In each case, we rose as a nation with effective judicial, legislative, and executive responses. Of course, those responses are what you would expect of a democratic system whose laws reflect the values of its citizens.

Now a parable is not reality: it is a story meant to teach us something about reality. Ferguson’s reality at this moment appears to be a reawakening of democracy: citizens are registering to vote, 70,000 of them signed a petition for the District Attorney to recuse himself from the Brown case, and many are organizing not only to conduct peaceful demonstrations, but for future campaigns. These are the normal corrective responses to setbacks in a democracy: voters are moved protest, to petition, and to vote for their general welfare, as they can best define it at the time. If special interests or lobbyists write legislation, if paid advertising distorts the facts to dupe an electorate, if politicians carry out their public duties in a way that serves their reelection needs instead of the public interest, if discontent with government becomes an excuse to not participate in a democracy, then democracy is truly put in jeopardy.

A former UN ambassador during the Reagan administration, commenting on the break-up of Soviet Russia, wondered whether the fall of communism was a precursor to the fall of capitalism. More than two decades later, I think we can safely say her comment in no way prefigured what has actually transpired. The US is still, per capita, the wealthiest nation in the world. Its influence by virtue of a common currency and banking dominance has largely created an economic world order in which the European Union, the BRIC nations, and the underdeveloped nations of Africa and Asia have all prospered. Surely capitalism is not in decline, but democracy may be.

Our history has shown us there is a balancing act between capitalism and democracy, rather like a seesaw. When properly balanced, our nation prospers both in its freedom and its wealth. Out of balance, we suffer setbacks in our evolution of what John Adams called an experiment in democratic government. Wealth inequality and congressional gridlock are as much symptoms as problems. Do we need tax reform, elimination of Party-controlled gerrymandering, or campaign financial reform? Absolutely, these are keystone changes that will hold up and extend the life of our republic! But there will be no movement in Washington to address these issues without a groundswell of public pressure around specific policy initiatives. The US as a whole needs to learn the lesson of Ferguson before we succumb to mass disillusionment and the desperation of rioting in the streets. Let’s be clear: our tripartite government does not work until it speaks with one voice; and that voice has to be the voice of the people it represents.

It is commonly said that voters hate Congress, but love their individual congressmen/women. But voting is not a popularity contest! Instead, it is the exercise of a constitutional right to determine the positions and policies that benefit the electorate as a whole. It requires informed judgment. There are many knowledgeable and reasonable prescriptions for change already in the public forum. In my humble opinion, I would vote for any politician who would eliminate politically controlled gerrymandering, advance a fairer tax system, and institute public financing of elections with strict and transparent monitoring of all private money and resources proffered to public or elected officials. The agenda before Congress today, to the extent that one exists, reflects Party over public interest and moneyed interests over the general welfare of Americans. If we Americans allow Congress to dither as they have, we will be party to the devolution of our system of government. And that would be a tragedy not only for us, but for the world.

Worldwide, we find women bear the brunt of men’s violence. They are raped, beaten and even murdered, especially during wars as witnessed in Bosnia, central Africa, and currently in Syria (where over 30,000 sexual assaults have been reported to the UN). They are subject to genital mutilation in 27 countries in Africa and to a lesser extent in Asia, the Middle East, and within immigrant communities elsewhere. In India and Pakistan they can be stoned, stabbed or beaten to death for refusing an arranged marriage or for engaging in a sexual relationship before marriage. In Afghanistan, parts of Africa, and the Middle East, they are denied an education and may be physically attacked for attending school. If it is true that we measure the punishment to the crime, then women must be at fault. Otherwise why are they so brutally punished?

In America, we like to think that women are treated fairly. They can vote, work beside men, run for office, and live without fear of physical mistreatment. But is this the reality that actually exists, or the restricted frame in which we place the picture we choose to see? It is true that women can vote. The women’s suffrage movement won that freedom, but more than a hundred years after our nation’s founding. And women do now work in jobs previously held exclusively by men. Their entry into that job market accelerated during World War II, when their men were off at war. Since then, women have gained access to nearly every job our economy has to offer, but at an earning’s ratio of 77 cents to the dollar compared to their male counterparts in equivalent jobs. And yes, they can be and are elected to public office, but at a rate well below their proportionate number in the population. (For example, we have 20 women in the US Senate, where 50 would be a more representative number.) So the rise of women in America is still a work in progress, some might say; and our rosy picture may still seem untarnished. At least American women, according to this self-justifying account, are not viewed as property the way women in other countries are. The international sex trade, for instance, involves millions of women, whereas only tens of thousands are American. As a statement of fact, sex slavery affects only a small minority of Americans and, it could be argued, in no way exemplifies the objectification of American women as a whole. But let’s reframe our picture and paint with a broader brush. Consider a few facts:

