An Unnecessary War, first printed February 2003

Paul and I first published this before the war in Iraq. The argument for “vigilant containment” which professors Mearsheimer and Walt made at that time looks all the more attractive in 2006 as we pass 2,400 American deaths and many thousands more wounded. If only the Bush adminsitration had listened.
——————————————–

The Bush administration has done a remarkable job of redirecting the argument about war on Iraq to the question of whether or not Saddam has, or will soon get, so-called “weapons of mass destruction.” As it stands now, one side says that we have to prove Saddam has WMD before going to war (France and Russia are leading proponents of this argument), while the other, headed by the United States, argue that the burden is on Saddam to prove he does not have those weapons (Philosophy 101 taught us that it is logically impossible to disprove a negative) or the United States will invade at the head of a “coalition of the willing.”

We think that a much more important question is being ignored. It is, simply, “Assuming that Saddam does have WMD, what is the best way to make sure that he does not use them?”

The best answer to this question that we have seen comes from two professors in the January/February issue of Foreign Policy Magazine. They are John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and co director of the Program in International Security Policy; and Stephen M. Walt, the academic dean and professor of international affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Walt is faculty chair of the International Security Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

In an article entitled “An Unnecessary War” they argue persuasively that the safest and cheapest way to prevent Saddam from using WMD is “vigilant containment.” As they point out, Saddam’s self- interest can be used against him. “Nuclear terrorism is as dangerous for Saddam as it is for Americans, and he has no more incentive to give al Qaeda nuclear weapons than the United States has.”

We do not have space even to summarize their compelling arguments, and we refer you to the full article at the web site http://www.foreignpolicy.com . But here is a brief description of the policy they advocate: Vigilant Containment.

“It is not surprising that those who favor war with Iraq portray Saddam as an inveterate and only partly rational aggressor. They are in the business of selling a preventive war, so they must try to make remaining at peace seem unacceptably dangerous. And the best way to do that is to inflate the threat, either by exaggerating Iraq’s capabilities or by suggesting horrible things will happen if the United States does not act soon. It is equally unsurprising that advocates of war are willing to distort the historical record to make their case. As former U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson famously remarked, in politics, advocacy “must be clearer than truth.”

“In this case, however, the truth points the other way. Both logic and historical evidence suggest a policy of vigilant containment would work, both now and in the event Iraq acquires a nuclear arsenal. Why? Because the United States and its regional allies are far stronger than Iraq. And because it does not take a genius to figure out what would happen if Iraq tried to use WMD to blackmail its neighbors, expand its territory, or attack another state directly. It only takes a leader who wants to stay alive and who wants to remain in power. Throughout his lengthy and brutal career, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly shown that these two goals are absolutely paramount. That is why deterrence and containment has worked since 1991.

“If the United States is, or soon will be, at war with Iraq, Americans should understand that a compelling strategic rationale is absent. This war would be one the Bush administration chose to fight but did not have to fight. Even if such a war goes well and has positive long-range consequences, it will still have been unnecessary. And if it goes badly—whether in the form of high U.S. casualties, significant civilian deaths, a heightened risk of terrorism, or increased hatred of the United States in the Arab and Islamic world—then its architects will have even more to answer for.”

War with Iraq will be a declaration of failure.

Cinderella

Remember the story of Cinderella? She was a young girl who was the superstar of a princely ball. The prince fell in love with her but at the stroke of midnight she lost her shoe as she ran from the castle. The prince searched all over the kingdom to find her. He tried the shoe on every woman until the shoe fit. And they all lived happily ever after.

Great story but its old stuff. Now if the story were written today, it would go something like this:

As soon as the prince found the glass slipper he contacted security. They immediately activated the “CARRIAGE TRACKING SYSTEM” to locate the coach. Unfortunately, the system on the coach had been compromised when some mice ate through the wiring and shorted the computer.

