The Frayed Social Safety Net

For some, the recent election is indicative of the confusion many Americans feel about government. On one hand, Americans who voted were most concerned about jobs and the economy. On the other, the big gains for Republicans are unlikely to lead to policy changes that would either stimulate the economy or help those in most need of assistance due to their continued joblessness.

Repairing the U.S. Social Safety Net by Martha Burt and Demetra Nightingale does an excellent job highlighting the current state of U.S. social safety net policy, as well as its origins. It also does a nice job highlighting that, despite complaints about how large it is, the U.S. social safety net is woefully inadequate when it comes to supporting the American people. The authors note that in comparison to other countries, U.S. social indicators (such a infant mortality rate, poverty rates, and housing needs) are much worse, in large part due to our weak social safety net.

The book is an approachable and engaging discussion of key issues of public policy and well worth a read.

Next Up: Immigration Reform

With health reform all but passed, many are now advocating that Obama and Congress turn to immigration reform. Immigration reform was something discussed under the previous administration mostly as a way to drum up fears among their xenophobic base. Little to no substantive action was taken, other than the ill-conceived border fence. As I have discussed previously on this blog, immigration reform is necessary and long past due. Until we have a more coherent and humane immigration policy, we will continue to have undocumented workers toil in the shadows, exploited and neglected. These estimated 11 million people do many jobs we could not live without. While none of the proposed solutions are perfect, weighing the pros and cons of each of them and carrying out the best available one should be our focus now. Some sort of amnesty program that sets a cut-off date in the past and provides documentation seems to be one of the most reasonable approaches. Critics argue that a problem with this approach is that it neglects those who tried to immigrate legally. However, this can be rectified by granting visas to these people as well.

In order to properly address immigration reform, trade reform also has to be discussed. Many of the forces driving undocumented workers to the U.S. are a result of trade practices that allow subsidized American industries to dump products on countries at prices that unsubsidized local industries cannot compete with. This hurts the importing country in the long run by making it impossible to keep up the infrastructure that is required to run these industries. Grievances filed by these countries with the WTO, even if won, are often ignored by the United States. Also, the series of bilateral trade agreements negotiated in the past two decades have put most of our smaller trading partners at a significant disadvantage. U.S. negotiators were able to impose their influence on smaller countries that lacked the ability to push for more fair provisions. Often specific industries were given special benefits, while the overall agreement hurt far more producers in that country.

Filibuster: Moderating Force or Minority Tyranny?

I recently ready an interesting article that argued that the Senate filibuster should be abolished. While not necessarily the most important issue on its own, the author linked it to wider issues of fairness and democracy (and to the current health care reform). While he didn't touch on numbers, it re-energized my concerns about about the massive power rural states have in the Senate. To me, reforming the filibuster would be one possible small step toward making the Senate more democratic. These rurual states would be amongst the first to fight such a measure.

In my undergrad, I grappled with the issue of the Senate being undemocratic in the sense that its votes are not proportional to state population (as the House is, though not completely). The filibuster increases this undemocratic leaning by allow 41 senators, which could represent a small minority of Americans, to block a vote on nearly any issue. In a country of 304,059,724 (estimated as of July 2008), Senators representing the twenty states with the lowest population plus one senator from the 21st lowest population state could conceivably hold nearly any bill from ever receiving a vote. Seven of these states have less than a million residents, eight have between one and two million residents, and the final five each have less than three million residents. The 21st state, Iowa, has just over three million residents. Combined, the population of these twenty states, plus half of Iowa, adds up to 32,637,771 or just over ten percent of the U.S. population. The fact that nearly 90 percent of the population can be outvoted by this small minority clearly indicates that at the very least dissolution of the filibuster is something to consider, if not wider reform of the system for electing Senators.

Luckily, getting rid of the filibuster simply requires a majority vote, while any larger Senate reform would likely require amending the U.S. Constitution. Some will argue that the filibuster has been used in the past to moderate debate and force compromise. They will say that despite its undemocratic nature, it provides some protection from majority tyranny. While I accept that protection of the rights of the minority are fundamental under any legitimate democracy, requiring super-majorities to even be able to vote on a bill often hampers the policy-making process through allowing powerful lobbyists to influence the votes of a few against the will of the many.

Health Care Reform Blues

With reform unlikely to happen before the August recess, the likelihood of reform becomes less clear. After swings in momentum both for and against reform over the past few months, it has been interesting to see how quickly some ideas have fallen away under pressure, and how others continue to be recycled and brought back to the fore. It seems likely that we will have some sort of "reform" at this point, in that a bill will likely be passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by Obama. The question is will there be any actual valuable reform to a problematic and burdensome system or will it merely push off necessary reforms for another decade or so.

