(This is a re-post of a previously published page on 8/28/2013)

August 28, 1963 and the march on Washington, where was I then? I don’t even remember hearing Martin Luther King’s speech when it was delivered. Did I miss the broadcast? Or was I too involved with preparations for my junior year of college to notice? I remember being intimidated by the course of study facing me in my chosen major. The subsequent two years would be consumed with the Greek philosophers and their successors in modern times from Descartes and Kant to the existentialists. My brain would be tasked as well by the syllogisms of Thomas Aquinas and the theological contemplations of Thomas Merton, men truly mindful and lofty of soul. But was my mind grounded by exposure to ideas that seemed as expansive as galaxies flying apart? Upon my eventual graduation from college, I toured Europe with my favorite aunt, a beautiful woman only 14 years older than myself and far wiser. During that time together, she began the process of deconstructing everything I thought I had learned. After that jolting experience, I returned home less sure of the academic template I assumed would guide me in the world. And then I met a sweet and charming young black woman who slammed the last bolt in my coffin of lifeless ideas. She startled me with her half-playful remark, “What you lack is soul.”

Listening to Dr. King’s most famous speech today reminded me of what we have all gained in the last 50 years. At that time, he urged non-blacks to view his people differently, recognizing that “their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom” and “their destiny is part of our destiny.” Referring to his people, he called them “veterans of creative suffering” and the black man, “an exile in his own land.” He wasn’t Moses leading his tribe to the Promised Land somewhere else. Most blacks have more tenure on this continent than any other group, except for Native Americans. But they did not come here by choice, but in chains. Their suffering under those conditions could be called “creative” in the sense that it brought forth the dignity of their human spirit and its capability to rise above pain and oppression—what came to be called “soul.” Today, we now call black people African-Americans; for they did indeed bring something from Africa very integral to contemporary America. We have all benefited not only from their excellence in the arts and athletics, but also in the awakening they affected in the conscience of all Americans. The President referred to the “coalition of conscience,” and rightly so. With the slaves’ freedom came the beginning of freedom for the persecutor from the dehumanizing bondage to injustice. The march on Washington 50 years ago helped extend our moral boundaries along a new trajectory that would eventually include peoples of all colors, race, gender and sexual orientation. That trajectory is our new shared destiny. When Dr. King spoke of brotherhood and non-violent change, he was motivated by compassion and the spiritual impetus of an oppressed but soulful people. Like all suppressed groups through history, blacks could either unite around vindicated rage or pull together in goodwill to oppose injustice with courage and faith in the goodness of their fellow human beings. Truly, it wasn’t just “soul” music that African-Americans brought to all Americans, but a new collective consciousness.

Two women rescued me from the literate idiocy of purposeless ideas. The younger woman, a passionate African-American, touched my heart with her own and seeded it with compassion. What we have all gained from the “veterans of creative suffering” is a renewed awareness of the brotherhood and sisterhood we all share—our common soulfulness.

What did we learn from the recent government shutdown and debt ceiling fiasco? Well, the world does indeed seem different when seen through just one eye, whether one covers the right or left eye. It is more than depth perception that is sacrificed. What is lost is any relation to the world as it really is. Like one-eyed cats, our politicians seem to walk into walls, whether on their left or right, depending upon which eye they choose to cover. To some extent, cable news practiced the same single vision one-sidedness, deliberately distorting or taking quotes out of context to favor one perspective over another.

Personally, I thought my sanity was under attack, until I saw a license plate frame the other day with the following inscription: “Inner Peace” (above the plate) and “World Peace” (below). On the plate itself was an abbreviation of the car owner’s name. I wanted to contact and thank him or her for reminding me wherein to find peace of mind. Simply accepting a world of opposites is the best prescription for a dissembled mind. Oddly, conflicts can lead to lasting resolutions, but only when they are seen for what they are: diverse perspectives on the same reality. This more comprehensive view works not only for the individual, but for groups, communities, states, and even the world. Yes, if we could multiply inner peace by the number of people on this planet, we would likely attain world peace–though I would settle for a working Congress. After weeks of government shutdown and debt ceiling mania, our political parties finally put down their “talking points” and called an armistice without gaining any advantage for one side or the other. More importantly, for those of us who watched the cat fight, nothing worthwhile was gained, and no vital issues were resolved. As the President said—and the Speaker of the House agreed—there were no winners or losers. The country would have benefited more if Congress had simply extended its “vacation” through October.

