All posts by Armed Liberal

“DING!!-DING!!”

Commenter Michael Ladd pointed me at this article … “From Citizens To Customers, Losing Our Collective Voice” … in the Washington Post.

Now our government no longer needs us. The citizen-soldiers have given way to the professional all-volunteer military and its armada of smart bombs and drone aircraft. The citizen-administrators have disappeared, too, replaced long ago by professional bureaucrats. Americans may still regard each other as fellow citizens with common causes and commitments. But the candidates seeking votes on Tuesday see us as something less: not a coherent public with a collective identity but a swarm of disconnected individuals out to satisfy our personal needs in the political marketplace. We see them, in turn, as boring commercials to be tuned out.
It would be a mistake to conclude, as many commentators do, that Americans are apathetic citizens gone AWOL. But there’s no question that the fundamental relationship between citizen and government has changed. Increasingly, public officials regard us as “customers” rather than as citizens, and there are crucial differences between the two. Citizens own the government. Customers just receive services from it. Citizens belong to a political community with a collective existence and public purposes. Customers are individual purchasers seeking the best deal. Customers may receive courteous service, but they do not own the store.

Michael chastised me for using the term ‘customers’ instead of citizens, and he was exactly right.
The problem is that the politicians and investors in politics think of us as customers, and we’re buying that presumption.

CHECK OUT THE BLOVIATOR

Great stuff today:
Here:

The new “International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification” for 2003 (or ICD-9-CM, for short), the federally mandated bible of medical diagnosis and treatment codes, includes a rather regrettable new category: Section E979, which describes deaths from terrorist acts, including nuclear attacks.

and here

Those who put together the APHA Guiding Principles, which were, in part, meant to help spark interest in increased funding for public health interventions, saw these as the top 3 public health priorities (at least, that’s how they numbered them in the report):

1) Address poverty, social injustice and health disparities that may contribute to the development of terrorism.
2) Provide humanitarian assistance to, and protect the human rights of, the civilian populations of all nations that are directly or indirectly affected by terrorism.
3) Advocate the speedy end of the armed conflict in Afghanistan and promote non-violent means of conflict resolution.

#4 was strengthening the public health infrastructure, workforce, and other components of the public health system.
Do I think the public health community can serve as a voice for issues 1 through 3? Sure. But I would argue that, when the foundation of our own house needs to be completely refurbished, that describing those three priorities as our top 3 priorities will not only hinder our effectiveness in taking care of what needs to be done in case of a bioterror attack, but also may hamper our efforts to advocate for, acquire and maintain funding for other non-terror-related core functions of public health.

All the soccer moms and dads who thankfully voted “yes” on B and took a step toward saving the trauma system didn’t vote to support airy generalizations about social justice and conflict resolution.
Those issues are certainly damn important, but in a world where institutions are failing to deliver on their basic goals, and more importantly where their legitimacy is compromised by their failure to deliver, this is a awfully stupid thing to do.

POST-ELECTION

If you’ve read this blog at all, you’ve noted my disdain for what I call the “SkyBox” political culture we’ve created.
Moxie saw a taste of it Tuesday night, at the victory party for Gray Davis:

Davis’ speech was really very gracious and all the poor homeless folks they let into the hotel really seemed to enjoy the balloon drop and ice sculptures.
But really — while I had a good time — I wasn’t overly impressed.
What *would* have impressed me is if the Dems had said, “oh no….we’ll forego the 15 ice sculptures of the California bear.”
One would have been more than enough to satiate the public’s craving for an out-of-style yet opulent party decoration. Seeing more than a few on every floor of the Democratic HQ’s really bothered me. I would have been very impressed indeed had Gray Davis said, “Take that money and donate it to a social service. If we can’t find one of those have your assistants round up some homeless guys. Take them for dinner at Sizzler and put ’em up at a Holiday Inn for a night. We’re for the poor after all.”
And that’s what struck me most.

