And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.  But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

— Matthew 9:35-36 (KJV)

*  *  *  *  *

I’m thinking about health care today.

There had been some consternation about the language of this year’s health-care debate — that it has not encompassed enough discussion of moral imperatives.  A pair of articles posted at the Cognitive Policy Works website deserve reference here: Martin Bosworth’s “The Moral Language of Health Care Reform,” and the ever wonderful George Lakoff’s “The Policyspeak Disaster for Health Care.”

When Mr. Bosworth condemns the President’s calls for reform as “utterly bloodless and passionless, couched in the language of decades of corporate-speak that views patients as perfectly rational, logical, far-seeing ‘consumers,’” he is right.  When Mr. Lakoff writes (with oft-proven expertise) about the warped way liberals have ceded the language of duty, honor, and country to the right wing — reminding us that “health care is a patriotic issue… because Americans care about each other” — he is right.  Lakoff mentions “conservative veterans at Town Hall meeting[s] shouting things like, ‘I fought for this country in Vietnam, and I’m fight[ing] for it here.’”

These are symptoms, if you will, of the shared liberal reflex to avoid any public discourse that has to do with morals.  This reflex, of course, has its roots in years of “losing” on issues of morality — because the opponents of the left “had” the churches; because those same could criticize a Democratic president for his personal faults; because they could raise a fuss whenever secularism came down from the realm of ideals to actually stand for something.

But, dear Left, that is politics, and I think it is a miscalculation to say, as I imagine a Democratic strategist doing at this very moment, “we lose on morality!”  (He has seen numbers from a focus group and understands them.)  I think American people, liberals and conservatives alike, relate to morals, and I think that we rather like that about ourselves.  We raise our children to hear a story and immediately be prepared to name its moral.  This is how we communicate across the barriers of ethnicity, language, party, and socioeconomic standing.  So why don’t we all join the same conversation, so we can at least try (!) to say, my morality says help-thy-neighbor and I intend to!

*  *  *  *  *

I had been meaning to write about this for a while, and had started several times, but for whatever reason I continually lacked the energy to power through a whole post about it.  Then yesterday I learned that my health-insurance benefits have been terminated, at the precise moment I am facing a (I hope) non-serious but nonetheless unsettling condition I’d like to see a physician about.  I’m left with a strange feeling that would also occur if you dangled me over some sort of precipice.

And suddenly everything about the health-care debate has come into perspective.  I had understood, in an empathetic if abstract way, the challenges — the worry, the strain, the fear — that Americans face.  I had believed in our President’s drive to reform the system.  But when it became me who was worried, strained, and afraid — even I, young and active and whose problems are minor, could feel those things! — I became passionate.

And so I wondered why this President, who gave voice to so many of our anxieties and fears during his campaign — that we are behind, that we are hated, that we are unsafe — can not again speak to and for us in the same way.  Why our leaders are not employing emotion and morality, among the most potent tools of politics, to make a case to address a desperate need that touches each of us on emotional and moral levels.  Why some people can walk among the sick and diseased, seeing the multitudes, and yet not be moved to compassion.

none

I think that if I could have one miraculous wish granted, it should not be for something like “world peace.”  I do honestly and deeply believe that is a goal we can, one day, achieve — all on our own, without any intervention (from genies or otherwise).

Xavier in one of the X-Men movies teaches that “sometimes, the mind needs to discover things for itself.”  That may largely be true with respect to the evolution of humanity toward peace.

No, today, I’m thinking that my wish would be that no child should ever learn the word “afford.”

none

Cross-posted to the Generation Progress Blog.

Re: the opposition of John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, to the administration’s proposals for reforming health-care

—

This is not Mr. Mackey’s first run-in caused by his writings. During Whole Foods’ move to acquire Wild Oats in 2007, Mackey drew criticism for some pretty monopolistic language he had used to advocate the acquisition before the Whole Foods board. Referring to Wild Oats and the presence of other companies in the natural-foods sector, Mackey apparently argued that “[e]liminating them means eliminating this threat forever, or almost forever.”

