When the Irrational Becomes Rational

     The recent effort by House Republicans to repeal the health care law, which was passed by Democrats, was an exercise not only in futility but also exercises in contradiction and  hypocrisy.  

     They argued that the legislation should be repealed because the American people, in Nov. 2010, voted to have it repealed.  But they act as if they (and so did the Democrats, for that matter) forgot that these same American people, in Nov. 2008, voted for universal health care when they elected Barack Obama President of the United States.

     Republicans are acting as if they misunderstood what voters were voting for in Nov. 2010.  Voters were saying repeal the law if Republicans are elected in numbers sufficient to (1) have the repeal approved by both the House and Senate, (2) override a presidential veto, and (3) have written and passed a better law in its place.

     But Republicans didn't not win in sufficient number to achieve those ends.  Sufficient numbers in the Senate were impossible, anyway.  Voters made sure they wouldn't even have enough members in the Senate to control the agenda,   The American people spoke, but they said something different from what Republicans claim they heard.

     What voters did said, and what recent polls suggest they are saying now, is:  If you cannot repeal the health care law and pass another law, then, at least FIX the present law.  But Republicans have failed--or refused--to draw that conclusion about the American people's intent.  They persist in believing, or acting as if they believe, that the American people don't have much sense, and that the people really don't want universal health care.  

     But it is Republicans who don't want health care.  What better evidence of that than the fact that during all of the time when they controlled the Congress, during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, they did not seek to implement health-care legislation.  And as Dr Phil continues to remind us:  The best predictor of what people will do in the future is what they have done in the past.

     Republicans have come up with four committees presumably to work on a Republican proposal for health-care legislation.  But there is no timeline for them to complete their work.  I understand that Republicans under Bob Dole had a plan, but Republican cannot use that one because it already incorporated in the present law.

     Concerning whether everyone should be required to buy health care insurance, this was a source of disagreement between Obama and Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries:  Clinton thought everyone should be required to buy insurance.  Obama thought that a mandate would not be necessary because the only reason people would not buy insurance was be if they couldn't afford it.  The present law seeks to make insurance affordable for everyone by helping those who cannot afford it.  People who want to be thought of as Christians but who don't want to act like Christians call such an accommodation for the less able Socialism.  But sometimes Christians and Socialists do the same kinds of things.

     Republicans are trying to get the courts to get rid of the bill by saying its unconstitutional to require those who can afford insurance to buy insurance.  But care of the uninsured is one of the main reasons why the skyrocketing health care cost is being passed on to those who have insurance.  Will those who refuse to purchase health care insurance be saying by not buying insurance that if they have serious accidents or become ill at home, they should be treated at home, or if they are injured in accidents in the highway, they want to be treated by the side of the road or taken home?  How do they expected to be cared for?  If they have the right to not buy insurance, will ambulance services and hospitals be given the right to deny them serviced?

     Republican actions have become irrational.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and the Tea Party are running them crazy, or at least causing them to act as if they are..  Their arguments are sinking to level of outright lies that everyone now recognize as being untrue.  Their augments are becoming sinking to levels liken to justifying the Tuscan shootings.  Even Jared Loughner's defense attorney won't try to make that case.  

     But if normally rational people like congressional Republicans can act irrationally--even when they know better--how can one expect better from those who don't know better.  Unfortunately, Republicans believe--or act like they believe--that the American voters are among those who don't know any better.

     The way to satisfy what the people voted for in both 2008 and 2010 (and the American people are smarter than Republican hope they are) is to use this time for Republicans to work with Democrats to fix what wrong the law that's on the books, now.  These four House committees should be committees of Republicans and Democrats.  And these committees should do all of their deliberating before the camera on C-Span--like Obama promised but did not do.

     A government that is publicly irrational in its pursuits of solutions to its own problems can't gain the confidence of the Chinese nor sustain the confidence of its allies and the rest of the world.  

     The nation's economy and the world need a strong United States of America.    But both also need a rational United States because only a stable United States can survive.

Ronald

What Do We Seek to Become?

     The Constitution of the United States of America was ratified in 1788, and the first president was elected in 1789.  The contents of the Constitution were debated for the most part by Christian men of reason, and were finally written and ratified during a time when there was no political party.  Reason and compromise prevailed, and a great nation was born.   