The prince called the Real Good Intelligent Agency Real Time TV Monitoring Agency who began to search for a photograph match of the faces that had been secretly obtained by the hidden cameras in the palace. Unfortunately, Cinderella had been through an “Extreme Makeover” just to attend the ball so her photograph was not in the database.

Next the prince contacted the Real Good Voice Recognition Agency to compare a recording made of Cinderella’s voice from a secret microphone implanted in the prince’s jacket. Unfortunately, when Cinderella got her makeover her voice was changed too. Sadly the Real Good Voice Recognition Agency identified the voice of another person who “appeared” to be a close match. But he turned out to be in the Himalayas climbing mountains during the ball.

Next the prince gave the slipper to the Real Good DNA Database Agency who was certain they could find a match. Unfortunately, the DNA in the slipper had been contaminated while in storage. It seems that as a result of big tax cuts benefiting the prince and a few of his friends, the storage facility locker space had been reduced and all the slippers were stored together in a pile behind the facility.

The “Real Good Information Agency” told the prince they had interviewed someone who had direct knowledge about the affair which he had obtained from someone else who had an unconfirmed and unsubstantiated source for information about something. The informant’s name was “Screwball.” Unfortunately, no one was able to locate him.

Next the prince began a series of investigations to determine who was responsible for the inability to locate Cinderella who was now known as the missing woman of the dance (WMD).

The Real Good Carriage Tracking Agency said they were clearly not at fault; the Real Good Video Monitoring Agency said they had done all they could; the Real Good Central Voice Recognition Agency said they had some information but it didn’t reach the upper management levels; the Real Good DNA Agency said they were under funded but were still working the problem; the Real Good Information Agency said they located a lot if screwballs but none were the right one. Unfortunately, they all agreed that someone else was responsible.

Then the prince announced that another ball was to be held and when Cinderella showed up wearing just one shoe, the prince knew he met his match.

Why America Needs the Draft

Most people who have visited the Vietnam Memorial come away with a sense of sadness and awe. The Memorial lists the names of more than 58,000 Americans who paid the ultimate price in service to their country.

The list of names begins at one end of a small rectangle, with the year 1957, and extends to an intersection that is many times one’s height. From the intersection it continues to the right toward the horizon. It is overwhelming.

Those of us old enough to remember the war in Vietnam clearly remember how the country was torn apart by the public and often physical debate between those who favored our involvement and the strident anti-war protestors. What we sometimes forget is that it wasn’t until about 1970 that there was any significant opposition to the war. The real opposition began when large numbers of American “draftees” (200,000 to begin with, well over a million in the end) were sent to fight.

Americans initially accepted Lyndon Johnson’s rationale for the war, just as they have accepted George Bush’s rationale for fighting in Iraq. Only when the price got too high and too personal did they stop and question the wisdom of their leaders.

Dr. M. Scott Peck, M.D. probably best known for his book, The Road Less Traveled, was the author of another book, People of the Lie. In the latter book, published in 1983, Peck includes a chapter describing his experience as “chairman of a committee of psychiatrists appointed by the Army Surgeon General … to make recommendations that might shed light on the psychological causes of the massacre MyLai, so as to help prevent such atrocities in the future.”

Peck’s observations, written twenty years ago are most prophetic as we look at our situation in Iraq. He writes:

“Abandoning the concept of the citizen soldier in favor of the mercenary, we have placed ourselves in grave jeopardy. Twenty years from now, when Vietnam has been largely forgotten, how easy it will be, with volunteers, to once again become involved in little foreign adventures. Such adventures will keep the military on its toes, provide it with real-life war games to test its prowess, and need not hurt or involve the average American citizen at all until it is too late.”

Peck believed and we agree, that “A draft-involuntary service- is the only thing that can keep our military sane. Without it the military will inevitably become not only specialized in its function but increasingly specialized in its psychology. No fresh air will be let in. It will become inbred and reinforce its own values, and then, it will run amok as it did in Vietnam. A draft is a painful thing. But so are insurance premiums; and involuntary service is the only way we have of ensuring the sanity of our military ‘left hand.’

