Tag: politics

Sorry for another political post, but something just dawned on me.  I was walking through the lobby of one of the main buildings on campus and there was a student group giving away donuts if you would call your Representative, Senator or the Whitehouse and urge them to take action on the genocide in Darfur.  It’s a noble cause, and a free donut.  So, I called Representative Kathy Castor’s office and urged them to take action (then ate my donut).

On my way back to my office, I realized that I had not contacted my Representative or Senators about health care.  I also realized that I hadn’t seen any email campaigns to do so.  As healthcare is an issue that really bothers me, I decided I’d go ahead and email them myself.

If you’ve never done so, now would be a good time.  It’s also quite easy.  For your senators, go here:

http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Find the senators for your state and email them.  For your representative, go here:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

You can even use my email if you’d like:

Senator/Representative,

I’m writing to encourage you to do whatever you can to institute a government-run health insurance plan.  I’m proud to be American, but ashamed that we are the only developed country in the world that does not have some form of universal coverage for all of our citizens.  Instituting a government-run health insurance plan is the first step in making that happen.  Instituting a government-run health insurance plan will also substantially lower health care costs, which I think most people in the US would like to see.

As one of your constituents, I urge you to reflect the desires of the majority of Americans and institute substantial health care reform, including a government-run health insurance plan:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/05/poll-do-americans-want-government-health-care-reform/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-the-politics-of-health-care/

Sincerely,

It will take you five minutes to do this.  I’m not one for guilting people into action, but come on – 5 minutes!  Of course, it may take longer if you want to customize the message, but that’s up to you (you mean you don’t want a government-run plan?).  Plus, you’ll be cool; you can go around to all your friends and say, “I contacted my senators and representative today.  Did you?”  Come on!  Don’t you want to be cool?

 38 total views,  2 views today

As a social scientist I’m fully aware of the fact that people tend to listen to, observe, and even seek out media and information that support their existing beliefs (this is a subset of both confirmation bias and self-justification).  Along with this is the tendency of people to avoid, criticize, and even demean any media or information that disagrees with their existing beliefs.  The result of such behavior, of course, is extreme polarization and a reduced ability to see the perspectives of people with whom you disagree.  In layperson’s terms: Once you stop listening to people with different opinions, it becomes nearly impossible to accept the idea that they may have something worthwhile to say.

Enter Barack Obama.  This Tuesday he plans to speak to the nation’s school children.  Thanks the polarizing efforts of Fox News’s scallywag blowhards, the parents of the nation’s school children are freaking out.  Now, turn the clocks back almost 20 years and George H.W. Bush (the dad) did the same thing.  I was in high school at that point.  Was there an uproar?  Did the parents of the nation’s school children freak out?  Were liberals running through streets demanding that their “socialist” children not listen to this god-fearing capitalist propagandist?  Um… No…

This raises two questions:

1) Should the President of the U.S. be allowed to talk to school children?

I’m pretty sure the Rush Limbaugh’s, Sean Hannity’s, and Glenn Beck’s have conveniently failed to mention the fact that Presidents of the US regularly visit schools and classrooms.  In fact, George W. Bush was reading a kid’s book to students in an elementary class when the September 11th terrorist attacks took place.  I wonder how many of the parents of those kids threw fits when they found out THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. was coming to visit their kids and talk to them?

While George Bush was President, I regularly used him as an example of someone with power.  I would tell my students that, if he were to suddenly walk into my classroom, regardless of how important I considered the topic of discussion at that moment, I would turn the floor over to him.  I’m not a fan of George Bush and I disagree with him politically on just about everything.  But because of his position (i.e. “status” in sociology), I would still listen to him and assume that what he had to say to my students would be worth hearing.

Additionally, I am a believer in listening to people who disagree with you precisely because it forces you to rethink what it is you believe (this is why we went to see Mitt Romney and John McCain speak during the election last year).  If you only ever listen to people who agree with you, you fall prey to groupthink.  And, your views are often ill-founded and not carefully developed.  In short, you think what you think not because it is a well-developed argument but because you’re afraid to think and have not considered thinking anything else.