     If the great political, religious, and racial divides that exist today in America have any significance, it probably rests in those reasons why we exist and feel that we still deserve to exist as a nation.  It rests in the reasons why we have our form of government, our political and economic systems--and until recently, our kind of politics--and not the other alternatives.  It rests in the reasons we have to trust or distrust our economic and political systems, which must be anchored in integrity but are potentially the roots of considerable evil.   Who we are--and even what we hope to become--rest on whether those reasons are changing, and on whether Americans both want and expect economic and political integrity to be lasting attributes of this nation.

     In his historic Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln said, "our forefathers established on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."  Although there were plenty of red and black men in America--and of other colors throughout the world--when the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written, the majority of the Founders chose to reference ALL men, meaning not just all WHITE men.  "ALL men are created equal" included colored people.  

     In the midst of the "Great Civil War," Lincoln was reminding us that we were  "testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated (could) long endure."  He was not questioning the merits of equality; he was questioning white America's ability to extend the "blessings of liberty" to people of color:  Did a substantial majority of white Christian Americans believe it, and were the others at least willing to act like they did because it was the right thing to do?  

     There was, even then, a strong case to be made for all men not being created equal.  Even people of the same color were not equivalent:  They had different heights, talents, intelligence, areas and levels of creativity, degrees of attractiveness, etc.   But "equal" did not mean equivalent or identical.  Equal meant of equal worth, deserving of equal respect as human beings, deserving to be treated as one would like to be treated.            

     Those who suggest that men were not all created equal imply by such suggestions that some people--usually themselves--are superior to others.  But such superiority usually means that some people had advantages not available to those whom they consider inferior.   Within every race and within every endeavor, everything else being equal, there are millions of individuals who can outperform millions of members of any races.   In other words: not every member of any race of people is superior to every member of any other race in any attribute.  

     The exercise and levels of genius within a culture depends on the physical, social and intellectual environments where geniuses reside.  It depends on the perceived physical, social and intellectual needs of that society, and on the society's demands for and commitments to intellectual resourcefulness.  Creativity (and at what level it is allowed to exist) often depends on whether prevailing attitudes will allow ingenuity to be expressed.

     Whereas, scientific, economic, and medical genius easily find avenues for expression, social, educational and moral genius, which address how we relate to each other, because of a lack of financial reward, have a much harder time being developed, even when there are examples of success, and when there are such obvious needs for them.

     So we are back to the original question:  Who are we as Americans, and what do we seek to become?  Just what did the Founders envision when they "established on this continent a new nation"?  What did they mean by "all men (being) created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?  And does our survival, as a nation founded on those principles, depend on our either believing them or acting as if we do.

     There are those who say it was no coincidence that men of the intelligence, wisdom and integrity of the Founders lived at the same time, in the same place, to address a situation that required their presence.  They say it was divine providence.   And although Lincoln expressed some concern whether a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal' could "long endure," he closes his address by optimistically saying that the nation would have a "new birth of freedom," and that government of the people, by the people and for the people (would) not perish from the earth.  Was Lincoln being prophetic or was it just an expression of hope?

      One hundred years later, during the sixties, the nation experienced what many considered that new birth.  And although it may only have put finishing touches on the first one, It felt good to be an American.  Since then, however, who we are and what we seek to become as Americans have become increasingly relevant questions.   

     Paraphrasing Jesus, Lincoln said that a nation divided against itself cannot stand.   Because of slavery, the nation was divided North against South.  Later, the South would be separated, White from Black.  And, now, there are religious divides in a country once aspirating to be "one nation under God."    

     If the Founders were men chosen by The Creator to establish a model nation for the world, who chose these flounderers who seem committed to preventing it from happening?

Ronald

    

Bailing Out America

 
     Who are the rich people who need their tax cuts extended--when they shouldn't?

     They are not billionaires.  They are people who became millionaire because of the Bush tax cuts, and at the expense of the working class, but lost most of it during the Great Recession.  They are people whose trusts, many established for their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, were also hit.     

     They are people who invested more than they could ultimately afford on homes that were too big. on mansions they could't afford, and on expensive cars for each member of the family.  

     They are people who spent much of their children's inheritance on worldwide trips, entertainment and recreation, not expecting the Great Recession and the decline in prices of their homes whose sizes too often exceeded the needs of the family.  