I think one of the most interesting developments has been that the Republicans in both the House and the Senate have decided to drop developing their own bill, after promising to do so since the beginning of the reform effort. While I can understand the desire to focus all of their attention on the current resolution being discussed, it seems that they are only falling into the trap of being the "party of 'no'" label which has been wielded against them expertly during the current Congress.

I also think it is dangerous for the Republicans to place so much hope on the Blue Dog Democrats. While allies on some issues, they are, at the end of the day, still Democrats. They know they can only push so far before they overstep their power and incur undesirable repercussions (such as the bill being moved to the floor without a committee vote). The Blue Dogs may claim that they are the beacon of fiscal conservatives and small business, but there are many ways to allay their fears and still have a bill that will be faced with obstructionism by Republicans.

I am often surprised that the current bill, even in its most liberal versions, is itself a comprise; not necessarily a good one. Many Americans, rightly in my view, favor an even more robust public system than is currently written into any of the House or Senate versions of the bill being floated around. The high costs of care (as I have discussed in previous posts) are not simply due to the high-cost treatments or expenditure disparities. They are in large part due to the cost of "doing business" under a for-profit system of health care. One of the key advantages of a single-payer system is the sense of solidarity that it brings amongst those involved. When people are all paying into the same system, there is an acknowledgement that while some are paying more, it is often for the greater good.

One final point about perceptions of U.S. health care. It is often stated, without any support, that America has the best health care in the world and that people from other countries flock here due to long wait times elsewhere. However, both these characterizations are false; but more importantly, they indicate that the debate is simply focused on the wrong sets of issues. Even if the U.S. had the best health care in the world and people did come for care unavailable in their homelands, simply stated, the U.S. health care system is unsustainable. Right now our costs continue to rise much faster than either the economy or costs of living. As health care continues to eat up revenue, we will be forced to cut other programs to pay for the bloated and overpriced care we provide, while still having worse health outcomes (and worse quality of care, in many cases) than countries with cheaper, more sustainable systems. To pretend that the problem is only quality and access fails to address that it is the costs that will become increasingly prohibitive and untenable.

Health Care is a Human Right

With all the discussion of health and health reform, some key facts have been overlooked and, for the most part, insufficiently examined in the debates. While there has been some acknowledgement of the high cost of treating chronic diseases, rarely is it raised that treatment of these diseases accounts for 75 cents of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. This fact helps us understand that while coverage for everyone is a crucial and fundamental right, the goal of keeping down costs requires more acute awareness of where the money is actually spent.

Another key fact that is discussed infrequently is the high concentration of health care expenditures in a small population. A recent study found that five percent of Americans are responsible for nearly HALF of all health spending in a given year. An earlier study found that it was over half. Also, almost half of the U.S. incurs little to no health care costs and thus the other 50 percent make up about 95% plus of the health care spending. This concentration is interesting at other levels as well. The top 30 percent of spenders make up 90% of health spending; while the top 10 percent make up nearly 70%.

These statistics speak the need for a more holistic view of reform. Increasing quality, decreasing costs, and expanding coverage all are worthy goals but they cannot be goals divorced from the social reality of health care needs. Both studies find that the elderly are more likely to bear the burden of high expenditures. Also, they found that people with chronic conditions had much higher out-of-pocket expenses than average. Better, more cost-effective treatment is needed for these folks. Often their situation is compounded by the fact that they may reach their lifetime spending cap and lose coverage. In turn, due to pre-existing conditions clauses, they may have an extremely difficult time getting other coverage, and if they do it will be exhorbitantly expensive until they are so drained of money they can qualify for Medicaid.

All these factors indicate the importance of having a coherent, nationally focused health care reform. The reform must be tailored to meet the needs of different populations and levels of care. However, everyone should have to have insurance; at the very least, catastrophic coverage. It is in the best interest of the long term health of the American people and in the best interest of our financial well-being, both individually and as a society. People without insurance coverage that require medical treatment incur higher costs and are much more likely to face bankruptcy as a result. Of course, there must be subsidies to help those who would not be able to afford coverage themselves.

