Accountability Is Bittersweet

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, last month, I promised a strategy for how to redeem America’s political quagmire.  The strategy is simple:  American citizens must demand accountability.

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, told a Congressional committee this last week that she was accountable for the rollout of the healthcare insurance exchanges.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  If Secretary Sebelius admits to being accountable, did she offer to resign?

IM:  She was specifically asked this question, and she said, “no.”

Old Gadfly:  So, if she admits to being accountable, what does “being held accountable" mean?

AM:  I would submit that if you are an American public servant in today’s bloated government, accountability means little to nothing.

Old Gadfly:  Amazingly, Watergate still serves as the notable example of corruption in government.  Yet, Nixon resigned.  Many of his aides were prosecuted.  Years later, after a spiritual epiphany, Chuck Colson turned himself in for obstruction of justice during the Watergate scandal.  He was convicted and served time.  He didn’t need to turn himself in.  Yet, as a man of character, Colson sought reconciliation with his conscience by holding himself accountable to the American people.  Colson shared his experience with the cadets of the United States Air Force Academy on November 17, 1993, nearly 20 years ago.  He opened his remarks with this statement:  “The breakdown of character is the number-one crisis in America.”

AM:  Now, we talk about other crises, like the 2008 financial crisis, the increasing inequality gap, and so forth.  Yet, Colson is so right in his assessment.  The character crisis of 1993 is minuscule compared to the absolute corruptness of character today, fueled either by greed in the private sector or power in the public sector.

IM:  I suspect this is what Pope Francis is implying when he said “We [the Catholic Church] cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

Old Gadfly:  What do you think Pope Francis meant by “we have to talk about them in a context”?

IM:  I think he means people find themselves in situations where the choices may be very limited and difficult.  The context means understanding the environment and conditions that that may be beyond an individual’s control, and that constrain the choices an individual can reasonably make. 

Old Gadfly:  Excellent point, IM.  I recall discussing some of these considerations in our conversation earlier this year about the reification of marriage.

IM:  Building upon these notions about context, are children more or less inclined to make bad choices when they grow up in a loving and virtuous family?  I think we know the answer.  A loving and virtuous family provides boundaries and rules for life, such as “the golden rule,” “the Ten Commandments,” “the Tau,” and so forth.  Children learn manners and respect for other people.  Unfortunately, the concept of family has been under assault in America.  The following Table compares poverty rates by family type in 2006 (the last year Republicans controlled Congress) and 2012.

AM:  The pattern reveals two important distinctions.   First, single parents are more likely to be below the poverty level, with single-mother families showing significantly higher rates.  Single-mother families are five times more likely than married couple families to be below the poverty level.  The second distinction is that the percent of the population below the poverty level has significantly increased since 2006:  9% for single-mother families, 24% for single-father families, and 35% for married-couple families.

IM:   These dynamics clearly explain why a certain party claims to protect women’s rights.  This party has been in power for nearly seven years now.  When will this single-mother voting demographic understand that a “protected class” and entitlement contract does not improve their conditions?  To the contrary, it worsens them.

AM:  Are we digressing, Gadfly?

Old Gadfly:  Not at all.  You and IM are describing facts that can help to articulate the context for the American political quagmire and how it can be remedied through accountability.  Unfortunately, for many on the political left, the facts will not matter if they do not fit their mental frame.  Many single-mothers are convinced by Democrats that Republicans, and even worse, Tea Party members, are committed to making life miserable for them.  Yet, historical data does not support this mental frame. 

Let’s look at the broader picture.  We look to the President of the United States for character-based leadership.  President Obama campaigned on a promise of hope and change.  He claims to be fighting for the middle class and that his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, will bring affordable healthcare to millions who have not had it.  He may have had good intentions, but his approach has had adverse outcomes.  Fighting for the middle class means advocating policies that give them jobs, not entitlements.  This is very consistent with the Catholic Church’s notion of social justice as explained in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.  Item 76 states, “Economic decisions and institutions should be assessed according to whether they protect or undermine the dignity of the human person. Social and economic policies should foster the creation of jobs for all who can work. . ..”  Item 77 states, “Welfare policy should reduce poverty and dependency, strengthen family life, and help families leave poverty . . ..”  As your poverty data reveals, the demographic impacted the most are married-couple families.