“The point is that if we must have a military at all, it should hurt. As a people we should not toy with means of mass destruction without being willing personally of wielding them. If we must kill, let us not select and train killers to do the dirty job for us and then forget that there’s any blood involved. If we must kill, then let us honestly suffer the agony involved ourselves. Otherwise we will insulate ourselves from our own deeds.”

These are powerful words from an expert psychologist. And we think he makes a lot of sense. America needs a draft; not only because we need to share the sacrifice, but also because a draft will restore strength to the system of checks and balances that are essence of a democracy.

The Congress has mistakenly signed over its war powers to the leaders of the executive branch, who are almost completely lacking in military experience. And, with some notable exceptions, most of their own kids have never served.

If our leaders have not served in the military, and their children don’t serve now, then why should they be concerned about sending someone else to do the dirty work? When everyone is expected to share the burden, we can expect to have a serious debate on the merits and value of placing any American in harm’s way.

Send remarks to: comments@massliberalvoice.org

Humpty Dumpty

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

Humpty Dumpty had a big fall

All the King’s horses and

All the King’s men couldn’t

Put Humpty together again.

But have you ever wondered:

Why Humpty was sitting on a wall? Why did he fall? Why couldn’t they put him together?

Well now for the rest of the story.

Humpty was sitting on the wall because he had just received a letter telling him that his health insurance had been cancelled.

Humpty worked for a manufacturing company for 35 years, never ever getting into hot water. He took an early retirement when his company closed and relocated to Asia, eliminating most of the local workforce.

The Bush administration applauded the company’s move claiming it would reduce costs to consumers and create more jobs. Humpty, who had always been thought of as a good egg, took the early retirement because it “GUARANTEED” he would have family medical insurance for the rest of his life.

Shortly after the Bush administration passed Medicare legislation creating a prescription program and allowing companies to cut funding of retirement medical insurance, Humpty received a letter telling him the company had decided to eliminate their plan.

At first Humpty’s wife thought it was a yoke and her thoughts were scrambled, but than she simply went to pieces and in the end she was only a shell of her former self.

Humpty wandered around for a while. Because he could no longer afford his medications he became light headed and had to rest on a nearby wall.

Sadly for Humpty, the town budget for wall repair had been cut because the state cut its reimbursement for wall repair because the Bush administration’s “NO WALL LEFT BEHIND” program had reduced its funding to the states.

Federal, state, and local wall inspectors had been cut from the budgets and wall inspection was now being preformed by a private inspection company.

Unfortunately, the company was located in a foreign country and the remote inspection service failed to adequately monitor the condition of the wall.

As a result of these cuts, the wall fell into disrepair just as Humpty sat down it collapsed and Humpty fell. He didn’t just go over easy … he had a big fall.

He was taken to the local hospital where he found a dozen of his friends were there for the same reason. Together they tried to hire a lawyer to sue all those responsible.

The Bush administration claimed the government was sick and tired of coddling folks who should have been more careful in the first place.

Alas, however, the Bush administration had finally passed legislation capping damage awards and Humpty and his friends were left out in the cold. They even considered building an Eggloo.

Fortunately though, the atmosphere wasn’t all that cold. The Bush administration refused to participate in the Kyoto Treaty, that would help reduce harmful emissions into the atmosphere or even consider the possibility that human activity could change the climate.

The Bush administration held secret energy police meetings to cover-up their actions. They argued that no matter how high the world temperatures rise or how high the ocean levels rise it would not be related to climate change.

These egg-headed folks even claim that any problem was caused by a previous administration. They claimed that they had never made a mistake but could feel the pain and deeply shared the sympathy.