So, the short answer to this question: Parents should be ecstatic that the President of the U.S. is taking time out of his schedule to talk to their children, regardless of his politics.  That he is doing so reflects the importance he puts on school.

2) What has changed to result in this type of a response?  While I’m not an expert on this particular social psychological phenomenon, my guess is that the media is playing a particularly large role in this.  While having a free and mostly unrestricted press (George Bush certainly didn’t give the press free reign in Iraq or Afghanistan during his wars there) is a hallmark of a liberal and open country, this also means the press can work to undermine the leadership of the country.  You would likely not find such criticism in the media in Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez has cracked down on the press.  So, I fully support the right of the media to say what they want regarding Barack Obama’s address to the nation’s school children.  I’d even die for their right to say what they are saying.

But I can’t help but see the media that is pushing this as remarkably hypocritical.  They demand the right to criticize the President and even try to get students to avoid listening to him give an innocuous speech about staying in school.  But if anyone were to criticize their right to say what they are saying, they would be up in arms about Constitutional Rights.  So, they support peoples’ rights to listen to them, but not to anyone who disagrees with them.  This is hypocrisy 101.

As for why this response now?  I think it does reflect both a growing divide in the U.S. between conservatives and progressives.  Luckily for those of us who are somewhat in touch with reality, it appears as though progressives are winning some of these battles.  The Republican Party is shrinking.  Religious fundamentalism is shrinking.  People are realizing that you can’t fight progress forever.  Doing so will ultimately doom your society.  So, my guess as to why this is happening now is because the religious right and conservatives in the U.S. are feeling increasingly marginalized (because they are), but they retain control over much of the media (most of the CEOs of media conglomerates are wealthy white men with vested interests in maintaining the status quo).  So, as wealthy white men lose a little bit of their power and control, they are fighting back, using the tools they have – the media and the unfailing loyalty of those who are too closed-minded to listen to anyone with whom they might possibly disagree.

Perhaps I’m being optimistic, but it seems like what we are hearing are the death throes of conservativism in the U.S.  It may be a long, loud, and painful death, but I’m hoping it is a death nonetheless.  That death may lead to the rise of Libertarians, but I’m guessing Libertarians wouldn’t run away from the opposition with their hands over their ears screaming at the top of their lungs so they can’t hear the opinions of those who disagree with them.

 81 total views,  1 views today

For all you fans of reducing government out there, maybe you should reconsider.  This NYTimes article gives a good illustration of situations when small government doesn’t make sense.  For years the government has allowed private companies to provide student loans at virtually no risk to the companies as the government insures the loans and provides the funding.  The companies just make money off that arrangement.  When the government makes the loans directly (even if it uses a private company to manage the loans), it saves billions.  In short, sub-contracting out to private companies services that government can provide directly only increases the cost.  It doesn’t decrease the cost, and here’s why: You introduce profit into the equation.

Do the math.  When the government runs the program, it looks like this:

cost of program = cost to provide the services

When government subcontracts programs, it looks like this:

cost of program = cost to provide the services + profit for corporation

In what situation can “profit for corporation” lead to lower costs of programs?  (It certainly hasn’t in healthcare; one of the primary reasons healthcare costs in the US keep going up is because insurance companies keep increasing their profits.  Take them out of the equation and healthcare costs will go down, not up.)

When I read that article this morning I remembered thinking about my father’s military experience. When he was in the military soldiers did the cooking and cleaning.  That was part of being a soldier.  Today, all of that is subcontracted out at ridiculous rates.  Soldiers don’t cook the food.  Why?  Can they not cook?  Of course they can.  The reason they don’t is because defense contractors see that as one more way to take money from taxpayers.  How could it possibly be less expensive to have soldiers cook their own food?

Don’t get me wrong; this isn’t a rant against soldiers having more leisure time.  It’s a rant about wasteful spending.  I’d love to pay less in taxes, just like everyone else.  But that means cutting out these ridiculous subcontractor scenarios where they simply add “profit for corporations” to the equation and then claim that it is cheaper for the American taxpayer because it “reduces government.”  That, of course, is crap!  It may mean bigger government to get rid of the subcontractors, but, ironically, bigger government sometimes means lower taxes.

 40 total views,  1 views today