     Many of these are people who impoverished themselves by poor management of their wealth, and hope to bounce back on the backs of the middle class to which they only recently belonged, and they won't feel guilty about impoverishing them so long as they regain their financial standing.  

     Many of these people were rich people, who earned as much a $500 thousand a year, who have become middle class again, and fear they may have lost their last best opportunity to again enrich themselves legitimately.      

     Many of them are having to take care of adult children who did not prepare themselves for secure employment, forcing parents and the children into a lower standard of living.

     Many of them are trying to build new wealth at the expense of the middle class and working poor, money which they should have saved for their children's future and present needs.

     However, people with hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth or more  don't need tax-cut extensions.  They're generally smart enough, shrewd enough or positioned well enough to have invested wisely and avoided being terribly damaged by the recession.  Most of them actually used the recession, and the lead up to it, to further enrich themselves. Many of them were already super-rich, with enough money to adequately fund even trusts of  future generations. 

    The only problem with funding future generations is that top academic talents may go undeveloped to the detriment of the nation.  And if moral virtues and traditional values are not the underpinnings of their ambitions and if those talents were to be used to seek out weaknesses  within our political and economic systems for personal gain--then maybe the nation is better off with their not be well-educated.

     Poor management of money, of course, enriches some elements of the population, whereas, wise management of money enriches a different set of elements, and often provides jobs for a different kind of employee.

     The people of the emerging economies want to have what Americans have, and the more they achieve that goal, the more Americans trend toward conditions from which they have come.

     Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pointed out in a recent interview that while the emerging world is presently taking jobs and wealth from the Western world, those jobs and that accumulation of wealth will eventually produce consumers who will want to buy the kinds of thing we will either make or make better and faster than anyone else.  

     But that will only happen in the US if we educate our children better than everybody else, so they can either generate the creative ideas, produce unique but necessary products, or play their parts by enabling both of these to happen through education and productive, rewarding labor.

     In the meantime, although there are many formerly rich people (and people who were just well off) who need tax cuts to return to their status among the elite, there are very rich people whose standards of living have not be seriously impacted by the Great Recession, and would not be impacted were their wealth reduced in some cases by a billion dollars or two, and in other cases by several hundreds of million dollars, and  still others by several tens of millions of dollars.  Some of them spend hundreds of millions of dollars seeking political office.

     Now, is the time for President Obama to call on the patriotism of the wealthy who really did not want or need their Bush tax cuts extended, and ask them to come to the rescue of the nation that made their wealth possible by giving back to the government, not only any tax cuts to which they are entitled to over the next two years, but give even more as they can afford.

     Right-wing conservative Republicans have criticized wealthy Americans who have expressed opposition to Bush tax cuts being extended for the wealthy, suggesting that they could give it back if they don't want it.  Well, this is the time for every liberal, moderate, and conservative American, for every religious leader and congregations, for every doctor, lawyer, and Indian chief, for every bank and corporation who has an American agenda to, not only make that appeal, but make a generous contributions to this "bailout" of America.  Middle-class generosity would make the job even easier.

     Our brave young men and women, the vast majority of whom have neither amassed nor inherited wealth of any consequence, are sacrificing their lives and jeopardizing their futures to protect this nation, its way of life and the opportunities it affords fellow Americans.  Those who have benefited from those opportunities, be they businesses or individuals, should be willing to show that nation, in times of dire need, their gratitude in measures commensurate with their good fortune. 

     But we need somebody of note to take the lead toward sacrifice and a new national pride, toward a renewal of the American economy to one where lost wealth and lost opportunities can be restored, both for ourselves and our posterities.
     This is a venture where Democrats and Republicans should find common ground.

Ronald

Democratic Compromise or Capitulation

     The Democrats and Republicans have come to an apparent "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts; that is, the President's words announcing the agreement sounded like a compromise:  Tax cuts for the middle class to  be extended permanently, while cuts for the wealthy would be extended for another two years.  Unemployment benefits would be extended for another thirteen months, and other tax benefits would help stimulate the economy.  Even at that, I would have preferred extending the tax cuts for the wealthy by one year, and making extending it for the second year contingent on evidence of significant job growth as a result of it.

     But I understood wrong.  Under the agreement, ALL tax cuts would be extend for two years--that includes the middle class cuts.  And unless businesses are going to plow profits during the next two years into middle class salaries and wages the way they did for upper-income tax payers during the past thirty years, the middle class will be no better able to fit such cuts into their budgets in two years than they are now.   