During the current health care reform I have continually been dismayed by the process and how easily many of those involved lose sight of the overall goals and the purpose reform serves. We don't need reform for the sake of reform. Sure the system is broken, but a patchwork solution will only push the need for a more significant reform off the radar for another decade or two. We have hard decisions to make. Until we face those decisions with a sense of history and an eye to the future, we will continue to create policy that only serves to line the pockets of those who are currently abusing the system.

Simply Unconscionable

As many have probably heard by now, Dr. George Tiller has been murdered in his own church today, most likely by a right-wing extremist. Dr. Tiller happened to perform abortions, including some of the extremely rare late-term abortions in the U.S. Though abortion is legal, there are clearly many in America that would rather scare women and their doctors back into the dark ages in terms of reproductive care. Gruesome images of aborted fetuses, 24-hour surveillance of clinics, and websites dedicated to outing anyone who visit those clinics are only some of the scare tactics these nouveau-fascists use to intimidate and harass. Their callous disregard for human life around the world and laser-focus on abortion smacks of hypocrisy at best and mindless, savage hatred at worst. Their "pro-life" stance extends only to abortion, not to real issues that would save lives around the world or improve the lives of people suffering here in the U.S. 

Anti-choice activists lack of nuance and understanding is most clearly shown in their disdain for sex education and attempts to block any sort of abortion rights or access. There will always be the need for abortions. While the number will fluctuate over time, it has overall decreased significantly since the 1980s even as the U.S. population has increased rapidly. With better sex education and improved birth control methods, that curve is likely to keep declining. Women would much rather be able to use the variety of birth control methods to keep from getting pregnant rather than have to resort to abortion. Abortion is often the last resort of people who simple had no other option. Those with any empathy at all can imagine an infinite number of situations where a woman would not be able to access or utilize birth control. Lack of affordable birth control is one of the major reasons that the vast majority of abortions are received by poor and low-income women. Other countries handle this better by providing free access to birth control and training on how to use out. However, even the most effective birth control isn't fool-proof and accidents will happen. Women and their doctors should have all the tools available to make the right decision for them. This is not simply a matter of morality and common sense, this is a matter of women's basic human rights. 

A World of Gray

Contrary to the views of many, one of the biggest signs of political maturity, for me, is not moderation of your views over time but understanding that issues are much more complex than how they are presented. We often hear about issues at their lowest common denominator; with only buzzwords and soundbites to think about. People often discuss that the truth is somewhere "in the middle" between two perceived extreme positions. Often reality lies somewhere else completely. For nearly all issues of importance, there is no simple dichotomy of options. While most people lack the time or the incentive to come to fully understand the complexities of a particular issue, it is easy to understand how people increasingly talk at each other instead of to each other. When people are coming from completely different world views with large informational asymmetries, it is difficult to have a serious discussion.

Part of this problem lies with the current media, but also schools at all levels, and our political leaders also don't make things any better. The American people are often treated as less capable and intelligent as they really are. I have often agreed of the sentiment that Americans are too dumb and lazy to engage politically. Though I believe this premise is off target. It isn't that Americans are either dumb or lazy; or if they are, it isn't because of their individual actions alone. Just as there are large structural factors that lead to poverty and poor health, there are equally important factors that lead to a lack of intellectual sophistication or a deep engagement with civic, social, political, and economic issues. Often the causes interconnect and compound each others. Some examples include poor quality schools, acute and chronic childhood stress, penalization of the working class and the working poor, and virulent economic and social inequality. These are just some of the many forces that stunt development and hinder progress throughout the life-course.

Until we come to understand the social causes and the social reasons, we will continue to "blame the victim", as it were. Your average American has little real training in critical thinking or even basic empiricism, and this hinders their ability to sift through the noise and then incorporate information into a coherent worldview. Often, they don't have the time either. Probably most importantly, having a complex understanding of a particular issue or set of issues does your average citizen little in the long run. Unless it is something they do for work, the knee-jerk reactionary position they read in a flyer or hear on the radio is sufficient to engage with the debate, even if superficially. Adding layers of complexity can even lead to a fatigue as you realize that the change you desire will require much more than a petition or a protest.  Part of this is also the way our political system is set up. A couple big reasons (which I have discussed in previous posts) include the lack of risks of non-voting and the much heavier time investment required for Americans than for Europeans in countries with parliamentary systems that have coherent party systems.

