Tuesday, August 25, 2009

If going green is hard, passing green bills is harder

David Roberts really is wonderful.

I have been seeing - and deliberately not reading - dozens of op-eds, analysis pieces and blog posts about all the ways that President Obama is messing up the health-care fight. They all follow exactly the same pattern: if Obama would only do (or, if you think the battle's lost, had only done) what I say he should, we would have a health-care bill.

Well, maybe. But, though I'm struck breathless by some of the lies that are being told about the health-care plan, I have also been watching this country freak out over anything that could be painted as socialized medicine for almost as long as I've been alive. So it never occurred to me that Obama could wave a magic wand, or even give a brilliant speech, and hey, presto, the nation would see the light.

And yesterday on Grist, David Roberts nailed it: "Barack Obama is not our magic negro. He’s not Bagger Vance. He hasn’t come along to teach the ornery white folk the error of their ways. He’s just the president, a centrist Democrat embedded in a power structure replete with roadblocks and constraints."

We all know - when we stop to think about it - that pushing health-care reform, or a climate bill that will actually make a difference, through the US Congress will take sweat, and determination, and a whole lot of people making phone calls, writing their congressmen, and all the other boring labor that goes into political organizing. But what we feel is that we got this man elected, and now it's his job. As the New York Times reported a few days ago, the activists who campaigned so enthusiastically for him are feeling politicked out. They support the president wholeheartedly, the Times reported, but they are "taking a break from politics."

One activist who's got it straight is Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, who - to judge from his Twitter posts - seems to be on the road and around the world virtually full-time. organizing massive global demonstrations for next October 24 to influence the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks in December. McKibben - who could get his byline into any paper in the country - isn't spending his time (at least not much of it) sitting around writing articles about what Obama should be doing about climate change, though I'm sure he has some pretty strong opinions. But he also recognizes that politicians do not do, and (with rare exceptions) never have done, what is right. They do what is politic. And it is our job, not Obama's, to put so much pressure on them that the right thing to do becomes also the politic thing to do.

Obama isn't going to save us. He can't. It will take a whole lot more than one man - even if if he's the president of the United States - to bring us universal healthcare and a serious climate bill.

Well, we've got a whole lot more - we've got ourselves. The question is, do we have the fortitude to give up the luxury of complaint, turn around, and just keep on keeping on until we get where we need to be?

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, June 18, 2009

The rationing delusion - it's not just health care

I've spent most of my career covering business and finance, which means I've dealt with a lot of corporate executives in my time. And a whole lot of (gulp) investment bankers. And, to tell the truth, I've liked most of them very much. They're not out to trash the world, and they believe that their companies are doing good things (which, much of the time, they are).

So when my radical friends, or bloggers I like, attack corporations as rapacious monoliths out to dominate the globe, it makes me twitchy. Most corporate executives want to make the world a better place. I'm even willing to believe that at least some Monsanto executives want to make the world a better place - and genuinely believe they're doing it. (Whether or not they're actually doing it is another question, but one that can also fairly be asked of governments, radical activists, and in fact just about all of us. How to make the world a better place is a question to which there's no single, or simple, answer.)

But this much, I believe, is clear: the basic necessities of human life must not be controlled by any organization whose existence depends on making a profit.

The argument over health care is a case in point. Those who oppose government-run health insurance, and government research as to what treatments actually work, argue that we can't let the government decide what health care we get: that's rationing. But, as David Leonhardt pointed out in the New York Times the other day, private health insurers and providers ration health care constantly. The only difference is, they ration it on the basis of who can afford to pay for it and how profitable it is, instead of who needs it and whether or not it works.

It's the same with food. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Monsanto's GM seeds actually are better; that they can feed more people from the same amount of land than ordinary seeds. (Not that I believe it for a minute.) Even if it's true, though, allowing Monsanto to patent those seeds and control their distribution gives a single company the power to to ration our food supply. Not on the basis of who needs it, as many countries did in WWII, but on the basis of who can pay for it. (And, in Monsanto's case, who can keep paying for it, as the company carefully makes sure farmers can't save seed, but have to buy new for each planting.)

And here's one that we're not hearing so much about, but is possibly the most egregious of all: the privatization of water. By which I don't mean putting it in bottles and selling it, though that's bad enough. I mean privatization of the water supply. By the middle of this decade, the water supplies of 9% of the world's people were controlled by private companies, all of them hungry for more. (Milwaukee is currently considering turning over its water system to a for-profit company.) And what happens when a private company controls water access? Rationing again: those who can afford it get more, those who can't, get less - or even none at all. Meanwhile profits, instead of being reinvested, are siphoned off to the company's coffers.

It's hard to make fair rationing decisions, and however rational they may be, the people who don't get what they want, or what they believe they're entitled to, always feel disenfranchised. But what is so much better about rationing on the basis of ability to pay? And how is it that we - as a nation -
have somehow been bamboozled into accepting without question that rationing based on need, or usefulness, or any other rational criterion, is unwarranted government interference, while rationing on the basis of whether you've got enough money to pay is the wonderful free market at work?

Labels: , , ,