An Unnecessary War February 2003

The Bush administration has done a remarkable job of redirecting the argument about war on Iraq to the question of whether or not Saddam has, or will soon get, so-called “weapons of mass destruction.” As it stands now, one side says that we have to prove Saddam has WMD before going to war (France and Russia are leading proponents of this argument), while the other, headed by the United States, argue that the burden is on Saddam to prove he does not have those weapons (Philosophy 101 taught us that it is logically impossible to disprove a negative) or the United States will invade at the head of a “coalition of the willing.”

We think that a much more important question is being ignored. It is, simply, “Assuming that Saddam does have WMD, what is the best way to make sure that he does not use them?”

The best answer to this question that we have seen comes from two professors in the January/February issue of Foreign Policy Magazine. They are John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and co director of the Program in International Security Policy; and Stephen M. Walt, the academic dean and professor of international affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Walt is faculty chair of the International Security Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

In an article entitled “An Unnecessary War” they argue persuasively that the safest and cheapest way to prevent Saddam from using WMD is “vigilant containment.” As they point out, Saddam’s self- interest can be used against him. “Nuclear terrorism is as dangerous for Saddam as it is for Americans, and he has no more incentive to give al Qaeda nuclear weapons than the United States has.”

We do not have space even to summarize their compelling arguments, and we refer you to the full article at the web site http://www.foreignpolicy.com . But here is a brief description of the policy they advocate: Vigilant Containment.

“It is not surprising that those who favor war with Iraq portray Saddam as an inveterate and only partly rational aggressor. They are in the business of selling a preventive war, so they must try to make remaining at peace seem unacceptably dangerous. And the best way to do that is to inflate the threat, either by exaggerating Iraq’s capabilities or by suggesting horrible things will happen if the United States does not act soon. It is equally unsurprising that advocates of war are willing to distort the historical record to make their case. As former U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson famously remarked, in politics, advocacy “must be clearer than truth.”

“In this case, however, the truth points the other way. Both logic and historical evidence suggest a policy of vigilant containment would work, both now and in the event Iraq acquires a nuclear arsenal. Why? Because the United States and its regional allies are far stronger than Iraq. And because it does not take a genius to figure out what would happen if Iraq tried to use WMD to blackmail its neighbors, expand its territory, or attack another state directly. It only takes a leader who wants to stay alive and who wants to remain in power. Throughout his lengthy and brutal career, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly shown that these two goals are absolutely paramount. That is why deterrence and containment has worked since 1991.

“If the United States is, or soon will be, at war with Iraq, Americans should understand that a compelling strategic rationale is absent. This war would be one the Bush administration chose to fight but did not have to fight. Even if such a war goes well and has positive long-range consequences, it will still have been unnecessary. And if it goes badly—whether in the form of high U.S. casualties, significant civilian deaths, a heightened risk of terrorism, or increased hatred of the United States in the Arab and Islamic world—then its architects will have even more to answer for.”

War with Iraq will be a declaration of failure.

Jack and Jill

This Fractured Fairy tale is a story we have all heard about a lovely young couple trying to make their way in the world. Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after. But do you know the story behind the story? Did you ever wonder why Jack and Jill went up the hill? Why did Jack fall down? Why did his crown break? Why did Jill come tumbling after Jack? What happened next?

Here’s the rest of the story. Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water because the drinking water where they lived became contaminated with lead. Thirty years after the passage of the clean water act, many older towns and cities, like Washington, DC, still have lead pipes transmitting their drinking water. Many of these pipes are a century old.

Initially the pipes did not put lead into the water, but as the quality of the water used by these cities and towns decreased they increased the use if chemicals to make sure the water was free of bacteria and other contaminants, and these chemicals leach lead from the pipes. Newer cities may not have lead, but they do have other problems. San Diego and Las Vegas have rocket fuel in their water. The entire Colorado River system, feeding the whole southwest is contaminated with a chemical used in explosives that is also found on the Massachusetts Military Reservation.