• Over 400,000 rape cases have not been prosecuted for months and even years for lack of public investments in rape kits. In many cases, serial rapists have been allowed to continue their rampage, free of prosecution as a result.
• On our college campuses as many as one in five coeds have reported themselves victims of sexual assault. Authorities believe many more such assaults go unreported. Until recently, this victimization of young women has gone relatively unnoticed and shamelessly unaddressed.
• Healthcare provisioning for women is often restricted and/or provided at more costs than for men. (The Affordable Care Act has begun to address this inequity, at least for those States that have chosen to support fully its implementation and accept Medicaid expansion.)
• Maternity leave is still not universally available and often not paid where it is provided. Moreover, women of child bearing age are often passed over for promotion. Motherhood or its prospect should have no bearing on a person’s promotion in the workplace. Where it is so, we find a unique form of job discrimination specifically targeted at women.
• Clinics that specialize in women’s care have been closed in many mid-Western and Southern states where anti-abortionists have gained political leverage in State legislatures. Whatever scientific or religious views one might have on the viability of human life in the womb (at conception or after 20 weeks), the closing of these specialized facilities is a callous disregard for women’s health and well-being.
• Here in America, we have the highest incidence of spousal homicide in the developed world. The victims are almost always women.

Are not denial of medical care, disregard for women’s maternity requirements, sexual assault, rape, and even murder examples of cruel and unusual punishment? Why do we expose our wives, daughters, and sisters to this inhuman treatment? Is there any possible justification for the way they are punished? Or must they be found at fault?

“The man (Adam) said, ‘The woman you placed at my side (Eve) gave me fruit from the tree (of the knowledge of good and evil) and I ate.’” (Genesis 3:12) These are the words of accusation that justified the curse placed upon women by the God of the Old Testament. He condemned them to bear their children in pain and be subject to their husbands who shall “have dominion over you” (Ibid.). Adam too was cursed and sentenced to work for his livelihood, “because you have listened to your wife” (Genesis 3:17). With those words of justification, the perennial reign of the Goddess came to an end in the West.

For those who interpret the Bible’s words literally, I have no words to express my meaning. For the rest, I ask you to consider what is in your heart. Does that primal curse against women linger there? Should they not be heard and their subjugation and pain remain unnoticed or, worse, be seen as somehow innate to their gender? Surely, the “fault” lies not with women, but in a subconscious misogyny at the root of our culture. We are all born of women. But we need to be reborn in spirit if we are truly to appreciate them. They are our mothers and the bedrock upon which all human life and compassion are built.
(This blog is written on Father’s Day in grateful recognition that fatherhood does not exist without women.)

This blog’s title presumes there might be a realistic answer to a political question. But is that presumption justified? Let’s examine the matter further, both in terms of political assessments and comparable historical antecedents. We can begin with a few political perspectives. Conservatives have said that President Obama is against the 2nd Amendment, American “exceptionalism”, industry/corporate “job creators,” religious freedom, and family values. They would conclude that his style of progressivism was far too liberal, even radical, for America. Progressives, on the other hand, claim him as their own because of his advocacy for more income equality, universal health care, gay and women’s rights, and his alleged restraint in the use of executive war powers. These assessments are far too expansive to be addressed thoroughly in this medium. But I feel we can determine how he fairs in answer to this question by reviewing some illustrative highlights of this President’s policies, as follows:

