The Healing Process

If you’re real quiet you may be able to hear the Palin bedtime stories interspersing death panel myths with warnings of the boogie man. You may also be able to hear the health care lies emanating from Betsy McCaughey’s hollow thoughts. Not even Søren Kierkegaard could handle all this absurdity. We may need a separate health care bill just to deal with the apparent pathological liar epidemic. Let’s try and hit the mute button on all the health care lies.

Our country’s healthcare system will continue to fail because its opponents are savvy. They didn’t like what was being said so they changed the conversation. Our healthcare system will continue to fail because its proponents are lost. And Obama hasn’t been able to get us back on track. A political red herring and a multitude of ad hominem attacks have left this administration scrambling.

My audacity is intact, but my hope is fleeting.

Republicans claim that a private enterprise could never compete against a government-run enterprise. Out of the other side of their mouth they claim that all government-run enterprises are far too inefficient to work and would fail so catastrophically that we would never be able to recover.

Well, that’s quite a conundrum, isn’t it?

Private companies will fail when in direct competition with the more effective government. But the government runs everything so poorly that they are never effective.

What happens when two and two don’t equal four?

My sympathy goes out to politicians that have to deal with these problems while raising children in this mixed-up world. They will have had to choose between public and private schools, all the way from kindergarten to college. Upon completion how will those children ever mail resumes or grad school applications? Will they use FedEx, UPS, or the USPS? How will they ever decide? What if some of those children choose to defend this great country instead of working a nine-to-five? Do they go the private Blackwater route, or the public socialist U.S. military route? How they are both even in existence is a mystery? There is no way they could work in tandem. When their children decide to buy a home they will probably opt for the FHA loans that have made normal bank loans so inconsequential. Wait a second—they may not even need a loan, why pony up the extra coin for a home in a private gated community when they could opt for Section 8 housing—Martha’s Vineyard in New England or Martha’s neighbor in Bed-Stuy? And who will their children choose to represent them in court when they default on that loan, Gloria Allred or a court-appointed lawyer? I hope those children are prepared for this lack of clarity, this uncertainty, the impossibility of private and public enterprise to coexist.

Allow me to further illuminate that light-bulb flickering above your head. The red herring is a mutually exclusive argument. Each piece of that argument is based more on fears and lies than reality.

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” ~ South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint

The Republicans view the healthcare debate as a war against Obama, while Obama views it as a war against insufficient health care.

“The person who doesn’t scatter the morning dew will not comb gray hairs.” ~ Hunter S. Thompson

Let’s scatter the dew; let’s ignore the Republican attempt to maintain quo’s status. Let’s perform the will of the people and let Democracy guide. America voted to give the Democrats control of everything, so Democratic ideals are the people’s will. The hope of change got you in, gave you the opportunity to execute that change. You made promises and were elected because of our hopes, because of our desire for that very change. So far we have nothing. You are swimming against the swell of support you earned. You are not doing what you promised, what we entrusted you to do, what we hoped you would do.

The audacity of hope: yeah, now I get it.

The Audacity of Hops

When did the first wheel fall off the healthcare bus?

When a self-important Harvard Professor met a self-important Cambridge police officer.

I love talking and writing about race relations. I believe that the more we study the topic the more equipped we are at dealing with it. But this is not a topic of race. This is a topic of self-importance and arrogance. The Harvard prof views himself as too important, too revered to be treated like a common crook – when his actions said otherwise. The officer feels the same because he spends his days and nights protecting ungrateful citizens from common crooks. The officer is self-righteous and arrogant because his profession requires it for survival. The professor is self-righteous and arrogant because his profession requires it for advancement. It is not always an issue of race when a black man is arrested by a white officer. Crowley is not a racist. He gave dying Boston Celtic Reggie Lewis mouth-to-mouth when Lewis, who happened to be black, collapsed and died on a court in Boston. For Professor Gates to claim racial profiling as he was breaking into a million-dollar Cambridge home that he happened to own is careless and reeks of the same vanity that he claims Crowley was displaying. Black police officers stood with Crowley and white Harvard profs stood with Gates because this was not an issue of race. Indeed, this was barely an issue at all.

And, finally, the pièce de résistance: Barack Obama decides to fuel the fire by calling the entire Cambridge police force stupid. My head fell into my hands as I watched these stupid words escape his mouth. He was making an issue of a non-issue. A man breaks into a house and the police went over and above the call of duty. Leave it at that. It was nothing more than a series of unfortunate events. What’s worse is that now Gates’ community is the best neighborhood in America to burglarize; who in that neighborhood is going to call the cops now? Then, to add to the lunacy, Obama has both men over for a beer. Genius! Let’s add alcohol to an already volatile situation. As a country we watched and waited with feigned alacrity until the weird beer meeting ended.