IM:  Data indicate economic decisions and policies under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress have “undermined the dignity of the human person” and have increased “poverty and dependence.”  The next graphic show actual labor participation rate (62.8% as of October 2013) is the lowest in 35 years.

The next graphic shows the average number of weeks unemployed (and drawing government-funded unemployment compensation) over the past 35 years.  The number peaked in October 2012 at 39.9 weeks.  Last month the rate was 36.1% and corresponds to the increasing number of “discouraged workers” who have exhausted unemployment compensation.  Under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress, dependency on the government has more than doubled.

The next graphic shows the number of Americans having to resort to part-time jobs.  As of October 2013, this number includes 8,050,000 Americans.  Complicating this particular labor statistic is that part-time jobs do not provide benefits, such as healthcare.  Again, the numbers have more than doubled under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress. 

Finally, the following graph shows the number of Americans who are classified as “discouraged” by the Labor Department.  These are individuals who want a job but believe no jobs are available.  The number peaked in December, 2010 with 1,318,000 individuals.  The number of discouraged workers as of October 2013 is 815,000.  These numbers are in addition to those listed as unemployed or part-time only.  Again, the numbers have more than doubled under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress.

 

AM:  These data clearly indicate the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress are failing to achieve positive social justice outcomes as encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Old Gadfly:  This is true.  Now, let’s look at a major policy that aggravates these circumstances:  the Affordable Care Act, that is, Obamacare.  Now that the government has reopened, the main news cycle topic is Obamacare, in particular getting individuals on insurance policies through the government website.  The website to this day is not working well.  And, we hear reports that most of the individuals signing up through the “exchanges” qualify for government subsidies or Medicaid.  Millions who had insurance have been dropped by their insurance companies because the policies did not meet Obamacare standards.  Many are discovering their options are more expensive.

IM:  President Obama did apologize in an interview on November 7 with Chuck Todd of NBC News.

Old Gadfly:  His apology was a superb example of sophistry.  Here is what he said:  "I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me."  He did not say “based on mandates in the Affordable Care Act.”  He said, “based on assurances they got from me.”  Think about what he is implying:  “People are losing their insurance and/or doctors because I, President Obama, said they can keep their doctors or insurance plans if they like them.”  Since Obama believes there is nothing wrong with the mandates in Obamacare, then people must be losing their insurance because insurance companies want people to lose their coverage despite assurances from President Obama.  This is consistent with his Freudian slip later in the interview when he said, “Now that -- you know, having said that -- given that I've been burned already with -- a website -- well, more importantly, the American people have been burned by -- a website that has been dysfunctional.”  I’m glad he added “the American people.”  But, it was an after-thought.

AM:  Ironically, none of this would be an issue had Reid and Obama “compromised” in September by agreeing to delay the individual mandate for a year.  Politically, this compromise was not feasible for the progressive Democrats because it was important to shut down the government in order to blame Republicans.  I think we argued a good case for what actually happened here in our October 18, 2013 discussion, “Obama’s Rubicon.”

Old Gadfly:  So, where is the accountability for the dismal economy?  Admitting mistakes might be a good first step.  Alan Greenspan does a great deal of admitting mistakes in a brilliant analysis of the global (yes, global—this was more than a U.S.-only manifestation) financial crisis of 2008 in a recent Foreign Affairs article, “Never Saw It Coming:  Why the Financial Crisis Took Economists by Surprise.”  In essence, Greenspan is critical of existing macroeconomic forecasting models (currently based on Keynesian principles), and calls for updated models that factor in herd behavior and investment risk factors.  Of course, these models are for policy-makers in government.

AM:  Speaking of risk, doesn’t Obamacare present a major risk to our economy?

IM:  More than people know.  Just imagine the damage already done.  Millions have lost their insurance.  Millions are being added to subsidized programs.  Remember, “subsidized” means taxpayer revenue filtered through the government. 