Jack and Jill knew about the lead, but they could not afford a filtering system for their house to remove it because the local factory where they both worked had recently moved to China. They walked up the hill instead of driving because they could not afford the gasoline. The climb was difficult since the Bush administration had recently approved clear-cutting of all the trees on the federal land near Jack and Jill’s home, and the trail got washed out.

On the way up, Jack and Jill had trouble breathing because the Bush administration has eased EP regulations on the nearby coal-fired power plant, increasing mercury and particulate matter in the air. Fortunately, the smog in the air blocked most of the sunlight and they were not too badly sunburned. At the top of the hill they had to wait in line to fill their rusty bucket from a tiny spring. Unfortunately, the maintenance budget for federal lands had been cut by the Bush administration, and Jack tripped in a sinkhole at the end of the trail, dropping his pail and tumbling down the hill. As he reached the bottom of the hill, his crown fell off and smashed into a thousand pieces. Luckily for him none of the pieces cut him as they scattered into the dirt.

Meanwhile way up on the hill, Jill tried to catch the pail of water that Jack had dropped, but a defective handle broke off the pail and it landed on her foot, lacerating her toe and breaking four bones. Sadly, Bush had signed a bill to loosening safety regulations on bucket manufacturers (who made big donations to his campaign) and refused to disclose which companies served on the bucket safety committee.

Sadly, when Jill tried to walk she fell and tumbled down the hill after Jack. Just as Jack was starting to get up, Jill crashed into him and knocked him into the contaminated stream the Bush administration EPA refused to cleanup. The chemicals in the water burned their eyes and stung Jill’s laceration. Just as Jill was about to go under, Jack grabbed her hand and kept her head above the water, as they were swept downstream, which fortunately ran behind the local hospital. Understaffed because of budget cuts, the hospital kept them waiting for hours before they got any attention.

When their turn finally came, the first question they were asked was, “what is the name of your insurance company?” Of course, they had no health insurance because they had lost their jobs and the Bush administration didn’t consider universal healthcare to be of concern. The admitting secretary said that Jack and Jill would have to pay cash. Jack said that would not be a problem, but as he reached for his crown to remove a precious jewel, he suddenly became aware that the family fortune had been lost. They had no money. The admitting secretary said that if they were patient just a little longer the town would pick up all their emergency medical costs.

As soon as Jack was discharged from the hospital, they returned to their home, but since they had failed to make payments to the mortgage company, their house had been foreclosed and they had nowhere to go. They ended up in a shelter and began looking for jobs so they could start all over.

The Address We Wish He Had Given

Here’s the speech we wish President G.W. Bush had given in his inaugural address. (Note that it is only four minutes long if read out loud!)

“Today my fellow Americans, words cannot express my joy at being reelected. Now that I am no longer a candidate for office I can be more forthcoming with all of you.

“In preparing for this moment I carefully reviewed my performance in my first administration, and found that I did, in fact, make some mistakes. I want you to know how I plan to atone for my errors, and how I will use the next four years to make the world a better place for everyone: All Americans. All Africans. All Asians. Everyone — in every corner of this beautiful blue planet.

“First, I want to talk about peace. I have plans to achieve peace throughout the world. I am removing from my administration the three men who told us that the war in Iraq would be simple, swift and inexpensive. I have asked for the resignations of Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. And I specifically reject their view that it is America’s job to impose its view of the world onto all countries.

“Second, I will personally go to Iraq and meet with all those involved. My plan is to remove all American forces from Iraq in the next 12 months. Iraq must be allowed to govern itself.

“Third, I believe that Iraq took our attention away from the important task of achieving peace between Israel and Palestine. The death of Yassir Arafat may have given us a second chance. I plan to take it. I will personally get involved with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders in an attempt to bring them to a long-term peace agreement that recognizes the rights of both states.

“Fourth, I recognize the importance of the Social Security system as the primary source of income for millions of disabled and elderly Americans. I understand that only minor adjustments are necessary to keep the system solvent indefinitely. I will make these adjustments, and will NOT make any part of this incredibly successful pension and disability system dependent on anyone’s investment skills.