While Obama’s actions were sophomoric, that’s not what really upset me. What upset me was that Obama’s normally accurate foresight was blinded by his desire to come to the aid of his buddy Gates. As he was selling the country on his new and very needed healthcare reform he decided to tackle this non-issue. He diverted attention from healthcare to race and beer. By transmogrifying the issue of healthcare into Crowley-Gates-gate he diminished and tarnished the health care issue. All the steam he had was now quelled, so much so that healthcare reform is now pushed to the next session of congress. We as a country have too much to fix and accomplish for you to personally deal with a tête-à-tête between your friend and a cop doing his job.

Lessons on Leadership from Honest Abe

Jordan Summers

For the past few months Doris Kearns Goodwin’s meticulous record of our nation’s 16^th President’s journey from the circuit court in Illinois to the fateful night of April 14^th, 1865, has served as a supplement to my studies at the DeVos Graduate School of Management. As I absorbed Goodwin’s Team of Rivals I have found a number of great lessons which can be broadly applied to the subject of leadership. 

It was reported that in the time leading up to his inauguration President Obama consumed Team of Rivals as he contemplated the construction of his cabinet.  Lincoln’s decision to build a cabinet filled with professional rivals, some of whom came to Washington with their own personal agendas and others still reeling from his shocking nomination and subsequent election which had squelched their own ambition for the Executive Office, is the central theme of the book.  However, it does a great disservice to Goodwin’s extensive work as well as to Lincoln’s life to ignore the many other lessons that can be drawn from the book.

Timing is an often overlooked element of leadership. Lincoln was able to use his ability to read the pulse of an entire nation to allow him to optimally time some of his most important actions.  Nowhere is this more evident that in his timing of the Emancipation Proclamation.  In Goodwin’s account, it is clear that if Lincoln had given into the pressures of abolitionists and members of his cabinet, and made his intention to emancipate slaves too early on in the war, public support for the war efforts would have waned.  However, if Lincoln had waited too long, the boost in support provided by the proclamation, as well as the ability to recruit black soldiers, would not have come soon enough to turn the tide in the war.  The issue of timing is particularly important in the context of the present-day; as leaders face the challenge of maintaining functioning organizations, communities etc., in the face of necessary layoffs, budget cuts, etc.

While the economic and societal challenges that leaders face today are significant, many of these challenges seem much more manageable in comparison to the life and times of Abe Lincoln.  From an early age Lincoln became accustomed to struggle and pain.  By the age of seven Lincoln had already experienced tumult as his family became impoverished, and at the age of nine Lincoln became accustomed to tragedy with the death of his young mother.  Young Lincoln dealt with these challenges with a humor and resolve that would prove vital to his existence further in his career.  Through failed political campaigns and professional pursuits Lincoln maintained his steady and relentless pursuit of his goals.  For example, in 1855 Lincoln was hired by a prominent attorney from Pittsburgh to help represent the defendant in a patent case which had generated national attention.  Hired for his low hourly rate and his connections in the Illinois’ legal community Lincoln saw the case as a tremendous opportunity for career advancement.  However, when the case was moved to Cincinnati, Lincoln was frozen out of the case after months of extensive work by the lead attorney Edwin Stanton.  After experiencing an understandable level of disappointment, the Reaper Trial served to further solidify Lincoln’s resolve to achieve professional growth.  As a testament to Lincoln’s ability to put aside personal gripes, Stanton would later become Lincoln’s Secretary of War, and one of his most trusted companions.

The most gripping example of Lincoln’s toughness and resolve came in the midst of the Civil War, when his young son died.  While his wife was stricken with uncontrollable grief, Lincoln was forced to reserve his grief for the few private moments he had.  Beyond the loss of his son, Lincoln was faced with the overwhelming challenge of overseeing the bloodiest war in our nation’s history.  Through it all he was able to look beyond his earthly suffering as he led the nation through its most trying times.

After reading Team of Rivals I would ultimately say that what I see as the single most important element of Lincoln’s leadership is his commitment to the anti-slavery cause.  For what truly drives an effective leader is purpose.  As Goodwin states in regards to Lincoln’s commitment to the anti-slavery movement – “Once he committed himself… (Lincoln) demonstrated a singular tenacity and authenticity of feeling.  Ambition and conviction (were) united…”  Lincoln set his mind on an objective and used his God-given gifts which were honed through the fires of life to change the course of our nation’s history.