Next time you think "stupid Americans", take a step back and look at it socially. It is much better to think "why would someone believe/do/say this?” Once we come to see that peoples’ actions and views are the result of a multiplicity of forces and experiences, we can begin to empathize and identify that the ignorance is the problem, not that the person is fundamentally flawed. We all have the capacity to learn and grow. When I hear someone deride another as a hypocrite or a “flip-flopper”, I become uncomfortable. Has there not been a time when each of us has realized our previous view was flawed or inaccurate or that in practice some of our ideas are not practical or desirable. As one of my best teachers said “everyone has the right to be a hypocrite.” By this she meant everyone has the right to grow and change and even contradict themselves in life. When we begin to internalize that lesson we see that maybe things aren’t so black and white, for others as well as for ourselves. 

Immature Politics

While I try to remain optimistic about the political landscape and the possibility that Americans are capable of understanding complex issues, something like the "Tea Party" protests come around to shake that optimism. I am a huge fan of populist anger and outpourings of that sentiment, however these recent protests don't meet those standards. The intellectually lazy and misguided protests were organized around an extremely wide range of issues, some more disturbing than others.  Some issues (though the whole thing lacked a coherent message) included socialism (seriously, are you kidding me), communism (where are you people getting this), big government, and the always easy target "high taxes." The protests seemed less like a coherent statement and more like a temper tantrum for an increasingly marginalized and powerless wing of the Republican party.  It is pretty easy to have a protest against such strawmen and pretend that it moves any discussion forward. I am always amazed by the people protesting these issues and how little they understand about the role of public spending in all aspects of their life. Everything from the safety of our food, to our education system, to the roads we drive on are all dependent on government subsidies. Many often pretend that it is the market that allows this to happen, but there is no part of the market that is not dependent on government regulation and subsidies, either directly or indirectly. Taxes are a necessity and the best we can do is ensure the accountability of the spending and push for more transparency. Working to assess the quality of the spending and adjusting public policy accordingly allows for a more coherent and effective system. 

However, as people who actually study these issues will tell you (as opposed to those taping tea bags on a hat), much of the problem of the perceived "high taxes" is a result of the increasingly regressive tax system in the U.S. As a result of tax cuts and increased legal loopholes, the wealthy in the U.S. are paying less in taxes than they did during the Eisenhower administration. By one analysis, reverting to a more progressive tax system would bring a net revenue of $450 billion dollars a YEAR. While raising taxes during a recession is not a good idea, it is something that will have to be addressed at some point, hopefully in the near future. A more progressive taxation system would benefit all Americans. Decreasing the massive inequalities in the U.S. would do a world of good in a variety of areas. Inequality negatively affects things like health, anxiety, social activity, political involvement, and social well-being. A real tax agenda would work to create a tax code that is fair for all but progressive in focus. However, my optimism for such a system is extremely low. Tax issues are complex and I don't hold much hope that the public will come up to speed quickly (or at all), particularly given the media's lack of complexity on the issue (given their barron's are among the wealth elite that benefit from the current system).

More Hoovers than a Vacuum Store

Republicans are once again harping on the deficit like it actually means something in the short term. In their attempt to be the oppositional party, they have taken up the failed notions of Herbert Hoover in trying to balance the budget at the time of a severe economic downturn. Mainstream economists (I am still not sure why we are listening to them given recent events...) acknowledge that the actions of Hoover certainly increased both the depth and length of the Great Depression. Most economists recognize that short term spending to stimulate lending and thus allow capital for projects is a key step for any recovery.

In related news, Bushvilles are springing up across the country. I am still amazed that people don't understand that when you cut social services and depend on private charity you are setting yourself up for disaster. Many private charities and non-profits depend on donations or membership fees which decrease in a downturn, particularly one as severe as this. Combined with a lack of adequate social services, it is not surprising that people are having to turn to tent cities in hopes of weathering this storm.

The most disheartening thing about this recent trend is that once someone becomes homeless it often begins a cycle that is difficult to break. Because they have no permanent address it is extremely hard to get a job; without a job, income is difficult to come by (except through illegal and often dangerous means). This is compounded by the rapidly rising unemployment rate. While no one is a fan of paying higher taxes, clearly the U.S. is failing it citizens in a variety of ways. Demanding these tent cities be removed only pushes these people out of the small amount of safety they had as a group. While some are saying we are reaching the bottom of the downturn, I remain skeptical. For all our sakes, I hope they are right.

You Can't Kill an Idea

As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of the failed uprising in Tibet and the one year anniversary of the crackdown on Buddhist Monk demonstrators, tensions are running high in the region. It is amazing that despite China having one of the largest armies in the world, they are utterly afraid of a relatively small group of monks. The fact that all foreign journalists and international tourists are being kept out of the region at this team speaks to their ongoing concern about what more protests could bring. Though I was extremely disappointed by Hillary Clinton's lack of providing either carrots or sticks for improved Chinese treatment of Tibet, I was sadly not surprised. This unwillingness to press for Tibet's independence (or autonomy, or even well-being) is one (of many) of America's major foreign policy failings. 