Shortly thereafter, AP reported that for years Mackey had been posting negative predictions about Wild Oats’ finances under a pseudonym online. Of course, everyone uses pseudonyms online; that’s not the criticism. (Mackey defended himself in part by saying that screen names are a “normal custom” and a “great equalizer.” Duh. Red herring.) Furthermore, plenty of people post dirt about companies online, especially in financial forums. Also not the issue. The point of the consternation Mackey’s activities caused was that the chief executive officer of a corporation shouldn’t be denigrating a rival in that manner — and a soon-to-be-acquired rival at that. That’s like inviting someone over for dinner and then spending the whole meal telling them how worthless they are. Yes, because he did so behind a screen name, there was probably no market-altering effect. But it’s more of an ethical question.

In any case, Mackey ended the episode with (what else?) a cathartic blog post in which he stated:

…as Whole Foods Market continued to grow and as we opened large and exciting new stores around the United States, both the company and I became better and better known. At some point in the past 10 years I went from being a relatively unknown person to becoming a public figure. I regret not having the wisdom to recognize this fact until very recently.

And then, a bit later on:

I’ve learned many things from these events. The primary lesson I’ve learned is that because of Whole Foods Market’s success, I have become a public figure. My personal and work lives are now closely connected-and impact one another. Anything I say or do is now at risk of showing up on the front page of a national daily newspaper and therefore, I need to be much more conscious about the implications of everything that I say or do in all situations.

Now that’s an interesting conclusion — the right conclusion, in my view, and one that Mackey seems to have misplaced prior to his foray onto the op-ed page of the Journal. It is that abandonment of a lesson learned, and not “a misunderstanding of his role in public debate,” that has led to the current outrage.

So what of the man’s opinions? Having neither expertise nor time to sort out the avalanche of bickering, I cannot accept or refute some of them; they’re just too technical. Some people say health savings accounts are a “proven idea,” and others say they’re “low-coverage.” Not a debate I can confidently enter.

But what I do know to be troubling is the conservative view of society that plainly underpins some of Mackey’s proposals, and imbues them with a tone I find distasteful. (I am drawing on Mackey’s “full version,” posted here.) With all respect due Baroness Thatcher, I think that by opening with her quote — a line that is clever but cold — Mackey made a telling move. To say “other people’s money” is to espouse a cynical view of the federal budget — as if to repudiate the entire necessity of taxation and government. The espouser inevitably employs this argument selectively. Why did Thatcher/Mackey not say, The problem with defense spending is that eventually…? It’s a matter of priorities, of course.

Insuring the uninsured is not Mackey’s priority. He has built a business empire and profited from it immensely. (I take issue with claiming that he makes little money these days — no one has mentioned his stock options, which reportedly render his annual income far, far higher than his stated salary. But it’s quite beside the point.) He leads his corporation and his employees are ostensibly happy. He operates well-funded charities. But he does not have the perspective of a leader of society who must care for the whole nation. To wit:

• He believes that we should rely on spontaneous generosity to support those who cannot provide for themselves (”permit individuals to make… donations… to help the millions of people who have no insurance”). And what if nobody donates? What happens in a recession or a depression? Sand in the gears, and no recourse for the needy.
• He believes that there is no overlap between our understanding of “rights” and the basic necessities of food and clothing and health. He asks: “how can we say that all people have any more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have an intrinsic right to food?” Simply, Mr. Mackey — because it is barbaric to think otherwise. I didn’t imagine anyone could seriously argue anymore that there is no such thing as a right to food. It’s internationally accepted — right there in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And do you know which human rights come next? Those of “clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.” Ensuring the fulfillment of these rights is the duty of every government.
• He believes that if a right is not explicitly enumerated in the founding documents of this country, then it does not exist in any form. (”A careful reading of both The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter, because there isn’t any. This ‘right’ has never existed in America.”)
• He has seemingly lumped all the major ailments including cancer into a category of “mostly preventable” disease. I readily agree that Americans have awfully poor dietary habits (let alone exercise regimens), but calling us a bunch of sissies with “self-inflicted” problems ignores the colossal systemic and societal factors that have produced the present situation. Pray tell, Mackey, how a struggling single mother with three children is supposed to make “healthier lifestyle choices” such as upgrading to the pricey grass-fed beef you would undoubtedly prescribe for the betterment of her family?

On the whole, I can’t definitively pass judgment on Mackey’s policy palette until I learn more. But what I do know is that there should and there must be a policy-centered debate in this country, and not all this superstitious town-hall madness. I’m grateful that Mackey presented honestly-held beliefs in his article, but I think in many respects his prose may have only added to the histrionics.