     There are, however, two good things about this agreement: (1) Extension of tax cuts for the wealthy for two years still gives the present congress and the President control over further extensions for them and (2) middle-class voters will again have a chance in November 2012 to realize and rectify their mistake, and return Democrats to a majority status sufficient to make middle class cuts permanent.   

     But I still don't see any figures made public showing how much the taxes at various income levels of the middle class would increase if the tax cuts expired.  They should have been announced continuously before the last Nov. elections and certainly should be publicize now and for the next two years if this agreement prevails. 

     Faced with the reality of this agreement, I have to rate it more capitulation than compromise.  With Republicans willing to hold the middle class hostage to demands of the rich, the President had to capitulate by taking what Republicans were willing to give him.   There are Democrats who say the President and Democrats should refused this compromise and fight.  But most of these people likely can afford to have their taxes increased.  

      It remains to be seen whether senate democrats will hold out for a better agreement (or a real compromise).  They could demand that the middle-class tax cuts be made permanent.  Such a stand would assume that middle-class tax payers could (or were willing to) take a tax hit, and whether the unemployed could (or were willing to) go another two years without further unemployment relief.  If there were sufficient jobs created during the next two years despite increased taxes, then the need for unemployment benefits would be less.  But that would be up to the business community.

      This is the kind of quagmire which the people chose on November 2.  The middle class voted against itself.  Many of those who are unemployed blamed Democrats for their condition and voted for Republican, and many middle-class workers, not realizing that they were offering themselves to be hostages for the enrichment of the wealthy, did likewise.

     While voters obviously did not understand the consequences of their votes, Democrats did--or should have.  I heard very little from the party, warning middle-class voters what would happen to their taxes if Republican gained sufficient strength in Congress.  The dilemma that we face now was predictable when the idea of extending tax cuts for only the middle class was first conceived..

     But even if all of the tax cuts are extended, we may be no better able to effect job growth and economic recovery than we are now.  Why? Because instead of the middle class and borderline rich continuing to spend tax savings that stimulate job creation, they may decide to start saving because of the chance their taxes will increase in two years.    

     Capitalism requires that risk be taken and shared by all participants in the economic system:  consumers, corporations, insurances companies, banks--everybody.  But just as businesses are claiming uncertainty as a basis for not employing more workers now, won't there be the same uncertainty during the next two years as they prepare for the uncertainty about what will happen in next two years, and couldn't that uncertainty continue to offer the same reasons for businesses not to hire during future extensions?

        Ultimate, there seem to be only two endings possible for the tax-cut dilemma facing present-day Democrats and Republicans: All tax cuts will eventually either be made permanent or all of them will expire.  Letting taxes expire not only would be devastating to many members of the middle class, but it hinders the economic recovery by keeping businesses afraid to hire, and middle-income and borderline rich people, afraid to spend.  Making the tax cuts permanent, together with compromise spending, will deepen the hole of the federal debt, all with no strategy for long-term debt reduction and economic recovery.  Either way, however, it's heads the wealthy wins, tails the middle class and working poor lose.  

     We will be borrowing to put in the pockets of the wealthy money that will be paid back through the sacrifices of everybody else.  No wonder the Republicans leaders are smiling.

     

Ronald

Spinning Nov. 2 Elections

November 21, 2010

To:  The Editor

     Nov. 2 has come and gone, and now is time to speculate about what "the American people" said.  In just about every other word they speak, Republicans are spinning that  "the American people" said they want what Republicans want.  And they spin it as if Republicans simply want what "the American people" want.  The fact is:  the American people want different things.  But what we all want, is a quick return to the days when there is a lot less threat to or uncertainty about our future.

     I was hopeful that voters would conclude that their best hopes rested in the character and agenda of the Democratic Party.  It was Democrats that at least tried to produce jobs with stimulus legislate,--which worked, though not to the extent needed or expected.   

     It was not Obama's fault, however, that cities, counties and states did not have plans in place that could make use of the money.  It is not his fault that many cities, counties and states that were prepared to use the money chose instead to leave workers unemployed.  Voters rewarded Republicans for limiting the success of the stimulus they limited.  Because of Republican repudiations, too many voters gave Democrats no credit for either their intent or for whatever success was achieved.

