Choices are inevitable.
In our world of unlimited desires and scarce resources, we do not have money for everything we want. If we spend extra money for schools, economic development or roads, we cannot spend it for health care, conservation or sidewalks. We cannot borrow our way out of this dilemma, for we borrow only from ourselves and we must eventually pay.
It is a given that we all want our public money to be spent carefully and well, without fraud or excess, only where it is needed. We all want regulations to be sensible and just, serving the common good, neither too much nor too little.
So who decides the age old questions: who pays, how much and for what? Those with money, with influence, those who vote, those who organize as pressure groups? What is the proper balance between taxes on individuals, groups and businesses and how progressive should progressive income taxes be?
What prompts our leaders to make the choices they make? How and why do we choose?
There are an infinite number of ways individuals look at the world, but in the world of politics there are two fundamental patterns.
The first is one of empathy and a sense of responsibility for others, of broad concern for complete strangers, for the less fortunate, for those in poor health, the very old and the very young, for the infirm. The role of government is to do for us all what we cannot each alone do for ourselves.
The morality of this approach is deeply rooted in our cultural and religious heritage; we care for others “because it is right” and because in working together we strengthen our city, our
state and our nation.
Then there is a worldview based on discipline, on personal responsibility, on our individual interests, on a limited collective safety net. We each are given the ability to determine our course in life and are each accountable for the consequences of our actions, for our excesses and our successes. We can overcome poverty by hard work and adversity by planning. Each of us must deal with the effects of our alcoholism, our smoking, for having bought a snowmobile instead of health insurance.
This emphasis on individual choice and responsibility is also deeply rooted in our cultural and religious heritage.
Our worldviews are rarely one or the other — nor need they be. Most of us have elements of each pattern influencing our outlook, and most political discussions occur in the middle ground.
Unfortunately, extremists of all persuasions are increasingly framing our public conversations with simplistic solutions, substituting sound bites for thought. They tempt us to take the easy way out and make emotional decisions based on our revulsion against those who game the system. There is scant recognition that cheating knows no boundaries, that affluent bankers can cheat as can the desperately poor and everyone else in between.
Extremists are just that, extremists, and their views do not help with the difficult, nuanced discussions about core issues that enable our society to move ahead.
We need to reframe our current political conversations and reflect upon our core values at each stage of our decision-making process. Personal responsibility is important, but it is only one frame of many.
Our American democratic experiment has been built equally on empathy, on the concept that we are all in this together and always have been, and that the more fortunate and less fortunate are inextricably linked.
Our government was founded on interdependence. It is not based solely on helping the less fortunate, but it is rather a joint project of us all for us all, helping to meet our needs together that we cannot meet alone.
The burning issue of our day is how we can work together, how we can restore American competitiveness, create more high-value-added jobs, and educate our children to fill these
jobs. We must work together to reinvent the future.
We will endlessly debate the appropriate balance between these views, but we should always remember that a common humanity binds us. We must defend ourselves against scoundrels — they are present in all walks of life. But the choices we make in these difficult times must have a moral foundation which calls on, as did Lincoln, “the better angels of our nature.”
Geoffrey is a physician who practices and lives Bangor. He also serves on the Bangor City Council.
The extremists have a more forceful voice due to the concentration of media ownership. They are emboldened by crisis. When time are tough, people are searching for hope and reason for the difficulty. Extremists seize upon these opportunities to guide the conversation towards their view. One of the most insightful books in recent years is Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine. She lays out how disasters can be used as opportunities to quickly bring about reforms that would never be considered under normal times. If you wonder how we ended up ditching the constitution after 9/11, shock permitted passage of sweeping changes to our centuries old civil liberties. After Katrina, land developers and law makers forced people from their homes, cleared lots, built expensive developments and decimated the public school system. Local school boards were disbanded and in many cases for profit schools were introduced.
Extremism is becoming a part of our system of government. The Tea Party, for example, entered congress and rallied around not honoring the US debt. Gadsden flags have been carried on the grounds of the Capital. Extreme gets attention. Attention is a valuable commodity. It is monetized. Breaking with decorum in the House by shouting at the duly elected president reaps huge dollars of support. This will guarantee it is repeated. Reality TV shows that encourage extreme behavior are widely viewed. Extreme is sensational. Sensational sells. Now, this is all we get.