***

Two links on this subject I have found worthwhile:

Guernica profiles an insurance-exec-turned-reformist-crusader

Andrew Weil rethinks the whole idea of reform

***

none

There’s a recurring line in the Governor Palin postmortems that’s irking me.  It’s the suggestion that if Palin would only lock herself in her room until she got through all of de Tocqueville (minus bathroom breaks), she might emerge a viable presidential candidate.  Let’s look at this exchange from Fox News’s Special Report program, for example:

Krauthammer: [...] She had to go home and study and spend a lot of the time on issues in which she was not adept last year…

Barnes: [...] I agree she has homework to do. There is plenty of time to do that. [...]

Krauthammer: [...] She ought to bone up, and then I think she would be reconsidered as serious candidate. [...]

Liasson: [...] I expected her to go home and kind of import to Alaska a kind of tutorial board of people who could really work with her. And she’s smart. She’s a quick study. She could do it if she wanted to. Foreign policy, domestic policy, economics, that’s what I thought she would spend the next couple of years doing, and she hasn’t. [...]

Kelly: Well, it is still early.

Barnes: It’s very early.

This is a fairly routine conversation that I’ve heard echoed in other outlets.  I can’t help but find the suggestion a bit of an insult to the electorate.  These are serious people, respected commentators, lamenting that Palin isn’t studying hard enough to be president.  (Even Mara Liasson didn’t bat an eye!)  How can this be?

Undoubtedly, the presidency is the pinnacle of any politician’s career, an office long aspired to, and worked toward through a life of public service.  One’s record of service, in turn, becomes a résumé and a platform, submitted to the American people for acceptance or rejection, based on its merits and on the needs of the country.  Of course, I’m not saying that only career politicians can or should be president, or that only accomplished (i.e., older) public figures should either.  I am an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama, whom I would call neither a career politician nor an old man.

But certainly one cannot prepare for the presidency by cramming.  The White House has to be harder to achieve than a good score on the LSAT, right?!  I don’t know that even two years of study could transform the Governor into a policy wonk.  More likely, it would be a fairly one-sided tutoring in the philosophy and policy of the Republican Party.  “Studying” or “learning” implies debate, questioning, and examination — Socrates lives! — but I don’t see any “expert tutors” really allowing Palin to develop her own thoughts about, say, foreign affairs.  The GOP has assuredly had enough “mavericky” from her.

In the end, I say, let Palin be Palin.  Stuffing her with platitudes (albeit more learned-sounding ones) insults the judgment of the American people and probably won’t suit Palin very well anyway.

Coda: Check out the comments to this post at Conservatives4Palin.com.  Interesting that several days before the Governor’s resignation announcement, the committed Palinistas were discussing her not running for re-election and spending time in “Reagan’s wilderness,” studying policy in advance of a presidential bid.  I’d say that’s the most likely explanation for her resignation I’ve heard so far.

2 com

There’s a lot of material emerging now (unsurprisingly) on the backgrounds of Iranian opposition leader Mir-Hossein Moussavi and his associates.  If I weren’t heading to the airport in a couple of hours, I’d be digesting more of it.

Of what I have read, the point that strikes me as most interesting is the philosophical evolution of many of the reformist luminaries, including Moussavi himself.  BBC remembers his government in the 1980s as one “that did not stand for dissent” and reliably supported Ayatollah Khomeini, including during the hostage crisis.  Rafsanjani, former president and champion of Moussavi’s cause this month, has been a reliable moderate, but he too started out behind Khomeini and is quoted around the Internet denouncing the “Americans’ sinister networks” (not unfounded, of course).  Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, who has been calling for a recount and expressing solidarity with the protesters (source), was chief henchman to Khomeini and is responsible for crafting much of the theocracy in 1979.

I suppose this type of evolution shouldn’t be a surprise in a country that’s only a few decades post-revolution.  There are plenty of examples of diverging views among Founding Fathers & co. in the years following the American Revolution. However, for such fervent and prominent supporters of the Islamic Revolution to have come full-circle, to the point of whispering about a counter-revolution just 30 years on, says a good deal about the success of Iran’s theocratic experiment.

none