My first job out of grad school was as a legislative aide in Sacramento. It was just what I thought I wanted to do, and to be sure I learned a lot and actually got to do some cool stuff. There are several laws in CA that are there because I thought them up and made them happen.
I’d pretty much planned on politics as a career through most of college; I speak well, people seem to like me, and I desperately wanted to make the world a better place.
Oh, and I wanted to have my name written on that better place as well.
Working in politics was exhilarating. Powerful people would take my call … me, a young, inexperienced kid right out of grad school. I got to sit in front of legislative committees and argue with older, powerful people, and sometimes win.
And I was immersed in a community of people just like me. I had a team, even if we were sometimes rivals and even opponents.
And I could have stayed there in all the intervening time, going from administration to administration, from legislator to legislator, occasionally stepping out to work in a think tank or lobbying firm, and maybe, if I was good at it and played my card right, stepped up and ran for office myself.
And many of my peers did just that.
Thomas Kuhn wrote a groundbreaking book a number of years ago…The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which he examined the sociology of science; the ways in which ideas propagate as groups within the scientific community gain prestige and power.
What we need to do is to look at politics and policy in a similar light; a number of books have, and I’ll list some titles (and would be interested in seeing more). But here’s the short, Armed Liberal version:
Politics in the U.S. has always been interest-group driven. The power of the interest groups was checked, in part by the inefficiency and limited scope of government, which made very few fights worth taking on, and the cost of taking those fight on relatively high. For the most part, rational investors looked elsewhere.
But in the post-WW2 world, we began to see the scope of government expand; first in the military sector, and then in infrastructure, and then in healthcare, and so on until regulation began to interpenetrate the economy pervasively.
That made investment in government extremely profitable, and legal, in that instead of influencing procurement decisions (obviously illegal), businesses could profit by influencing policy and regulation.
The increasing complexity of laws, policies, and regulations meant that you needed a group of people who knew them and who could navigate the process of creating and interpreting them. They became professionals, and more so began to see themselves as professionals.
Socially, they became increasingly isolated, as professionals often do, because the work is involving and demanding and to a large extent social – it demands interaction with others, so your social and professional lives begin to blend and become indistinguishable.
And suddenly we have a political class, often self-selected as college students or younger, who have structured their entire adult lives around the demands of this system and their hopes to succeed on its terms.
Please note that what I’m describing is ‘content-neutral’; it applies to Rockefeller Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, and everyone in between. The investments may be made by individuals…Howard Hughes was a huge investor in this sphere, and profited from it…or by corporations, here ADM is a good current example…or by labor unions or environmental groups.
But you need to think of our government as investor-driven, and management-driven. Obviously, we the customers can force change. But while our power is great, it’s channelled by the managers and investors, who…among other things…manage us by choosing who we get to vote for.
I’ll add more later today, in two broad areas:
So what’s the problem with this?
So what can we do about it?

NOW WHAT??

My first thoughts on looking at the election results this morning:
“Damn, Davis is still going to be Governor…it wasn’t a bad dream…” I’m working on two post-election posts this morning, one an open letter to Davis on what he can do to salvage his reputation, and one a look at what this means for party politics.
I’ll give you the lede for the party politics one:
There is only one political party today. It is the party of SkyBoxes, limos, and private planes.
I choose those as symbols…and they are both real manifestations of how the politically powerful live today as well as powerful symbols of what is wrong with the political system that empowers them. They manifest the continued isolation from anything resembling the real life lived by the rest of us.
Hillary Clinton’s limo can run toll booths and her entourage can bypass airport security, where they wait in VIP lounges. Bush Senior can’t run a supermarket scanner, because he hasn’t been to a grocery store in most of his adult life.
The issue isn’t simply one of social class and stratification…it is one in which the political class in this country, which has often run against and been a check on the economic upper classes, has been bought by them, and has been a good investment because as has been true for much of American history, and as Prop 50 shows, the course of government action is often diverted to put our cash in someone’s pocket.
This is as true of the Democrats as it is of the Republicans.
And the answer isn’t as simple as the class warriors would make it.

22% reporting…

in case you don’t have better data yet…obviously I don’t have good data on which precincts have reported, hence what the projected outcome would be…but this is a lot closer than I predicted, and the GOP is doing much better than I anticipated.
Davis – 44.7
Simon – 46.9
Bustamente – 46.3
McPherson – 46.5
Shelley – 43.0
Olberg – 47.4
Westley – 41.7
McClintock – 50.5
Angelides – 46.3
Conlon – 45.5
Lockyer – 48.1
Ackerman – 45.3
Garamendi – 43.7
Mendoza – 45.9
O’Connell – 59.6
Smith – 40.4
46 – 54.7/45.3
47 – 54.0/46.0
48 – 75.1/24.9
49 – 53.9/46.1
50 – 50.6/49.4
51 – 43.1/56.9
52 – 38.3/61.7

VOTE EARLY & OFTEN…

We had our pre-election dinner last night (turkey and beef enchiladas mole), where a bunch of us get together and argue our way through the ballot. Nothing really changed my mind on any of the votes, except that a friend who is an elementary school teacher explained that she was voting against 47 (school bonds), because she considers the various administrations she works for totally inept. So I voted “no” on that.
During dessert, she & I started talking about gun registration. She is a true moderate; doesn’t have a lot of issues with people owning guns, would prefer that they had some training and that they were checked for lunacy and stupidity. But she and I kept going back and forth on registration. She couldn’t see why I had a problem with it, and when I told her about the various go-rounds in which well-meaning SKS and other ‘bad gun’ owners in CA had registered, had their then-legal ownership retroactively made illegal, and then were targeted for confiscation under threat of felony conviction because they had registered, she began to understand my concern. She still favors it, though.
I wish I’d sent her over to this from the Instapundit, for an example of how a) ineffective and b) intrusive this becomes.
I believe that there ought to be a way for the authorities to know if a designated individual has guns, and it would be handy to know what guns s/he has. This would be useful if someone was convicted of a crime, or was under a restraining order, etc. etc.
But until some way can be determined to keep them from being used in small-scale fishing expeditions like these, not to mention large-scale confiscations, I’ll oppose centralized registration.
Don’t forget to vote; drag someone else and get them to vote, too.

