Friday, January 29, 2010

Obama and Health Care

When it came to health care in Pres. Obama's first "State of the Union" address, I was perched on the edge of my seat. I was hoping he was going to say something that I longed to hear: "let's get busy passing a bill in Congress that has a public option." It did not occur. Instead, he spoke in general terms about "the plan" and asked for both sides of the aisle to initiate some kind of reform since they are so close. No mention of public option for our health care reform. As a matter of fact, the only reference to public and health came when he talked about infectious diseases in foreign countries!

The problem with the current administration as it pertains to health care is the fact that it began on the wrong foot. Obama should have insisted that his Democratic colleagues in Congress write a health care reform bill that incorporated a single-payer plan. Instead, it ratcheted down its progressive agenda, which was so popular during the campaign season, and substituted a feckless and impotent compromise that failed nevertheless to win Republican support! Obama did not have a mandate to kowtow to Republicans, curry their favor, and enervate his legislative agenda. He was not elected to engage in endless concessions to the losing party in order to appear winsome or just to get any old thing passed so he could claim some kind of victory, however disingenuous and insubstantial.

I refrain from being too captious in my remarks about Obama on health care, because I, too, have done some acquiescing. For I have believed at the very least throughout my adult life in some manifestation of socialized medicine, i.e., a government-owned and -sponsored health system in which doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc., are employed and paid by the federal government. In my more prescient moments, I have advocated for a health care system that is not only a right for every citizen, but also free to the consumer. Of course, I have not been naive enough to believe that it would happen in the short run, but I have prophesied that it could happen piecemeal in the long run.

I will continue to speak out for a public option as I did during the early Clinton years, although I articulated a more socialist policy. I look forward to the debate!

Tribute to Howard Zinn (1922-2010)

One of my favorite teachers cum mentor and friend was Howard Zinn. While in my doctoral program at Boston University in the spring semester of 1986, I took an elective with him entitled "The Politics of History." Each student had to develop a project that showed how a particular aspect of history occurred, how it was covered during the time, and then how it should have been covered. It was an eye-opening experience! He subtly guided us, but we each felt we were completely free to give our perspectives.

I took the course because I knew of his past: that he had taught at Spelman, the historically black college for women in Atlanta; that he had supported young people, teenagers and young adults in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) as they waged battle against the Jim Crow laws primarily in the South; that he had been an anarchist for a while, but was earnest about the marginalization of American Indians, Latinos, and African Americans historically and contemporaneously; that he had written the vastly popular text, A People's History of the United States, just a few years earlier; and that many people did not like him because of his polemics against the reactionary nature of our political system and the oppression and exploitation endemic to the capitalist system. During a part of his tenure at B.U., he was denied raises and merit pay as his colleagues because of his candor and his progressivism.

One of the attributes I liked most about Zinn was his stick-to-itiveness, i.e., his unwavering commitment to and solidarity with those discriminated against by the structures, processes, and policies of our society and by ignorant, xenophobic individuals afraid of true justice, equity, and peace. He was what is called an infracaninophile: someone who empathizes with the underdog. In creative ways, he maintained this perspective throughout his adult life, writing for the last time in a recent edition of The Nation (February 1, 2010) his captious views on where the Obama administration is headed.

Regardless of where a person is politically or socioeconomically, Howard Zinn is a stellar role model in trying to forge the best possible society and world. As one of the titles of his books declares, "You can't be neutral on a moving train!" Zinn spoke up when others saw unfairness, but had not the will to seek to change it. Sure, he sometimes waxed radical and revolutionary, but he had a bountiful and courageous heart to compel people to beat their swords into plowshares and the spears into pruninghooks and study war no more. Although critical of pacifists, he became increasingly sympathetic to their cause in the face of U.S. involvement in Vietnam and Iraq. In a very real sense, he was a rare prophet in our times--one who would not mince any words that revealed our inhumanity to other human beings.

Howard Zinn will be sorely and profoundly missed in our public discourse. But there are many of his proteges who must now take up his mantle and legacy of progressive and compassionate leadership before, I dare say, it is too late!