     The message that voters sent rest in the fact that they gave Republicans the House but denied them the Senate.  It would have been easy for voters to vote straight Republican tickets and elect enough Republicans to the Senate to give them a majority.  The message was:  We're hurting.  We're worried.  We don't know what is needed, but we expect the President and Congress to figure it out.  Its like a patient going to a doctor and saying, "Doc, I don't feel well.  Nothing hurts; I just don't feel good."  Obama and fellow Democrats have been prescribing medicine, but Republicans have done everything within their power to prevent the patient's accessing and taking the medicine.  The patient still feels bad, but blames the doctor rather than those who denied them access to the medicine.

     In this election, voters are saying to Democrats:  Maybe it wasn't your fault that we didn't receive the medicine, but we're going to blame you until you find a way to get that medicine, whatever it is, to us.  Voters said in effect: maybe you'll have to give it to us in your office or bring it to our home.  But find a way.  Their message to Republicans is:  Get in there and help get the medicine to us.  If someone tells you another medicine is better, discuss it with the President.  We elected him to be our personal physician.  If his medicine is not right time will tell.

     The fact is Republicans were not obstructing Democratic ideas because Republicans thought they were bad ideas.  They opposed them because they were afraid they would succeed.  Defeating Democrats, not healing the patient, was the goal of Republicans from the beginning.  That goal has not changed.  And whatever they agree to will be with hopes that it fails--with a little help from them if necessary.

     I suggest the following strategy for any bipartisan compromise:  (1) Identify the sectors where there are new ideas or concerns by either party, for example, health care, financial regulations, education, energy independence, clean energy and the environment, comprehensive immigration legislation.  (2) Within each sector, allow each party to identify in writing changes it would like to see made in each sector.  (Parties would have met in advance to decide what changes they would recommend.)  (3) List by party all recommendations submitted for each sector.  (4) Allow the parties to take copies of both sets of ideas back to their caucuses and choose between alternatives.  (5) Pair up the ideas about each area and have caucus prioritize their choices from most important to them to least important.  (6) Flip a coin to determine who gets the pick first.  During the first cycle, the winner picks the area that party determined to be highest priority.  The loser gets their 2nd and 3rd choices, then winner the 4th choice.  During the second cycle, the loser of the first cycle chooses first, the loser 2nd and 3rd and winner 4th, etc.  In case there is only set of ideas left, flip a coin to determine which party's idea will be accepted.

It seems complicated, but it's fair.

     A far as extending the tax cuts for the wealthy,  Democrats had better get something mighty good in return.  Extending tax cuts for the rich only became an issue when it was almost too late to negotiate a deal with health care, comprehensive immigration legislation,  the environment, etc. 

     The president had a great press conference on Nov. 3.  He took blame for results that were not his fault.  Critics questioned as if they also bought it was his fault, and that he felt none of the people's pain.  But nobody can feel the pain of a situation like someone who has been there.  

     The President did more than say he felt the people's pain, he tried to alleviate it.  He stimulate the economy to save and create jobs, he extended unemployment benefits, he provided money for small businesses to be better able to hire people.  He lowered middle-class taxes so people would have more money during tough times.  He kept American auto manufacturers in business, saving automaker jobs and jobs at the dealerships and suppliers. These jobs kept people in homes, and gave workers buying power that kept other workers employed.  

     Yet, the President is constantly criticized for seeming not to care.   But Republicans, who have tried every trick in the bag to prevent help from going to these people, are never asked how they feel about not helping those in need, nor are they criticized for seeming not to care.

     Again, President Obama seems anxious to reach across the aisle.  And, again no Republican talks about reaching back to compromise on something that Republicans feel passionately about.  Democrats should demand that Republicans reach back with things they value.  If they won't compromise their "principles," why would they (and the American people) expect Democrats to compromise theirs.  

Ronald

     

     

An Election Like No Other

     This year's mid-term elections very likely were the most crucial elections in American history.  The American people were faced with the need for earth-shaking reforms, from very complex survival needs to the very daunting needs to adjust to a new economic reality in America.   Voters had to determine whether America would become a place where "survival of the fittest" prevailed, or where no group of human beings was considered dispensable, and none was deemed indispensable.  As was the case with the founding of the nation, however, solutions would only be provided by our brightest Americans who are also among our most moral, ethical and empathetic Americans.  