“Fifth, I recognize the right of all Americans to health care. Therefore, I will extend Medicare’s efficient and proven coverage to all Americans. For the first time in our history, Medicare will cover everyone who lives in this country, young and old alike.

“Sixth, I will pay for the programs I propose without doing additional borrowing. We have borrowed too much. For example, I will propose a national Value Added Tax to pay for Medicare for everyone. And all of my other proposals will be paid for by not extending the tax cuts for the wealthy that I passed in my first administration.

“Seventh, I will insure our future by extending Pell grants for college to more lower income students, expanding the amount of the grants, and providing new grants to anyone who meets certain academic standards of excellence, regardless of income.

“Eighth, I will insure the future of the entire planet by officially recognizing that global warming is a threat to the life and health. I will sign the Kyoto treaty and then work with other countries on the next step to reducing harmful admissions. I do not wish to go down in history as “Global Warming Bush.”

“In closing, I wish to leave all of my fellow citizens, and everyone on the planet better off than they were when I was first elected. I know I got off to a bad start, but I have four more years and I plan to use them wisely.”

Paul Schrader and Jack Edmonston

IRV can reduce negative advertising.

We don’t about you, but we hate negative political advertising. And we get more of them every election cycle.

Ads make us all more cynical about everyone running for office. They contribute to the impression that they are all a bunch of incompetents – or worse.

We believe this cynicism is a major factor in low voter turnout. It also makes all of us less willing to get involved in politics in any way. Why would we want to get involved with people for whom we have no respect?

The other major problem with negative advertising – especially in the primaries—is that it hurts the winner. In many cases it fatally wounds the winner, leaving them unable to win the final election.

But rather than simply curse the darkness, we would like to propose a solution for elections with multiple candidates and one winner – like the primaries. We call it “Voter Ranking.”

This idea is based on a voting system that has been proven in other countries, and even in our very own Cambridge, Mass. It’s simple. Instead of casting a single vote for your favorite candidate, you rank them. You put a “1” next to your favorite, a “2” next to your second choice, and so on down the line.

The “ones” are counted first. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the “1” votes they are the winner. If there are more than two candidates, this is unlikely to happen. In that case, the last candidate is eliminated and all of the voters who gave that candidate a “1” have their “2” votes counted. If there is still no candidate with the endorsement of more than 50% of voters, then the process is repeated.

There are several advantages to this type of voting when there are multiple candidates. Here are the most important, in our opinion.

1. Voter Ranking significantly reduces the advantages of negative advertising because no candidate has to take votes away from another candidate in order to get a vote. Warren Tolman, for example, could stop trying to take Robert Reich’s voters away and instead try to get Reich’s voters to vote for him as well. Whether he got a one or two would not make much difference.

2. Under the current system it is possible for the winner to be a candidate that would be the last choice of more than half of the voters. A small contingent of loyal followers could propel one of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates to the top of the list with only 30 –35% of the total vote. It’s possible that most of the remaining voters so dislike the winning candidate that they vote Republican in the main election.

3. With multiple choices, even those of us who favor one of the less popular candidates have an incentive to go out and vote. Our second choice suddenly becomes very important. Tolman voters, for example, could give him a “1” and give their “2” to whomever they like. If Tolman ran last, those “2” votes might decide the primary winner.

Check out “Voice for Change” and IRV FAQs to see how this can work.

We Get The Government We Deserve

We have no one to blame but ourselves. Politicians have found that if they tell us what we want to hear, we will support them, no matter how unrealistic, or untrue, their statement or promise might be. All they have to do is repeat a statement enough times, and we will come to believe what they say.

These claims and promises are usually short and simple; sometimes just a phrase printed on a banner visible behind the speaker. They are sometimes called “Mind Messages” (or “MIMES” for short), because even if we fail to consciously acknowledge them, our subconscious mind stores them for future use.