DOWNBALLOT CHOICES

Lt. Governor. This largely ceremonial job has only one real benefit…if Davis leaves the state to run for President, the Lt. Governor takes over. Mike Curb (of Lyle Lovett fame) was the Republican Lt. Governor when Jerry Brown was the Democratic Governor, and it definitely kept Jerry home.
To that end, although Cruz Bustamente was a great Assemblyman, my conviction that Gray “ATM” Davis will win the Governorship – albeit without my vote – and immediately start campaigning for President means that I’ll be supporting Bruce McPherson, a Republican in name only from my old stomping grounds at Santa Cruz, CA. Again, I consider Bustamente to be a good guy (as is McPherson), but the only benefit of the seat is that the national Dems will think twice about allowing Davis to even think of moving up in the event it would leave the state house in the R column.
Secretary of State. This campaign for two mid-level pols on the ladder is fairly dull. Neither one has much specific to say…they will both ‘modernize’ the polling process (as a technology professional, I can’t tell you how nervous that makes me…). Kevin Shelley, the Democratic candidate lists Handgun Control Inc. as his first endorsement, so I’m mildly inclined to vote against him. I’ll make this call in the voting booth.
Controller. Steve Westley was a professor of business who went to work for eBay at the right time and did a credible job. I’ve read some of his speeches, and he seems a cut better than most of the candidates. He has teamed up with Phil Angelides to advocate investment in infrastructure, while his opponent is touting his connections to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, so the Democrat gets my nod.
Treasurer. I actually knew Phil Angelides a long time ago, and absolutely would have written him off as a grasping, unimaginative career politician until his election to the State Treasurer’s office. His conduct during the energy crisis, his emphasis on intelligent investment of the State’s funds, and his belief in investing in infrastructure put him far at the head of this group of statewide electeds. If he was running for Governor, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat, and he deserves a ride in this post until he can.
Attorney General. Bill Lockyer has been (with the exception of gun issues) a good AG for the state, and deserves another term.
Insurance Commissioner. Tough choice. Support the insurance companies, or the trial lawyers? I’ll go with the lawyers and support John Garamendi, the Democrat. He did a credible job in the office once before, and his Republican successor disgraced himself.
Superintendent of Public Education. I’ll go with Jack O’Connell, the Democrat, as he has been both a teacher and a school board member, and those are the two constituencies that this job needs to reach.

LINKAGE

Someone’s sending a fair amount of traffic my way via my old site (http:armedliberal.blogspot.com), and I can’t get the referrer data to see who it is.
So if you came here via a link to there (how’s that for preposition use?) can you let me know and I’ll get the mysterious them to fix their link…

ALL BALLOT ISSUES ALL THE TIME

The other initiatives are:
46 (housing- YES) As I discussed here, the housing crisis is real, and while these bonds will get spent and won’t solve the problem, a few tens of thousands of people will be better housed because we spent this money.
47 (school bonds – NEUTRAL) I know that our public school infrastructure is decaying (I see it every day at my son’s schools, which are relatively good), but I’m uncertain about spending this money now. On one hand, the needs are real, as with housing above; on the other many of the school districts (L.A. Unified) haven’t done a very good job with the money they’ve been given already. I’m probably going to toss a coin tomorrow morning on this one.
48 (combine courts – YES) This makes ministerial changes to state law to reflect the fact that all 58 of California’s counties have combined their Municipal and Superior courts in an effort to streamline and cut costs. This simply changes the state law to eliminate references to ‘Municipal’ courts when there aren’t any.
49 (afterschool care –YES) As noted below this is about positioning Ah-nold to run for Governor (which I think would actually be kinda fun…he’s not an idiot), and incidentally may improve the lives of a few hundred thousand kids. So I’m for it.
50 (water bonds – NO) I’d support 2/3 of the projects in this (excluding the purchases of wetlands in a private and negotiated process from major developers), but the other 1/3 just isn’t palatable at a time when the budget is as crunched as it really is.
51 (‘transportation’ bonds – NO) This is a scam, and the people responsible (yes, Irvine Mayor Larry Agran, this means you) ought to be ashamed.
L.A. County A (Museum and Parks Bonds – NO) I’d love to see a cool new Rem Koolhaas L.A. County museum. Some group of rich people should get together and fund it. At a time when we can’t afford decent schools, police, or a health system, building monuments to high culture (or cathedrals, for that matter) ought to be on the back burner.
L.A. County B (Healthcare – YES) Vote early and often for this one, or in fact your children may die. It is not only my local Level 1 Trauma Center, it is one of three for the entire region. The health finance systems in this country are broken. We need to fix them. While we’re fixing them, we ought to keep the hospitals open. Period.