Friday, January 22, 2010

BEFORE THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

A year into the presidency of Barack Obama, I am quite disappointed. Let it be said from the outset that I supported Obama's candidacy the most in the caucus and primary season and promoted him to others after the Democratic National Convention. Also, let me hasten to add that I did not like Obama's inattention to the plight of the poor, his brutality with regards to Afghanistan, i.e., finding and killing Osama bin Laden, and his emphasis on personal response to the near exclusion of speaking out against racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination and xenophobia that still systemically plague the structures, processes, and policies of our society. I lauded his assertiveness with respect to the brokenness of the health care system, and I truly anticipated with some optimism his tackling this goal, which has been a genuine conundrum heretofore among presidents since the first have of the twentieth century.

To be fair, President Obama inherited a lot of difficult problems produced and spurned by the George W. Bush Administration: deep recession, war in Iraq, international scorn of the United States, growing unemployment, clandestine activities, etc. Any person ascending to the White House would have a tough row to hoe. Generally speaking, Obama has held up pretty well considering those scarcely surmountable challenges, but there are some issues regarding tack and substance I am compelled to criticize.

In my opinion, withdrawing from Iraq in a timely manner was something he emphasized during his campaign but never really pursued since taking office. Retaining defense personnel was clue enough that he would relinquish swift accomplishment of that goal and never consider remove U.S. presence entirely from that country. Furthermore, I did not give my endorsement to the belief that withdrawing forces from Iraq automatically meant we should focus on a war against the Taliban and al Quaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I was not an advocate of going into Afghanistan immediately after 9/11. I believe in exhausting all avenues of diplomacy and dialogue, and I adamantly oppose revenge killing of any kind. Besides, now, over eight years after the tragedy of 9/11, the purpose of avenging it no longer seems clear or understandable. What is needed is better security by the police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ensure such devastating loss of life does not happen in the United States at the hands of terrorists again. Collaboration with allies and the international community as a whole should work to sabotage any attempt to harm Americans in foreign lands.

The United States and the world could eliminate poverty, hunger, and curable diseases with consistent, concentrated, and continuous effort. The ability is indisputable; the will is curiously questionable. These three interrelated crises are used in dastardly political ways that fly in the face of any propaganda about the goals of peace and goodwill to humanity. It seems we do not want to have a thriving international community where countries are self-sufficient for the most part and no country is belittled, humiliated, or isolated. I am not discussing an unrealistic panacea or utopia, but, rather, a realistic and ethical global society. I do not hear much difference in the language of Obama that defies the traditional folderol about ostensibly protecting national security interests.

A proponent of a universal, government-run, virtually free health care system, I was encouraged by Obama's campaign promise radically to transform the current debacle and provide health insurance and equitable access to quality health care for everyone. Once in office, Obama has kowtowed to the wishes of moderates, independents, and conservatives to the point where he has betrayed his own 2003 endorsement of a type of public option, the single-payer plan. Reform of the health care system as we know it today must include affordable access to quality care for the indigent--without question. Any reform worthy of its name has to overhaul the system so that the 48 million people without access to the best medical care available obtains inexpensive, or even free, ingress into preventive and ongoing care. It appears that if any bill comes out of Congress and placed in the Oval Office, it will be unrecognizable in comparison to Obama's rhetoric since 2003. The mandate given to him to transform the outrageous, intransigent health care industry in this country will not at all be met.

Whereas the Republican victory regarding the Senate seat vacated by the deceased Edward Kennedy was not altogether unexpected and does not foretell the outcomes of the midterm elections this fall, the dissatisfaction over the work of President Obama and his administration cannot help but to play a role in the political arena today. Record-high unemployment, job losses, a Vietnam-like parallel in Afghanistan, and an ineffective Congress must drastically be addressed in order to fulfill the promises the excited populace cheered for in 2008.