     Someone said that democracy requires and moral ethical majority.  "Survival of the fittest" with a moral, ethical and empathetic foundation both prepares and enables the strongest, brightest and wealthiest to then provide the means for maximum opportunities and preparation of those of lesser attributes so they, too, can make their maximum contribution to society.  But where conscience is no longer a factor in decision-making, "survival of the fittest" leads to domination rather than support of those less fit.

     Someone else has said that the test of a nation's character is how well it treats its poor.  

     And as the American people have become wealthier, we are becoming less willing to share that wealth with those who are less fortunate.  This attitude eventually impoverishes the middle class.  Increasingly more American families have children in poor schools than in good schools, guaranteeing to grow that pool of needy Americans who either don't know or can't control what is best for them.  

     Strangely on Nov. 2, American families, most of whose children attend poorer schools, expressed a belief that Republicans offered their children a better chance for a quality education--despite there being no evidence of this.  Thomas Jefferson said that democracy cannot survive with an uninformed, poorly educated electorate.  

     But instead of providing quality education for all children, too many parents have succeeded in providing the best schools, courses, teachers and classmates for our own children so they will be among the "fittest" to survive.   But they do this with no intention that their children be among the "fittest" so they can then help those who are less "fit."

     Someone said that democracy requires a moral, rational majority.   We need to be able to trust those with whom we survive.  But we can't continue to elect people we don't trust, for the wrong reasons, and expect honest government.  What we are to become as a nation, we are now becoming.  We can only hope that the last election results is not evidence that we are already there.  It certainly will be difficult to elect people who are better than we are ourselves.  And we cannot care more for other people than our minds have been taught and our hearts will allow.  Those who lie most, deceive most, and care less about those of us who have come upon hard times have been able to convince a majority of "the American people" that their successful war against the poor is due to God's being on their side.

     These are confusing times, indeed, when people think that those who got them into trouble are more likely to lead them out, and those who cost them jobs are more likely to bring those jobs back.  

     During this campaign, Tea Party participants depicted President Obama as a socialist--and as a nation we are socialistic: Social Security, Medicare, public schools, public universities, public highways, public support for medical research. public financing of the military, public judicial systems, public police and fire services, etc.  Little did voters realize, though,  the kind of political system they were making possible.  Even in communist China the government determines the parameters within which businesses operate, and establishes people-friendly ends that business must pursue.  In the end, the success of political and economic systems does not rest in what the system is called but in the results it achieves--its ability "to do the most good for the most people."  

     But America in the process of doing the most good for the fewest people, and we are finding ourselves operating contrary to all the words of wisdom that have been spoken and guided the behavior of mankind for thousands of years.  Even "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" is beginning to be treated as a joke.   

Whether it sought it or not, big business has been handed control of both elections and the Supreme Court, and a return to little regulations, no oversight, and no obligation to be people-friendly in its behavior.  It can reduce workforce or what workers are paid at will.  They can cut work time and workers would have to accept it because there would be no better paying jobs elsewhere.  Judging from the unidentified financial contributions given to the Republican party during the last election, there are more corporate bad guys than good guys.

     In the past, businesses made money off middle-class and the working poor who both spent more and accumulated more debt than they could afford.  Not being paid what their labor was worth, too often these Americans used credit and credit cards to cover financial shortfalls. That money bought things and activities (and paid interest on debt) that enabled businesses, both the lenders and the sellers of goods and services, to generate more profits.  These profits exceeded what business should have expected (or even would have been possible) had workers lived within their means and saved according to their future needs.  But this allowed investors at the top of wealth ladder to further enriched themselves by climbing on the backs of those working Americans who were doing the ground-level work for both businesses and this society.  

      The fact that the rule of big business is not only conceivable but, with the help of the Supreme Court, quite achievable should ring a alert bell and be cause for great concern by moral and rational voters on whose wisdom and actions survival of our democracy depends. 

Ronald

Thinking through Political Decisions

November 10, 2010

To:  The Editor

     When a nation's children rank 23rd and 24th (and falling) in science and math, respectively, there is little surprise that their parents ("the American people") also will not think rationally in the political decisions they make.

     Rational decision-making in politics--as in education--is a problem-solving activity.  As in science and mathematics, both begin with a set of given conditions that are relevant to a goal to be achieved during a solution process.  Each goal has it own set of relevant conditions.