It’s true: one-eyed cats tend to walk into walls.

My son-in-law shared a link with me today that reminded me how “talking points,” “catch phrases,” and “labels” have distorted the meaning of words. For example, “second amendment rights,” “third rail of politics,” and “socialism” are terms that elicit emotions at variance with their meaning. Let’s examine these terms closer. The right to bear arms is stated in the Constitution as a means for citizens to form a “well-regulated Militia” to secure the freedom of the state. It does not necessarily address the right of citizens to own high powered weapons of modern warfare or to bear them in public places such as schools and churches. Likewise, Social Security is not so sacrosanct that it can never be changed. In fact, it has been revised and modified a number of times since Roosevelt established it. And then there is the defamatory use of the word “socialism.” As an economic or political theory socialism advocates, according to Webster, the “collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” Certainly, that definition would satisfy Carl Marx and reflects the system of government that was attempted and largely failed in Russia. However, it in no way reflects the various social legislations passed by Congress in order to improve the conditions and opportunities of Americans rather than to own the fruits of their labor. In a capitalist system, the main threat to this ownership is not government but the concentration of capital and power in the hands of a few. The term for such a dismal outcome is an “oligarchy.” James Madison so feared that threat that he devised the so-called “American System” to advance a partnership between the merchant class and the government. He felt that a rising business class would never overthrow a democratic system that benefited them. I think his concept of partnership has served us well for most of our history . . . until now. When 40% of the wealth of our nation falls under the control of a few, however, one must question whether the fruits of labor are being shared fairly. When a few have the capacity to fund political campaigns and lobbys out-of-proportion to their limited numbers, one must question whether their influence out-weighs the will of the majority. In other words, it is not socialism that we should fear in America, but a growing deficit of social justice. The following link may cause you to take notice.
Socialism vs. Social Justice

The first fallacy in my tale is that government’s role in assuring fairness and the general welfare, including the marketplace, is paramount to socialism and inimical to a capitalist, free-market system. The second fallacy is that a free democratic system of government can be governed by unrestricted debate within the halls of Congress.

The concept that fairness and the general welfare are solely the private concerns and responsibility of individual citizens is disavowed in the preamble to the Constitution. Our system of government was founded on the principle that justice and the general welfare are among the primary goals of governance. When in the late nineteenth century the great barons of the industrial age seemed to monopolize national wealth, a Republican president worked with Congress to pass the Sherman Anti-trust Act. When the banks over extended themselves and floundered in the market crash of 1929, a Democratic president met with business leaders to promote a constructive turnaround in the market. But his efforts to legalize this initiative were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and were considered “socialistic” by his opponents. So, having learned his lesson in constitutional law, he instead used the federal government to create the social mechanisms that helped relieve the pain of depression era citizens and promote the general welfare. Of course, many of President Roosevelt’s initiatives are still with us today. In fact, subsequent Congresses have enacted many laws in the same genre of social legislation—from the G.I Bill to the Social Security Act of 1962 to Medicare/Medicaid and, more recently, the Affordable Care Act. At the same time, Congress has restricted social legislature it considered non-productive, as in the welfare reform of the 1990s, and in various efforts to limit regulatory control that seemed to impede free markets. All these legislative acts were performed in the name of fairness and the general welfare of Americans, including their businesses. To deny this governing philosophy is to invalidate the American system of government and to revise our civic history. Of course, there will always be arguments around what best promotes the general welfare. Those debates have resounded on the floor of Congress from the very beginning of our constitutional system. But never have our elected officials denied their responsibility to govern by these principles, until now.

The second fallacy is the efficacy of unlimited Congressional debates. The only efficacy that can be associated with legislative debate is the commitment of its participants to compromise. Debating in essence is a zero sum game. It ends in total victory for one side and complete dismissal of the other. Usually, the debates we witness in Congress are hyperbole-driven arguments designed to advance a position while discrediting an opponent’s. Wise legislators are supposed to sort out the kernel from the shaft on either side and find that common ground where compromise resides. The final resolution to this process rests in the vote where the will of the majority rules. Democracy demands a vote and acceptance of the will of the majority. During the constitutional convention, for example, the issue of slavery was debated, but no resolution could be found. The words “slavery” and “slave” do not even appear in our Constitution. The clauses referring to “three-fifths of all persons” and any “person held to service or labour” were artful dodges of a reality that simply could not be broached. The southern states could neither abide the loss of their financial and cultural system nor face what might potentially become a vengeful slave rebellion. Without a compromise, the debate gradually became more rancorous over the seceding years, until the only resolution possible was raised to an existential threat. Although there is no doubt that President Lincoln was an abolitionist, he dearly wanted to preserve the union and the very crux of our Constitution (“We the people . . . in order to form a more perfect Union”). With the admission of new states to the union, the issue of slavery in these new states gave birth to various Solomon-like compromises successfully debated by the likes of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. But the South viewed these sham compromises as forced concessions and in the words of John C. Calhoun, the South no longer had any “compromise to offer . . . and no concession . . . to make.” The lack of compromise and refusal to accept the will of the majority states eventually led to secession and the Civil War.