Book Review: ‘Myth of the Rational Market’ by Justin Fox

Muaz Halees

Roger Lowenstein has recently declared that “the upside of the current Great Recession is that it could drive a stake through the heart of the academic nostrum known as the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH).”

Is this true? Who knows.

The efficient market hypothesis has become the “mark-to-market” of opponents to stock market regulators. Just as accountants claim that the mark-to-market rule has been the cause of undervalued assets, Justin Fox and his brethren have claimed that the EMH have caused the current recession

Justin Fox writes The Curious Capitalist column for Time Magazine, which, surprisingly, is not about a sexually confused economist. His columns are very detailed, educational, and grounded in economic theory. It comes as no surprise that his book reads like an extended column—which is both praise and condemnation.

He imparts two very clear lessons—both of which are so simplistic that calling them lessons may well be offensive to schools. His first claim is that “the markets are smarter than you are” and his second is that “the majority of fund managers fail to accurately judge the market and actually reduce the chance of an investor to turn a profit.” Some of his claims that didn’t make it into the book were that grass is green, that the sun is hot. Groundbreaking stuff, I know.
Fox begins his extended column with the story of economist Irving Fischer in 1929. He then ties the stories and stances of old-world economists to those of their contemporaries. He also develops his second hypothesis by highlighting the numerous economists over the years that made similar claims.

Fox builds his book around the inception and maturation of EMH. He takes the reader from its position as hypothesis, to its position as fact, to what he claims it should be—myth. His easy-to-read and at times intolerably bland account of the rise and fall of the EMH ends in a profound and powerful assertion: How can a theory that asserts all market prices and movements are unknowable in the present be used to determine the market’s present day prices and movements?
Fox’s book comes off as an attempt to pin the blame of the market’s recent crash to any number of factors. His claims that asset beta may be fraudulent and evil, economists knowingly gifted the public with flawed theories, and that the capital asset pricing model is increasingly irrelevant all lead to his contemptuous treatment of the efficient market hypothesis. While his words should not be taken as gospel, his book should make it into the library of anyone concerned with the machinations of the market.

One question that I was left with (which may bother you as well) is how can rationality ever be used in tandem with something as inherently irrational as the market?

The Hidden Costs of U.S. Defense Budget Cuts

Jordan Summers

 An unfortunate and unjust consequence of the current administration’s efforts to “balance” the budget amidst dramatic spending is the reduction of our nation’s defense budget.  The injustice is that the brave and selfless men and women who serve in our armed forces are most adversely affected by these reductions.  By forcing the Pentagon to find ways to cut spending, we are sending the message that the lives of our soldiers are somehow less valuable than before.  Most distressing is the long-term impact that significant budget cuts will have on the safety and effectiveness of our troops.  As we are currently fighting multiple wars, the main concern for our military’s leadership is to direct spending into these efforts, thus forcing cuts to be made on programs dedicated to the future effectiveness of our armed forces and the tools we equip them with. 

Some argue that the fact that we spend dramatically more on defense than any other country in the world reflects irresponsibility and wastefulness—I disagree.  I would argue that our higher spending illustrates the elevated value that we place on the lives of our most courageous citizens.

It is true that we can increase the efficiency of our defense spending, just as government-contracted defense firms can increase their efficiency and effectiveness.  It is also true that steps should be taken to rein in costs.  However, dramatic changes take time and money, both of which are constrained by our current conflicts, and are only further exacerbated by the budget cuts. 

Failure to remain on the forefront of military technology will undermine our foreign policy initiatives and place our soldiers in increasingly vulnerable positions.  The gap between the equipment at their disposal and those of our enemies will decrease—which is an ominous development.  Let me make it clear that I am not advocating war as an effective method of foreign policy.  However, my hope is that an army equipped to address the evolving demands of military conflict would provide added support for our leaders in their foreign policy efforts—geared, of course, to avoid military conflict whenever possible.

While the primary concern is the effect budget cuts will have on our soldiers, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the effect that they have had on our growing unemployment rate.  Defense contractors like General Dynamics, Boeing, and BAE Systems are faced with the reality that cancelled defense programs leave them with many well-paid employees without a role to fill.  While the administration is quick to hype their “job creation” efforts (which are often only temporary employment) they fail to mention the permanent jobs that are being destroyed to fund them.

While the job loss resulting from defense budget cuts is devastating, the most inexcusable cost of these reductions is that they undermine the future safety of our men and women in uniform.

The Great Health Care Debate

Muaz Halees

We now have pretty good epidemiological evidence that the long-term health consequences of living under our deficient healthcare system are considerable.  There is something inherently American about catering to the “best” while giving much less attention to the average.  We excel at advancing the “best” but fail at moving the average from the middle closer to the front of the line.  The US healthcare system is a definitive “best” strategy.  This economic model of our healthcare system is demoralizing and divisive for what? To benefit the few.  Universal healthcare is the answer because privatized healthcare is obviously not.    