Many apologists for the policy argue that due to our need for China to buy up our debt and help stabilize the region, we cannot denounce their policy for fear of backlash. As any student of international relations can tell you, this simple dichotomy of do nothing or incur the full wrath of China is a false one. There are many gradations in policy that could be used to thaw relations and tie Tibet to other issues where there is mutual interest between the U.S. and China. One of China's biggest fears is international perception of the Tibet issue. Having closed door conversations on the matter that lead to an actual softening of China's position could be an advantageous option for all sides. 

One thing is for sure, we must not fall into the same malaise and inertia that has kept our human rights policy so anemic. We have a president that believes in the rule of law and inspires people around the world. America has the obligation to continue to provide hope to those in duress. We must not turn our backs on causes we know are just. We can no longer sustain regimes like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea, and many more to continue on the path they are on. Increased diplomatic efforts must be used to forge consensus on shared goals and to facilitate slow, positive changes to happen in these countries. By sustaining these regimes, we only increase the difficulties we will face when we are forced to deal with them eventually and further the suffering that those oppressed by these regimes experience. 

The Dalai Lama puts it well:

If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them.

Our callous disregard for the consequences of our actions cannot continue. Though change won't happen overnight, we must act in positive ways to increase the well-being of those least capable of doing so themselves. 

Times Are Tough

It is hard to believe how things have crumbled so quickly: The economy, housing, banking, employment, the stock market, consumer confidence, and the list goes on. The fact that the GDP recently sunk 6.2% indicates that this current downturn may be more severe than most were anticipating. In downturns like this it is those individuals at the margins, the poor, the sick, those without adequate job skills or training, that are the most affected. When I hear bankers who receive government help complaining about their salary being capped at $500,000 I can't help but cringle. The people are increasingly being asked to support the poor business practices of these banks and other industries that were paying exhorbitant amounts for sub-par performance. These excesses were cheered by many during better times as proof of America's superiority. When CEOs are making 400 times the amount earned by the lowest paid workers in their company something is extremely wrong. For the last twenty to thirty years both the share of wages and actual wages have become increasingly concentrated at the very top.

This concentration of wages and wealth has led to an increasingly untenable situation. The rise of underemployment and poor quality work laid the groundwork for the current depth and breadth of the current downturn. After peaking at nearly 30% in 1979, the unionization rate of the U.S. has steadily fallen by half to less than 15%. While the U.S. has always had among the lowest unionization rates, the steady decline has been coupled with an increase of part-time and full-time work without benefits or worker protections. Combined with a culture that pushes consumption over conscience, it is not difficult to imagine how so many Americans were in a precarious situation even before the downturn. Even as the downturn was in its earliest stages, many dual-earner families were increasingly having to add additional part-time work to cover the increased costs of gasoline and other consumer goods. Others were taking part-time jobs in fear that their main source of income may not be as reliable as they had believed. 

Americans must come to see that working together in solidarity and demanding adequate treatment as workers only serves to strengthen our position, not weaken it. The pittance that is paid in union dues serves not only to increase your power over your work, but increases the standards across whatever industry you are a part of. The greatest gains of non-unionized workers in the twentieth century have been as a result not of employer benevolence, but as a result of workers organizing in other places, but in the same industry. The employers knew that once these non-unionized workers saw the disparities, they would also begin to organize. This led many companies to improve their conditions if only to delay unionization at their own plants.

While unionization is only one piece of the larger picture, it remains one of the best tools workers have to increase the accountability of companies to workers and to society more broadly. The fact that the car companies are blaming their union contracts for their economic woes only shows how inadequate their business model had become, all while paying their CEOs and other top-level managers ridiculously high wages. Luckily, Obama is much more aware of the value of labor than most presidents in recent memory. Giving American workers a say in their workplaces can only improve the economy, their work, and, most importantly, their lives. 

Wait... So These People Are The Threat?

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Anyone who voted for or supported Proposition 8 should be ashamed. How could the love and cheer expressed by these families be a threat to anything except intolerance and bigotry? I, for one, believe that justice must not be denied. People should have the right to live a life they have reason to value, free from violence and hatred. Like all policies based on hate and ignorance, Prop 8 will eventually be overturned and will fall into memory. Don't believe you have all the answers. Don't be on the wrong side of history. Denying rights to a group based on outdated biases never remains unchallenged. Respect the rights of others to live a life that challenges yours, its the only way the world ever changes for the better.