Currently, our Congress is divided on the issue of health care. Obviously, there is no proportionality between health care reform and slavery or between a government/economic shutdown and civil war. But the language and dire threats of the current debate do bear a resemblance to what transpired over 150 years ago. An elected majority in both houses of the Congress voted and passed the Affordable Care Act nearly four years ago. The Republican minority fiercely objected at the time and, during the intervening years, has gained a majority voice in the House where it has voted repetitively for the repeal of this law. Republicans seem absolutely convinced that this law will wreak great havoc on Americans and have threatened to shut down the government and even the economy as a result of this conviction. They will debate, but will not compromise. They refuse to accept or concede to the will of an elected majority. And they advance an existential threat to the government and to the American economy in support of their conviction.

The question I have to ask is how does the Affordable Care Act merit such fierce opposition? Is it not the role of the government to address the inadequacies in our health care system? And why can’t the Republicans accept a law duly passed by Congress, signed by the President, and vetted by the Supreme Court? With their majority in the House, they still have the power to correct any flaws in this law. After all, both Democrats and Republicans have started from a common base: Republican concepts of a universal mandate and private insurance exchanges. The Democrats gave up on their public option almost immediately in an effort to win bipartisan support. Do not both parties have an interest in correcting any inefficiencies or unintended consequences that may arise in this law’s implementation? It seems to me that Congress has been held hostage by the fallacy that government has no role to play in promoting the general welfare of its citizens—which happens to include their physical health. In addition, Congress has been subjected to the fallacy that endless debate should brook any compromise or acceptance of majority rule. In the midst of this turmoil, neither side in this never-ending debate shows any regard for our system of government. One side admits the need to compromise without advancing any concession to the need to begin negotiations. The other side only desires a “conversation” without acknowledging any desire to compromise. In neither position is there any room for real dialogue.

The only factor that can change this self-destructive dynamic is the electorate. My tale of two fallacies cannot be the tail that wags the fortunes of our country into dysfunctional chaos.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R 3590—otherwise known as “Obamacare”—is Agamemnon or the most significant social legislation since Medicare. It either has “death panels” or life-saving preventive care for the elderly. It will either kill jobs and increase health care costs or increase demand for healthcare providers and bring new efficiencies to that sector of the economy, effectively bringing down costs over time. One congresswoman actually claimed that Obamacare will “kill woman, children and the elderly.” Further, small businesses will die, U. S. deficits will explode, and the Government will unravel in red tape. When the Republicans stood on the sidelines while the Democrats struggled to pass H. R. 3590, they threw every brick they could into the process. Now that the bill is about to be fully enacted, the Democrats are quietly enjoying the internecine skirmishes within the Republican ranks over futile attempts to scuttle its implementation with threats of government shutdown and debt ceiling perversity. Given all this political uproar, one might ask what are the specific problems with PPAC and, more importantly, what are our elected officials doing to correct them? So far, there is no evidence that small businesses are reducing staff or converting staff to part time. Also, 98% of large businesses already provide healthcare insurance and may be immune to new penalties under this law. Some health insurance premiums have increased in lieu of implementation of the individual mandate. Will these premium increases reverse course after implementation of the individual mandate? Meanwhile, the rising costs of healthcare have slowed to its lowest point in the last 50 years. Will the impetus for efficiency in the new law continue to prod healthcare providers in this direction? These concerns and others, yet to be discovered, may well require legislative action. Will it be possible for our legislators to act responsibly when many of them have taken such extreme positions?