Unfortunately there is seldom much relationship between the politicians’ promises and their actions. Our politicians know that if they talk the talk, they do have to walk the walk.

One of the most common delusions which our politicians take advantage of is our current belief that we can have what we want and not have to pay for it.

For example, in 2002 Massachusetts elected the gubernatorial candidate who said he could balance the budget, cut the income tax and not touch “vital state services” — even though the experts said this was impossible. Now we know that the experts were right.

The same MIME games have been played by George Bush. For months he stood in front of a wall or repeated phrases and told us his proposed tax cuts would provide an economic stimulus to rescue our sagging economy.

But as the Economist magazine pointed out in its January 11th issue: “…make no mistake about it. The package will have next to no stimulative effect in the relevant time-frame, — and, if the administration succeeded in pushing it through, by the time the proposal does interject some extra demand it may well do more harm than good.”

William Gale, an economist with the Brookings Institution said of the Bush proposal, “If you asked economists to come up with ten things to stimulate the economy, none would have come up with that.”

Bush also claimed that his tax cuts would benefit everyone. His current MIME is that that the average tax payer would save $1,100. But as columnist Al Hunt pointed out in a Wall Street Journal article, while “…92 million Americans would get an average tax cut of about $1,100; half of taxpayers…get less than $100, while people making over $1 million average $90,200….that does average to $1,100 apiece, just the way baseball’s Aaron brothers hit an average of 385 home runs – Henry hit 755 and Tommie hit 13.”

The tax cut passed. Don’t hold your breath while waiting for the resulting job growth.

The politicians know they can tell us one thing, do another and we will vote for them anyway. We get the government we deserve.

How To Improve Political Discourse

We are among that group of people who like to attend candidate meetings and watch our Congressional reps on C-Span. Most of the time, we are not pleased by what we hear. Politicians have become experts at “warmly warmly” generalities that say nothing, offend no one, and leave us wondering how they will vote when the time comes.

Their aim, it seems to us, is to allow both sides to think that they can have what they want. Most of the time that is simply not possible. Compromise is typically necessary.

No plan is perfect; and every proposal needs to be carefully reviewed, but we should stop letting our candidates and politicians off the hook when they give us answers comprised of generalities designed to avoid angering anyone. These statements do not inform us. They do not tell us where the politician really stands. And they often give us the impression that we can have our cake and eat it too.

We can’t. With some exceptions, we can’t have better schools and lower taxes. We can’t have cleaner air and lower-priced electricity. We can’t have more government spending and lower taxes. We can’t stop the “build-out” of Cape Cod, but we do have a lot to say about how it is done. (Do we really want nothing but single family homes on acre lots?)

On the national level, we can’t have a big increase in the defense budget, a major tax cut, a prescription drug program, a social security “lock box” and a surplus, no matter what the president tells us. Unless the tooth fairy leaves a few billion under our pillows, we are about to have several years of major deficits and a huge increase in the national debt.

Shame on us if let ourselves be duped by those who tell us otherwise.

We have a prescription for improving political discourse.

1. Do not let politicians or people get away with objecting to anything without proposing a specific solution. If someone says that they like renewable energy but do not want a wind farm near their house ask them exactly where they would put it. If they don’t have a specific answer, ignore them. If they do, ask them if the people in that area are OK with having the wind farm in THEIR back yard. If someone says that their neighborhood should not get low-income housing, ask them what neighborhood they would put it in. If they say they wouldn’t have any more low-income housing in town, ask them where our low-paid workers should live.

2. If someone says we need to spend more money on something, ask them where they are going to get it. And don’t accept generalities like “make government more efficient” unless they cite exactly how they would do that. If they say “raise taxes” ask them which taxes and by how much.

The devil is in the details. It is easy to speak in generalities that make us feel good, but hard to be specific. Details are difficult, but we need to demand specificity of our politicians — and ourselves!