Coincidence?

With the Republican Party flailing and try to find its way in an evolving political landscape, the election of Michael Steele, the first African-American to lead the party, smacks of the Palinism (picking someone because they bare a superficial resemblance to some popular candidate) that seems to be pervading Republican decisions. While I hope the move is a genuine sign of change, I hesistate to imagine that being likely. With around 95% of African-American voters voting for Obama and, similarly, an overwhelming majority of Latinos (around 66%), Republicans have a lot of work to do in order to appeal more widely. As the U.S. demographically shifts to being a minority majority country, the increasingly white, rural, ultra-conservative, and xenophobic GOP of people like Rush Limbaugh will not suffice. At this point I honestly can't imagine how this change would take place, and it will take a lot of soul-searching on behalf of Republican leaders to bring about such a large change in strategy. 

However, though Democrats clearly came away with a huge victory this year, supporters need to be wary here as well. While many in the Democratic party speak of grassroots change and reference progressive issues, when the time comes to defend those issues, they are often forgotten. The most recent example was a provision in the stimulus package that would have subsidized birth control and family planning services for the poor. This measure was lambasted as shelling out millions of dollars, when in actuality, all real estimates highlighted that it would save the U.S. far more money than it would cost. At the first sign of protest, Democrats dropped this provision from the bill without so much as a fight, only to not even be able to garner ONE Republican vote for the stimulus in the house. This rapid capitulation doesn't bode well for the rest of the session, I hope I am proved wrong.

I guess it doesn't take long for optimism to die...

Fairness vs Injustice

Issues of race, gender, and ethnicity have been a hot issue in recent weeks. Many in the media are writing about whether the election of Barack Obama represents the beginning of a "post-racial" America. This notion, that race no longer defines a person's status and trajectory, is in theory interesting but in reality serves only to further marginalize those who suffer under the yoke of injustice. The very fact that it is such a big deal to elect an African American president speaks to the fact that we have not come as far as many seem to hope. 

Race and ethnicity have always been tricky and taboo subjects not only in the U.S. but around the world. Most people take race as a given category that people fit into, largely ignorant of the fact that races and ethnicities are socially constructed. By socially constructed I am referring to their origin in the historical context in which the categories are created and then changed over time. For example, in many countries in Latin America, race is viewed extremely differently. In some countries there are fifty or more gradations of perceived ethnicity on a spectrum of white, black, and indigenous. In many of these countries, while skin color is taken into account, other factors like wealth, dress, and social status serve to determine a person's "true" ethnicity.

We often lose sight that when we talk about someone being African-American or White, that these categories lack real meaning and are just the most current incarnation of labels. To try to homogenize such diverse groups of peoples into simple categories often leads to spurious assumptions. For example, the issue of hypertension in African Americans is often tied to a variety of things, from genetics to adaptive selection during slavery. However, these simple notions break apart when we understand that genetic differences between any two given African Americans are larger than between any given African American and a person of any other race. We know definitively that the genes that affect skin color have nothing to do with hypertension, particularly on the large scale that is proposed. However, social forces have been found to be the most likely candidate for being the reason for higher rates of hypertension. Feelings of stress/anxiety and perceptions of discrimination have been found to play a major role in creating higher rates of hypertension among almost all populations. This has been found to be particularly true among African Americans. I don't for a moment want to imply that just because these categories are socially created that they do not have power. They have real power in how people are treated, how they are perceived, and even how they perceive themselves. However, their overwhelming power does not mean that knowing they are socially constructed is fruitless. It allows for a better understanding of what can and must be done to bring about a more just and equitable system.  

I don't want any of the above to take away from the overwhelming happiness I feel about Barack Obama being elected President, but we have to keep in mind the vast inequities suffered by African Americans and other marginalized populations. There is much work to be done, and understanding where we stand is a good place to start.