Pres. Obama has the opportunity on January 27 to begin to make those necessary changes. He needs to return to the promises he pronounced during his campaign and surrender his efforts to soft-pedal distinctions between the two major political parties. He should, at the very least, stick with his priorities expressed during the lead-up to taking office and claim his place at the vanguard of the movement for fundamental changes in the way we have been doing business. I await his message with hope, and with fear and trepidation.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Dissent vs. Treason

I do not assert that any form of dissent against one's citizenship country is a direct line to treason. I understand the argument that trying to undermine the legitimacy and existence of the country where one is a citizen is a treasonous act. However, dissenting against the policies and perspectives, the structures and processes, of one's country and seeking to transform them, are honorable endeavors. This viewpoint is not based on the founding of the United States, as some try to claim to appease others and to enervate concerns about treason. Dissent is an invaluable right in a democratic republic, and it is a vital part of civic engagement and the political process.

One of the major problems in our public discourse is that people resort to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, especially when they are unable to discover any substantive way to disagree with another person's point of view. Seeking to discredit another individual rather than building a case against what that person asserts or does is simply disingenuous. People are going to engage in that illogical process continually; what we must do is to point out the ignorance, obtuseness, and puerility of it.

There are a number of policies and approaches of the Obama Administration with which I disagree. For example, I am an advocate of pacifism and nonviolent diplomacy in resolving internatonal conflict; consequently, I am opposed to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. In addition, I believe we should address and redress the plight of the poor; consequently, I disagree with claiming merely to attend to the bolstering of the middle class and remaining impervious to the debilitating conditions of the indigent. While I feel strongly about these matters, I am not interested in personally attacking those who disagree with me. Rather, I seek to persuade them of the folly of their thought and action, because my ultimate goal is to have the ends and the means cohere (i.e., use peaceful means to reach peaceful ends) and to elimate homelessness, hunger, lack of shelter, inaccessible health care, inadequate education, unemployment, underemployment, and disease that undermine life chances and cause the resort to crime, violence, drug abuse, sex, and other symptoms, or manifestations, of hopelessness and despair.

When there are meaningful disagreements with the direction of government entities, many recourses abound that can effectuate change and steer trends in a different way. Organizing people in such multiple and variegated efforts is the beauty of democracy. Putting people down, engaging in rumors, deceptions, and lies, and concealing information and facts are anathema to the political process--even though a number of public officials and civic leaders participate in those kinds of activities. In my opinion, people who resort to such dissembling, chicanery, and hyperbole are actually behaving treasonously, and those who do not call them out on the carpet for it may also be treasonably quiescent!

Let's be clear about the nobility of dissent and the ignobility of treason. The ignominy of the latter is just as great as the probity of the former. Not to make this distinction is the kind of silence that is betrayal!

Auld Lang Syne

The first thing to note is that many people are in error when they refer to the year 2010 as the beginning of a new decade. On the one hand, any year can be characterized as the start, or end for that matter, of a decade. But, if we are referring to the first decade of the twenty-first century, then we need to recognize that said decade technically ends on December 31, 2010, and did not end on December 31, 2009. The decade of the twenty-first century began on January 1, 2001, and not the previous year. The end of the twentieth century occurred at the end of the day on December 31, 2000. So, we have another year to complete the first decade of the twenty-first century.

I try not to make resolutions in a serious way, for I am too conscious of my own shortcomings and of the reality of human limitations. Usually, I write a poem at the end of the year that reflects on what went on and what I hope to do better. But, in a very real sense, each day of my life is an attempt to be a better person and to engage in thoughts and actions that will take me there. In actual fact, it does not have to be when I wake up in the morning that I embark on an effort to best yesterday. Each moment of my life provides the opportunity for improvement. Whether I take advantage of those periods of time is not even something to consider, for success is not a fair or adequate measure. What's more important is that I am disposed towards continually examining my life with a strong inclination towards being a better individual.

The above notwithstanding, I will seek to be more invested in sharing my commentary on current events and engaging in social-ethical analysis of those happenings. As you can see, it has already taken me five days into the new year to commence my commitment. But that should be no surprise, for most of us have probably skimped a little on our resolve. Nevertheless, I urge you, as I urge myself, to keep trying. Practice will never make perfect, but perfection is never the goal. Getting better, however, is always a future possibility--barring a life-threatening catastrophe. Let's progress!