• Economic policy – Given the recent financial crisis, how far left or right did our President lean? With his support of the Dodd/Frank bill, he often quoted Theodore Roosevelt as the architect of corporate regulation. It is true that Theodore Roosevelt fought crony capitalism. But his fight was not the same as William Jennings Bryan, the leading progressive of that era. The latter sought the betterment of the commonwealth, whereas Teddy wanted a better run economy where the barons of industry were curtailed. His was a management philosophy that included both prosecution and regulation. On the progressive side, Bryan supported the former, but not the latter. He, like other progressives of that era, feared that regulatory agencies would eventually fall under the influence of those they were tasked to control. The Obama administration has more often relied upon government regulation rather than the prosecution of miscreants. So he was not aligned on the left or the right with either of these men. Perhaps this fact explains why his economic recovery actions have not wholly won over either side.
• Campaign finance reform – William Taft, considered more conservative than Roosevelt, was wary of the influence of money on politics and passed the first campaign contribution disclosure act. (He eventually became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Therein is an irony, considering the “conservative” makeup of our current Court and its recent rulings on campaign financing.) President Obama, for his part, has repeatedly voiced his concern about hidden money in politics. But he does accept money from the OFA PAC (which does, incidentally, publish its donor list) and has done little to support those in Congress who advocate campaign finance reform. In fact, he declined public financing in both of his presidential campaigns. So whether you consider campaign reform a liberal, conservative, or non-partisan issue, you would have to say that our President is ambivalent on this matter.
• Foreign policy – The President has wound down two wars and has declined to take the bait of armed conflict in Syria, the Ukraine, and Libya (at least as far as putting troops on the ground). By contrast, his four predecessors have waged wars in South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In fact, with the exceptions of Harding, Hoover, Coolidge and Carter, America has been on a war footing with every other American President for the last 100 years. Although it might appear that President Obama has been disinclined to use force, he has actually used force in a different way. He has bombed military targets in Libya, breached sovereign borders to conduct surgical drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan. He has threatened Syria with aerial bombing; and he has implied the same course of action with respect to Iran. As a result, Syria has agreed to rid itself of chemical weapons; and Iran is negotiating a settlement to forgo the development of nuclear weapons. But it isn’t the threat or use of force that seems to be the preferred instrument of coercion or persuasion for this President. Instead, it is the use of our diplomatic influence and economic power. He has used economic sanctions against North Korea, Iran, and now Russia. Whether his advocacy for international order and respect for borders will harbor a new century of conflict resolution without wars remains to be seen. Like H. W. Bush, he has used diplomacy to pull together a coalition of nations to support his foreign policy. Perhaps his dogged tendency to preserve peace in the world through international diplomacy and the support of the United Nations harbingers Woodrow Wilson more than any other president. Whether he will succeed without the use of force—where the first Bush could not–remains to be seen. Though he has expanded the use of drones and economic sanctions, his preference for diplomacy seems to me more like the first Bush and Wilson, that is, a conservative and a liberal President, respectively.
• Domestic policy – President Obama’s major domestic achievement is the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Although only liberal Democratic presidents have called for universal healthcare, the expansion of private health care insurance authorized by this President was notably a Republican construct. It was originally proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation as an alternative to the Clinton plan for a public health care expansion. Senator Bob Dole, a Republican nominee for President, advanced this proposal before his more liberal colleagues, including Senator Kennedy, rejected it. Former Governor Romney successfully implemented the very same mixture of private insurance exchanges and mandated coverage in Massachusetts, though he declined to advance it as a federal program during his presidential campaign. So President Obama has successfully moved the country closer to a very liberal objective of universal healthcare by means of a complicated, conservative mechanism that uses the private sector. Was his initiative liberal in intent, but a move to the right in form and execution? Well, if it was the President’s purpose to win support from all sides of the health care reform sector, his policy formulation seems to have persuaded less than he had desired. For conservatives, it was a disastrous policy failure for which they will continuously dissect every aspect to justify their position. For liberals, the ACA’s “reform” of a monstrously complex private insurance market failed to deliver fundamental and transformative change to the health care delivery system. For most people, regardless of their political persuasion, the new law is simply too complex to assess, especially in its long term impact. In principle, the ACA is reflective of healthcare reform either proposed or enacted by two recent Republican nominees for President. In practice, Democrats find its complicated provisions difficult to explain to a wary and confused liberal base.

What can we learn from these comparisons about our President’s political persuasions? He seems to disagree on substance with both the conservative Roosevelt and the progressive Bryan on how to deal with the excesses of capitalism. His philosophical position on campaign financing more closely aligns with the very conservative Taft, though his actions seem out of line with Taft’s (though Taft’s conservatism would hardly be recognizable in the current version of the Republican Party, as is the case with much of that Party’s contemporary platform). The emphasis of his foreign policy is aligned with H. W. Bush, a conservative Republican, and bears an ideological concurrence with Woodrow Wilson, a liberal Democrat. His most important legislative contribution utilizes a conservative, private industry inspired, solution to extend healthcare provisioning to more Americans. Though it achieves one aspect of a liberal agenda, many progressives find it difficult to lend the President their wholehearted support.