Hard To Imagine How The NRA Can Spin This

A recent study which was underwritten by more than 300 U.S. mayors has uncovered some extremely damning evidence about the link between lax gun laws and legal guns ending up being used in crimes. The study makes clear that 10 states with lax gun laws are responsible for over 50% of guns used in crimes across the U.S. This number should be staggering and the repercussions swift. This sort of dangerous funneling of weapons to be used in crimes cannot be allowed to continue. While people will continue to argue that it is not the guns that commit the crimes, it is clear that access to guns is providing the ability to carry out many crimes. It is hard to imagine how anyone reading the report could come to the conclusion that gun control does not have a positive effect on reducing the amount of guns in the hands of criminals. Particularly deplorable was the cover-up pushed by the industry to keep this data from seeing the light of day. To know that such data exists and to try to censor it is despicable and calls into question how dedicated to safety those involved really are.

It isn't just purchasing guns intended for use in crimes that is making headlines. In the same days as the above-mentioned report was released, this story came out as well. I cannot imagine how horrible all those involved must be feeling at this moment. It is difficult to imagine such a senseless thing, all because a weapon was being treated as a source of entertainment. Why an eight year-old would be allowed to fire such a deadly weapon is beyond me. I hope people learn to respect the dangers that guns pose and accept that they must be regulated for public safety. Together these two articles highlight what many researchers in a variety of fields (including public health, criminology, sociology, economics, and others) have found, that guns must be regulated and that protections must be in place to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Clearly many states are failing on this issue and must be brought to task.

Dangerously Heightened Expectations

With the election of Barack Obama, a international outpouring of support has increased the already immense pressure on the 44th President-Elect. Congratulations have come from the most unexpected places, including the President of Iran (who now feels spurned by the Obama camp's tepid response). Different groups around the world are placing expectations and ideas at the feet of Obama hoping that he will become involved and help solve problems. On one hand, this invitation to multilateralism is breathtaking. It is amazing to see that even the international community believes that America can and will be better under the leadership of Obama. However, together with the expectations domestically, it is hard to imagine how Obama can make all groups happy within the grace period of his early campaign. Obama stands on the cusp of being the most important president in America's history. The possibility of making the U.S. more accountable and multilateral is a dream that many have hoped for for decades, particularly during some of the recent dark years America has faced. People around the world have placed their hopes and dreams on his administration and it is difficult to imagine how it can meet expectations. 

A recent article by one of my favorite journalists, Ahmed Rashid, author of the recent book Descent into Chaos (which focuses on the war on terror in South Asia, primarily Afghanistan and Pakistan), sheds light on some of the massive expectations Obama faces. Reading through the article I was struck by just how much different factions in different conflicts are focusing on every word Obama says, in hopes of identifying what his presidential and international priorities will be. Particularly interesting was the quote by an unnamed European foreign minister that European countries will be unable to refuse anything Obama asks for in the first six months of his administration. There is such a massive amount of power in that statement. I cannot imagine any president in recent times being charged with such a great and also dangerous burden.

An America I Can Believe In

In what has to be the most historic election in a generation, Barack Obama has become the president-elect of the United States. It is hard to imagine how such an unlikely candidate had such a meteoric rise to success. I will be the first to admit I questioned Obama in the primaries. Initially I was a Kucinich supporter (a long shot, but one of the only beacons of true progressivism in a party bogged down by greed and avarice). After his withdrawal I changed my loyalties to Clinton. Having met her personally and believing that she had the strength, experience, and political capital needed, I felt she would also be the best to face whatever Republican was chosen. Now, unlike many Clinton supporters, I never fell into the rancorous denouncements of Obama and genuinely felt that either would do a reasonable, centrist job as president. I felt safe with either of them but not particularly inspired. Sure they were both historic candidates in a year the Democrats stood a good chance of actually winning, but it is always hard for me to vote for centrism. This country has been governed by the fifty-one doctrine for too long (playing to the middle in an attempt to eek out the election with just enough votes). This doctrine has often meant proving who was the most centrist, the most moderate. As a leftist progressive, this placation often struck me as dumbing down the election, and also hindering a genuine vision of a better future. I began to see that Barack Obama was trying to transcend the old language of elections. He spoke to the youth in a way that didn't seem placating or insulting. He gave people the opportunity to inform themselves on complex issues and expected that they would respond. He called for national service, in a country that is facing hard times and an uncertain future. He made me believe.

It is hard to sum up how amazed I am looking at the electoral map in today's Washington Post. Seeing how many states ended up blue and how many of the red states are closer than anyone could have imagined even two years ago. I was amazed to see Obama do so well in my home state, Montana, a rural homogeneous state. It makes me question my own and many other cynics' interpretations of the possibilities for a sustained grassroots movement in America. Many first time voters must feel empowered by the success of their campaign of choice. It will be important to keep these citizens involved in the process as it moves forward and to get them to understand that democracy is not just voting. Only through a sustained national movement can real change be accomplished. I feel optimistic about politics for the first time in a long time, and I am really excited that I will be in the middle of it.  Heather and I are already making plans to be at the inauguration. It will be exciting to play an important role in the health care debate and to have the real likelihood of actual reform. It is a historic time, and a great time to be in Washington D.C.  As one person who always had a hard time believing in hope, I say this with complete conviction: Yes, We Can!