Old Gadfly:  Who should be held accountable here? 

IM:  Obama cannot run for reelection.  History will hold him accountable, possibly equating him to a modern Sisyphus, a chronically deceitful King of Ephyra. 

AM:  Yet, there are many elected officials who collaborated in the creation of the Obamacare monster, even though most of them were clueless as to what was in the legislation. Speaker Pelosi advertised this notion when she said we needed to “pass the bill to know what was in it.”  These irresponsible individuals can be held accountable in the 2014 elections.  Here is the list of Senators and Representatives who voted for Obamacare, who did not vote to repeal any of its provisions, and who are up for reelection in 2014:

            IM:  What is challenging about the relationship between elected officials and their constituents in some cases is a case of “self-fulfilling prophesy.”  For example, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee represents Houston, Texas.  Houston represents constituents heavily in need of government subsidies, such as Medicaid.  How could she vote against Obamacare?  Yet, “going along to get along” on the government dole did not benefit Detroit.  Is this scenario what “you pay me now, or pay me later” implies?

AM:  Politicians ignore “the context” and people they represent suffer because of their blind lust for power.  Politicians play and the people pay. 

Old Gadfly:  All good observations, gentlemen.  Now, despite political and cultural differences, I believe people throughout the world generally look to America to lead the way beyond current circumstances.  Don’t forget, the economic woes afflicting America are being experienced throughout the world.  Right now, Iceland, which has gone through what America is experiencing, seems to understand the importance of accountability as a means for moving forward.  Icelanders have assumed sovereignty and are now codifying a new government. 

            IM:  Accountability seems to be a backward-looking activity.  We need leaders to look forward in order to move our nation beyond its current circumstances.

            Old Gadfly:  True. And, this is where Pope Francis’s “context” is so important.  Politicians of the progressive movement operate from a normative worldview.  They see the world the way “it ought to be” and set out to make it so.  As we have discussed numerous times, George Lakoff assures his progressive cohort that it is this frame that matters; facts are merely convenient or irrelevant.  The character-based leaders we need are idealists grounded in reality.  These leaders must understand the context that bounds possibilities before advocating policies that advance the human condition.  These leaders understand, as God intended, the power of individual freedom.  These leaders understand that governments merely “promote the General Welfare,” as prescribed in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Governments do not “provide” welfare.  Welfare is a condition that results from cooperative efforts among individual citizens and the institutions of which they form, where government, whether federal, state, or local, is merely one among numerous institutions.  For example, corporations and small businesses are institutions.  Government regulation can enable or constrain the extent to which corporations and small businesses can operate to create wage-paying jobs and wealth for communities and the nation.  Right now, government regulation and the suffocating effect of Obamacare are heavily constraining corporations and small businesses.  The graphs we examined earlier are strong evidence of this constraint.

            Character-based leaders understand the importance of education.  Yet, today’s progressive approach to education is to program our children with a certain set of values, bounded by political correctness, to shape the way they see the world.  C. S. Lewis observed this approach as early as the 1940s and sounded an alarm about the “conditioners” and the “conditioned” in his book, The Abolition of Man.  Character-based leaders would understand that an authentic education is based on the Latin root verb, “educare,” which means “to draw out.”  Educators then should facilitate this process of “drawing out” individual capacity to love others at the level of agape and to advance original thought and invention.  Jesus “drew out” such a capacity of agape in His Sermon on the Mount (and its Beatitudes; Matthew 5:1-12).  Jesus inspired individual accountability as a liberating commitment.  This notion is elegantly described in the parable about Zacchaeus, the wealthy tax collector, in Luke 19:1-10.

            As Chuck Colson demonstrated in his actions, accountability is more than rhetoric.  Authentic accountability, while bittersweet, is a liberating experience that can benefit the advancement of the human condition.  We should demand it for ourselves as character-based citizens, and as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and neighbors; and, we should demand it from those in public service who choose to serve the citizens.

            AM:  It looks like we all have a lot of work ahead of us.

            Old Gadfly:  Yes, and it must start with each of us right now.