Nationalized healthcare would create a national database alleviating many of the wasteful inefficiencies doctors face during treatment and diagnosis.  Doctors would be able to avoid the insurance premiums, malpractice and liability insurance, insurance submissions, claims approval, and focus on their job—tending to the sick.  Doctors and patients could work hand-in-hand practicing preventative measures.  Patients avoid routine check-ups now because of the lack of coverage, and they pay with their lives later on and we pay as a society for our ignorance.

Many opponents of universal healthcare cite the massive price tag associated with providing it to the masses.  They claim that the only way it could work is through severe taxation or through compulsory coverage premiums. I am of the opinion that a small bump in my taxes is worth improving the lives of my fellow citizens, but I may be in the minority.  Let’s pacify these bottom-liners for a moment.  The Canadian system, which provides universal healthcare, spends 10.5% of its GDP on healthcare.  Juxtapose that with the whopping 16% the US spends on their embarrassing system.  Not to toot the Canadian horn too loudly, but their healthcare system actually outperforms the US system in the two most commonly used quality metrics, life expectancy and infant mortality rates.   

There is also a fear that US citizens may be forced to look elsewhere for medical assistance, à la the Canadians that come to the US for some of their healthcare needs. My counter to that? So what.  Americans are doing that today, as we speak; insured Americans are going to India and South America to get cheaper healthcare.  That option will always be there, and will always be used.  If that criterion is used to degrade universal healthcare, then it must be referenced when highlighting the failures of the current system. 

The next argument volleyed by opponents of universal healthcare is the inefficiencies of the government.  They claim that healthcare system would become the DMV.  But why couldn’t it be as successful and efficient as the US military, or the US-run anti-discrimination agenda, or the CDC.  These same opponents of the US government attack it while living in the safe confines that same inefficient US government provides to them.    

Public enterprise has merits, but the government has a responsibility to ensure the well-being and security of its citizens, not to ensure public enterprise.  The failed healthcare system in this country is our scarlet letter.  Our allegiance to it is deteriorating our sense of social solidarity and our efforts to address the needs and problems of the population as a whole.  We are failing the 50 million uninsured as well as the 100 million underinsured Americans. Universal healthcare is not some utopian edict that will improve the lives of every single citizen.  It is not a strategy for becoming the best; it is a strategy for becoming better. Potential imperfections should not cause us to lose sight of substantial improvements.

A Time for Change: Remaking the Grand Old Party

Jordan Summers

The Grand Old Party is suffering from some significant credibility issues.  After being completely overwhelmed during the 2008 election, the Republican Party is facing a period of significant choice.  After getting fat and happy, the party is confronted with a landmark decision regarding the direction the party should take in its pursuit of positions of influence.  As an individual who voted Republican in the two elections, I find the immediate reaction of the conservative base alarming. 

Take a look at the current faces of the Republican Party.  Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and to some extent George W. Bush are among the most recognizable and vocal members of the GOP.  Even those who seemed to show significant promise have fallen. Take for example Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, whose inept response to President Obama’s address in February sent him back into relative obscurity, or Nevada Senator John Ensign, whose recent revelation of an affair doused any presidential ambitions he may have had.  The call from many within the conservative base to reemphasize the party’s alleged hypocritical and irrational “values” will only amplify the leadership’s failure to live up to those values.

Undoubtedly many in the right are immeasurably frustrated by the fact that these individuals still represent the party.  Too often Republican leaders, who have most vocally preached the morals and values, have undermined the party’s credibility by violating the same principles and values which they have demanded of others.  The acceptance of the recent failures of the Bush administration, and taking responsibility for the poor decisions of many of the party’s leaders are the first steps back to relevance.

Ultimately, the problem is that the party has lost direction. Its leaders once took a stance of great humility, and deferred to the power of the American people rather than government programs and bureaucracies.  Currently, the party seems more focused on returning to power than self-improvement. The GOP should return to being a party that emphasizes the vital role of families in our society—without placing a constraining definition of what constitutes a family.  It should be a party that works to get out of the way of the people and businesses, a party that allows the true competitive advantage of the United States to take hold.

By becoming the party that leads by example instead of preaching, and by reaching across party lines when it’s reasonable, the party can transform its public image.  In fact, there are already signs of opportunity for the Republican Party to reach out to independent voters who support many of the Democrats’ social views but express significant concern over the fiscal policies of our new administration.  It is values like fiscal conservatism and personal choice that can help bridge the gap and attain voters