A Vote For Change

I have always been a bit of a pessimist when it came to politics. Being a political science/sociology major will likely do that to you. Compounded by the fact that my political development happened in a state were if you weren't voting Republican you may as well not show up. For awhile I certainly understood the expatriate movement and why some Americans felt the draw of greener pastures around the world. I still have my fair share of complaints about the U.S. and its position and direction in the world. I have come to see however that everyone in the world wants the U.S. to change, in a myriad of different ways. Only through remaining in the U.S. and being that voice for change can effective reforms be undertaken.

I often hear Americans and residents of other countries say that they didn't realize how good they have it at home until they go abroad. While I can empathize with this comment, it in no way informs my way of seeing the world. There are many good things about the U.S. that I appreciate. The reason I have chosen to remain in the U.S. for the forseeable future is to push for change. Leaving just because the times are bad is an injustice to those left behind. Those who believe that the U.S. can or should be better have the obligation to work toward that change. Only through a truly democratic movement will Americans become engaged and informed. The record numbers of people registering to vote is one sign of light in a very dark time.  We need to realize that democracy is not just voting. Democracy requires active engagement and only the people can keep government responsible.

I cast my absentee ballot today. When I cast the ballot I was reminded of a quote by RFK that informs the kind of communitarian democracy that I idealize:

“Each time a man stands for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”

A vote for change is in the mail. Lets hope we get it right this time.

The Straight Talk Express Is Off The Rails Again

I never realized the "Straight Talk Express" mantra of McCain included slander. After being clearly rebuffed on issues of importance like the economy, the McCain campaign has decided to fall back on the most deplorable and depressing of tactics. While I can't fault them for using every tactic available to them in such an historic election, I am extremely disappointed at this decision. The Washington Post recently reported that the McCain campaign will be focusing on personal attacks on Obama's character.

The opening salvo of this new course was Palin dragging out the tired old line of Obama being associated with terrorism because he happens to live in the same neighborhood as one of the founders of the Weather Underground. Real solid stuff guys. What's next, talking about how the name OBAMA rhymes with OSAMA? I mean seriously, is this the best that the McCain folks can come up with, ad hominem attacks that indicate nothing about Obama.

This new tactic is just another low point for one of the few senators, Republican or Democrat, that I truly respected. Pandering to the religious right, becoming the partisan he said he never would, and leaving behind the issues to instead make personal attacks. McCain's star has fallen quite far in the last six years for me. These actions are not the course of a "Maverick" but of a flailing politician behind in the polls. If you're going to lose, at least do so with some dignity.

Obama's To Lose

After quite possibly the oddest vice presidential pick since Dan Quayle, the presidential race is now Obama's to win or lose. McCain has effectively silenced his greatest criticism of Obama by selecting someone much less experienced as a running mate. Palin has been the mayor of a city of 9,000 and is now the governor of Alaska, a state of only 680,000 and is run largely at the expense of the U.S. federal government. She has no foreign policy experience and is even younger than Obama. The fact that McCain has put her one step from the presidency shows that he is not as truly concerned with experience as he claims. A vice president needs to be ready to take on the job of the president from day one. It is hard to see how that is possible with someone like Palin.

I hear many people say that McCain is trying to reach out to disaffected Clinton supporters with his choice of Palin. While this may seem plausible because of the fact that she is a women, I would hope that McCain would be smarter and realize the women that supported Hillary are much more savvy than that. The fact that Palin appears to be an arch-conservative and opposes fundamental rights for women (anti-choice, against federal funding for family planning) doesn't lend itself to many Clinton supporters switching sides.

The choice of Palin is likely to raise this issue of the extreme sexism that still exists within the Republican party. The traditional and essentialist roles that are ascribed to women in Republican talking points only show how out of touch the party is with changes in society. I would also not be at all surprised if having a female VP hurts McCain among southern white males. It will also be interesting to see if the media continues its sexist tirades that were so common while Clinton was still in the race.

After a couple rough weeks in the polls, it looks like smooth sailing till November now (don't prove me wrong, Obama!).