The political discourse is so polluted that it is almost impossible to sift out any factual analysis, most especially since PPAC is just on the cusp of implementing healthcare exchanges (ironically, a Republican brainstorm). Its success or failure rests with a future yet to be determined. My purpose here is not to vet the President’s signature legislation of his first term. Instead, I want to dwell on the nature of the political discourse. Recently, we heard a U.S. Senator compare his fellow Party members to those who refused to stand up to Hitler, as if denying 30 million people the right to affordable healthcare was paramount to relinquishing the European continent to a brutal tyrant. Actually, the only comparison to Nazi Germany that might fit our current circumstance is the blizzard of misinformation foisted on the American people. Fortunately, unlike Nazi Germany, neither Party’s leaders can control the press or the dissemination of actual facts. For example, PPAC is not the 3,000 page tome its opponents inveigh against. It is about 1,000 pages (though, I have to admit, font size may be the relevant factor here). When Democrats imply that it will save the government one trillion dollars, or Republicans claim it will cost 1.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years, both sides are fudging the numbers to mislead the electorate—that is, you. These numbers are “quoted” from the Congressional Budget Office written analysis of PPAC’s impact on the Federal budget. But they are deliberately taken out of context.

Let me quote from the CBO’s executive summary:
“CBO and JCT (joint congressional taskforce) now estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010–2019 period.”

Further, the CBO concluded:
“CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.”

When the Democrats talk of savings, they include non-coverage savings (which are not part of the Federal budget) and ignore the costs of implementation. The Republicans, on the other hand, include the net costs of additional insurance coverage (which are not part of the Federal budget) and ignore the new revenue and cost reductions built into PPAC. Even in our elementary schoolyards, these contradictory assertions would be called lies. So what do we citizens do with this level of misbehavior? First, we have to understand that political tactics are means to an end. If a Party believes in its fundamental goals and strategies, then any means is justified. Secondly, we have to understand the ideology that supports the avowed goals and strategies. Republicans believe in that typically American self-reliance that demands personal accountability and freedom to take risks—even with an individual’s health. Democrats, on the other hand, are dedicated to that typically American altruism that promotes the general welfare. However unconscionable are the tactics, the goals are understandable and are, in fact, enshrined in our Constitution. We Americans are both self-reliant and altruistic. These attributes of our national character seem to conflict if we outweigh the worth either of the individual’s responsibility for his/her health or of the state’s responsibility for assuring the health of its citizens.

The obvious answer to this dilemma is an equitable counterbalance: both the state and the individual have responsibility here. The state can assure that healthcare is provided, but its citizens have to make intelligent use of it. A substance abuse program, for example, is useless if the abuser does not participate in the program. Likewise, the state cannot assure a universal healthcare provision without the support of its citizens. If we appraise the way in which political tactics have poisoned the well of understanding, we can readily see why the majority of Americans don’t support Obamacare. According to recent polls (which I generally ignore), there is an 8% favorability boost when this same healthcare provision is called simply the Affordable Care Act. The result of all this political bickering and leveraging may be self-defeating for both sides of the argument. If H. R. 3590 were not to be implemented or subverted in such a way as to make it unworkable, then we would both vitiate its beneficial provisions for a majority of Americans, not just for the 10% of our population without healthcare, AND increase the deficit spending of our government. Then all the children fighting in the schoolyard return to class with bloody noses.

The use of Presidential power has an historical genealogy. Upon reviewing Madison’s progress report on the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson, who was in France at the time, responded with concern regarding the power of the presidency. He feared that the Constitution gave too much power to the President in foreign affairs. Nevertheless, he was mollified by Madison’s assertion that the universally trusted George Washington would become the first U.S. President. Further, he was assured that the Constitution reserved for Congress the sole right to declare war; for our founders felt it much more likely an unchecked executive might take the country into a war than that deliberative body which represented the voices of a broader constituency. The irony, of course, is that Jefferson as the third President of the United States took his country to war against the Ivory Coast without congressional approval. In fact, he never told Congress that he ordered the attack until a month after its conclusion. In Jefferson’s defense, he felt the Constitution gave him the power to respond to an eminent threat, which the pirates of the Ivory Coast presented to American ships. Since that time, American Presidents have taken this country into many foreign conflicts, sometimes with congressional approval and sometimes without. Considering the awesome power a modern President has, one would assume its exercise be subject to an honest assessment of eminent danger to our national security and of a proportionate response.