In all fairness, most Presidents fail to deliver on all aspects of their respective Party platform or ideology. Reaganomics led to burgeoning federal deficits AND higher taxes for wage earners. Clinton’s compromise on Glass-Seagull may have achieved health care for more American children, but it paved the way for Wall Street excess and near collapse. I can find enumerable examples in presidential history that illustrate my point: American Presidents might campaign on the basis of their Party’s platform, but they usually attempt to govern in the interest of all and at the behest and/or concurrence of Congress.

My conclusion: politics can become a virtual world that bears limited resemblance to reality. The problem we in the electorate have with political questions is our failure to realize that fact. We too often vote the “party line,” or accept campaign promises on ideological grounds, rather than on the formulation of actual policy. Therefore, the question in my title is purely rhetorical, as our most of the conservative/liberal bromides proffered in campaigns. In fact, as long as we continue to label political candidates, we will continue to be disappointed by their performance in office. The key problem, in my estimate, is the failure to recognize that politics exists to serve policy. The reverse situation condemns a democracy to a puerile parody of itself.

Let’s begin with an admission: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590, is very complicated and its costs and savings are depended upon future actions that the CBO could not estimate. Since all of the on-budget costs are implemented under the “pay-as-you-go” policy, they cannot affect future deficits should the costs increase. In other words, our taxes could go up, but not our deficits. Nevertheless, the final CBO estimate in March of 2010 concludes that 355 billion of net outlays are more than offset by 473 billion of new revenues over ten years. (My earlier blog, “Subtlety versus Bombast,” debunks the numbers loosely quoted by partisan factions.) However, it should be obvious that the CBO is not a guarantor of the future. By its own admission the “CBO has not completed an estimate of all the discretionary costs that would be associated with H.R. 3590.” In their summary to Congress, it indicates many areas where the numbers could fluctuate up or down. But the CBO is the only impartial accounting organization we seem to have. In the past, the political party that has disagreed with them is the one who voted in the minority for a specific legislation, whether Democrat or Republican. Whatever the predictive number of future costs may be, it is clear that health care costs will continue to rise, though perhaps below the double digit rate experienced before the new law was enacted. Health care cost inflation remains as the underlying problem that will affect everyone, especially State and Federal Government Medicaid expenditures under the new law.

So what should we do next to improve our health care infrastructure? According to the CBO estimate the new law could save nearly a half trillion dollars in non-coverage savings. So Congress’ next step should be to (1) first, assure these non-coverage savings are realized and (2) relook at the structure of our health care delivery system to identify cost effective reforms that Congress might incentivize the health care industry to initiate. There are significant systems’ analyses of various segments of the industry that would benefit from reform. Some improvements, spurred by initiatives in the new law, have already been undertaken. Though I am far from an expert in this field, it is easy to list a number of possible initiatives:
• Make doctors salaried employees who are rewarded for positive outcomes rather than for treatment instances (the decline in private practices is already underway as hospitals and various medical associations fill the industry landscape);
• Remove the “charge master” bureaucracy used by hospitals to peg billing many times more than actual costs (as determined and used by Medicare in its billing). This practice was instituted to cover no-charge emergency services in compliance with the law signed by Reagan in the 80s. The unforeseen consequence of this law is the unseemly overcharging of the non-insured and unfair leveraging of negotiated billing settlements with insurance companies;
• Provide financial incentives for the digitizing of health records and for secure and shared access to these records by patients and authorized medical professionals both within and between regional and/or state specified jurisdictions;
• Enable collaborative treatment programs across disciplines, probably along the lines already pioneered by organizations like the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic;
• Provide financial incentives for the education and development of primary care physicians;
• Identify best standards of treatment as determined by scientific and statistical evidence of effectiveness;
• Require hospitals to report to HHS on their effectiveness in reducing admission recidivism and in eliminating hospital incurred illnesses;
• Reevaluate depreciation incentives for the purchase of hospital equipment to eliminate purchases based strictly on financial grounds rather than on sound treatment options;
• Make preventive care even more ubiquitous, including not only health care providers but prospective care recipients.

Though these are initiatives enumerated by a layman, they at least illustrate that there is a way forward. More encouraging is the fact that I lifted them from health care professionals. Congress should listen to them for they are in the best position to not only reduce costs, but improve health care for our citizens. The Affordable Care Act has changed the foundation of health care in America: it is no longer mainly a business, but a service to its consumers. Insurance companies now have service targets as well as financial goals. If we continue on this path, providing health care will become a service in which we all participate and take responsibility. What follows “Obamacare” has to be a better health care system, not just a more available a/o affordable one.