     A student who has not been taught to think critically and reason logically in English, history, government, health and other non-science and non-mathematics classes will not automatically do so in science and mathematics classes either unless science and math teachers encourage, stimulate and teach them how to do so. If voters have not been taught to think rationally in their schools, how can they be expected to do so in preparation for election day?

     Being prepared to think rationally in preparation for election day does not mean that all people will come to the same conclusion.  With difficult math and science problems some times the correct solution is reached by students only because the answers are in the back of the book.  Rational thinking will not alway lead to the correct answers to problems, but it gets one on the road toward the solution.

     Solutions to all problem require access to correct information and knowledge of relationships between and among the variables existing within that body of relevant information.   The relationship between a home to live in and a good job is simple:  If the father has a good job, the family will have a place to stay.  An employer, however, does not relate directly to the family having food and a place to live.  But both an employer and family needs relate to the father's having a job.  Hence, if the employer hires the father, there will be food on the table and a place to live.  But employers also have needs, further complicating the problem.

     I once attended a conference of science teachers who were setting the guidelines for the curriculum of a science course, and the teachers had been led to conclude that teaching the scientific method was no longer appropriate because even real scientists did not use it.  I was unable to convince them that the scientific method was not just an approach to tackling science problems, it was useful in problem-solving and decision-making in everyday life activities--like voting.

     I'm again reminded of my favorite mathematics teacher, Burton West, saying to us:  "Think, young people, think."  If children are not taught and encouraged to think in school, who will teach and encourage them to do so after they become adults? 

      In a recent column, Bill O'Reilly asks, " Why do the West Coast and the Northeast continue to embrace liberalism, especially when it has led to economic disaster?"  That statement was aimed at an uninformed and misinformed audience whom O'Reilly hopes remains so about such facts.

     Often, when voters are not able (or inclined) to think rationally during political campaigns, they either flip coins to decide how to vote or engages in "trial and error problem-solving.  Trial and error works sometimes but mostly when one knows the answer and has much time to solve the problem.  Flipping the coin always has a fifty-fifty chance of being right, but votes tend to cancel each other.  Recent elections suggest that the present electorate is resorting to both methods in making political decisions: If the bunch who are in office are not getting the job done," trial and error" says choose someone else.  "Flipping the coin says: I don't know which is better; I'll just pick one.  At least I'm voting.  Both can be persuaded, by the party which claims to know and represent what "the American people" want.

      President Obama was doing what "the American people" wanted:  Preventing a depression required that money be spent to stabilize banks.  It required that money be spent producing and saving jobs.  Saving General Motors and Chrysler saved jobs at the automakers, their dealerships and their suppliers.  Health-care reform was aimed at  reducing the contribution of health-care costs to the growing national debt.  Keeping economic conditions and unemployment from getting worse and effecting an economic recovery, slow though it may be, made Democrats worthy of two more years.  "The American people" disagreed, and TV personalities, almost to a person, espoused that kind of thinking by them as reasonable.

      No person who survives an auto crash in critical condition goes home the next day.  Yet that's what "the American people" thought was possible with America's great recession.  Trial and error thinking has demanded another doctor, presuming that with another "doctor", our economy would have been well the next day.  The reason why people don't make bad decisions in medical emergencies is because they don't constantly hear and submit to other people who tell them to do what is contrary to their better judgment.  Yet, in politics, "the American people" allow surrogates to think for them.

      Granted, liberals are no more thoughtful than conservatives about what is best for government to be and be doing.  The more rational or centrist elements of either ideology could move the country forward.  But ideologies no longer control political agendas.   The contest is no longer one of political and social ideas; it is about whether the wealthy have the right (and should be allowed) to become richer at the expense everyone else.  

     Middle-class voters, whose incomes have been stagnate for the past ten years or more as incomes of the wealthy increased, and others who earn less than $250 thousand dollars a year, essentially said on Nov. 2:  If taxes of the wealthiest Americans are increased on Jan. 1, then, we want ours increased also.         

     How can Democrats regain the faith of "the American people" who use trial and error, flipping the coin and the thinking of others to make political decisions?  How will Democrats deal with "the American people" who allow questionable financial contributions to essentially buy their votes?  Better education might help; a better national character would demand it.  But Republicans won't allow either.  

Ronald