Now you might also assume that this assessment is done without the inflection or subversion of politics and with due consideration for the discrete use of U.S. power/influence. But Presidents never act in a political vacuum and often with little regard for any limit to their power—not even in the build-up to war. Supportive examples of this fact would fill a book. President Roosevelt allowed American ships to navigate shipping lanes patrolled by German subs. He knew if one of them was sunk it would be provocation for Congress to declare war. Pearl Harbor eventually gave him that provocation. President Johnson used a misleading report about an alleged incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify his request to conduct a “police action” against North Vietnam. The bill he shoved through Congress was actually prepared a month before the alleged incident (which of course did not actually occur). Once again, an American President won congressional approval to commence a war effort. President Reagan wanted to provide military support to the rebels in Nicaragua. When the Congress passed legislation to block his efforts, he authorized a clandestine and illegal operation to support the rebels with arms funded by selling weapons to Iran (the same country that held our embassy employees hostage right up to the day Reagan assumed office). He simply bypassed Congress, relying on his popularity with the American people to forestall any impeachment efforts. Clinton had NATO backing, but not Congress’, for his venture into Kosovo. Fortunately, the Bosnia affair turned out reasonably well. But he could not duplicate that success in Somalia. I think you get the picture without reference to what happened during the Bush administration. Sometimes, our Presidents act in response to eminent threats like Pearl Harbor or 911. Sometimes treaty obligations or other national interest intervene to force their hand like the Kuwait or South Korea invasions. Then there are times our Presidents go rogue of the Constitution and pursue military adventures in the name of what they believe are higher moral principles, as in the Bosnia intervention or the recent Libya bombing campaign. But they never act without political machinations or ramifications. Sometimes political tradeoffs can change the purpose or trajectory of a military campaign. For instance, President Johnson did not want to appear weak in fighting communists because he needed Senator Dirksen’s and Republican support to pass his social agenda. His steady escalation of support for that war was, by his own admission, an attempt to end that war sooner rather than later and to appease his critics on the right. President Bush gave far too much leeway to the war hawks in his administration. Given his move to the right on foreign policy, he was emboldened to push his “compassionate conservative” agenda of prescription drugs for the elderly and reform of Social Security (which still failed to win support from his own party). Currently, President Obama has courted favor with those Republicans who might support him on immigration reform as well as his attempts to deter the use of chemical weapons. In return for their support, he has acceded to the Foreign Relations Committee bill that purports to shift the battle’s momentum in favor of the rebels. In spite of all his rhetoric against involvement in a civil war, he would move America closer to a proxy war—not unlike the Russian’s Afghanistan war where we funded the mujahedeen (which included Osama Bin Laden’s forces, later to become al-Qaeda). At the same time, he is trying to assuage liberal angst by touting his proposed punitive military strike as a “limited” action.

My problem with all this wrangling is not the debate itself. It’s what is debated. Initially, the President defined his objective as deterring the use of chemical weapons on moral grounds. He quoted international agreements that nearly all nations have signed as testimony to his assessment and as justification for American action. So the President never asked for a declaration of war, nor did he propose a strategy to remove Assad from office or support one group over another in that country’s civil war. Clearly, the debate that should have ensued is whether the Administration’s proposed military strike is a valid act of deterrence and whether it represents the will of the international community. It is fair not only to critique the deterrence value of a military strike, but also to consider any potentially deleterious consequences. The use of cruise missiles is not “surgical” in the sense of removing a cancerous tumor, unless you consider taking out a liver or some other vital organ in the process. Congress and the international community should be weighing the President’s proposed form of deterrence against other options. Surely, there are more creative ways to isolate and pressure Assad than to rain cruise missiles upon his people. They seem to have suffered enough already from an internecine struggle to the death. Certainly there are better minds than mine who might be able to propose a more humane response to Assad’s barbarity. If we can obtain an agreement from the Free Syrian Army to divest its country of chemical weapons should they win their struggle, would it not be worth the effort to obtain a similar agreement from the Assad government? The latter might include an agreement not to use these weapons in exchange for non-interference in the Syrian civil war from all parties, including the Russians who claim their resupply of weapons was only a response to the West support of the rebels. Even if Iran cannot be persuaded to join such an agreement, any negotiations involving Iran would be beneficial. Given the West’s long range interest in the region, it would be better to include Iran than to continue the ongoing stalemate to any rapprochement with the regime in Tehran.

The President has raised a serious issue of international significance. Fortunately, he has asked for debate before exercising the enormous military power he has at his disposal. Given the enormity of that power, it behooves Congress and the international community to stay his hand AND provide more humane options. Every solution to a problem looks the same, if all you wield is a hammer.