There is absolutely no way, practically speaking, to stop this. Life in our future will require ever increasing tolerance of extremism. Those who cannot handle complexity and extremism will not fair well. This is social entropy. Get used to it. This is the next required adaptation for modern life.
I have no idea how a Gadsden flag is extreme. Allowing the Federal government to broaden its reach in every way imaginable seems kinda extreme to me.
Have you EVER read the 10th Amendment? and does it mean anything to you?
I am an extremist because I think states should be allowed to govern themselves at least a little? And I am an extremist because I think that the 4th and 6th Amendments should mean SOMETHING?
just call me a whack job and refer to my tinfoil hat, it is the way to handle rational discourse nowadays… and call me an extremist. (all names, no substance)
The Gadsden flag is symbolic of bloodshed over tyranny. Only an extremist would contend that our democratically elected government is tyrannical.
States are permitted to govern themselves “just a little” and maybe a bit more than that. I appreciate the constitution, even the part that gives the federal government powers to regulate interstate commerce.
I guess one persons extremism is another persons moderation.
There is nothing wrong with a private entity running schools. Grades are up right? How is that extremism except the Teachers union no longer has a stranglehold?
I have seen you support the extremism of the Occupy people as if they were middle of the road types. They aren’t.
I think what Mr Gratwick is trying to say is slow down, take a look around and we can find plenty of extremism on all sides. We can also find common ground.
Your comments on the media are well founded as long as you realize it comes from all media venues. Even the BDN, which makes its money off of clicks shapes its stories with that conflict in mind.
I have spoken with a local radio news jock when I press him for more info on a subject steps back and says, “You do realize we are kind of acting don’t you?” “It’s a show.”
It is good to remind ourselves the media makes money from the conflict between people they help create.
“I have seen you support the extremism of the Occupy people as if they were middle of the road types. They aren’t.”
I beg to differ.
Requiring accountability is as middle of the road as it gets; it is not extreme, if by middle of the road you mean demanding a fair shake for all people. Requiring a level playing field is middle of the road; extreme only to those that don’t care a whit about accountability or fairness. Requiring extreme wealth NOT be the guiding force of our public policy is middle of the road. Corporate power and wealth is what guides all of us, even you, now. What is good for the corporation (Monsanto, Nestle, Cigna, BP, etc) is thought to be good for all in a perversion of what is truly the common good: that which allow as many people as possible to enjoy the protected rights of life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. For-profit health care that robs people of life is not for the common good. Tax codes, loopholes, and legal dodges that leave the middle class shouldering the burden of running a compassionate and necessary safety net, necessary to prevent the instability of inequality in a society, is not for the common good. A redistribution of wealth to the very top is not for the common good, and that is in fact, in absolute fact, what has taken place since Reagan.
Mr. Gratwick is mostly right, although hard work is NO guarantee of success or an end of poverty, especially when the system you operate in is rigged.
As an Occupier I demand a fairer system. And while I may have to go to extremes JUST TO BE HEARD I only do so because the system is so extreme against the fairness I seek. There is something very Newtonian about it, the force moving against me requires an equal and opposite force just for me to stay in the same place, and not be pushed over the edge into poverty, indentured servitude to malicious and predatory capitalist bankers, or employers, or health insurance corporation policies, or…
You really ought to listen to the Occupy movement more closely. You obviously are ignorant of what it is revealing about our society. (I mean that in a nice way… really.)
sdemetri.wordpress.com
I mention the Occupy folks merely because our commenter chose to attack the Tea Party as extreme when it reflected the heartfelt concerns of millions of Americans. Remember that it would not have existed had the bailouts not occurred and had the healthcare bill not passed. Many conservatives see the former as unnecessary and invasive and the latter as illegal. Neither I would consider extremist stances.
Your “absolute fact” regarding redistribution of wealth in my opinion is a short sighted reading of statistics. Numbers sometimes lie about how they were arrived at. These are no different. Absolutely many at the top became very very wealthy Gates Buffet et al, at the very same time as the economy for most of us tanked. That did not mean someone someone stood there and xfered it from the accounts of the poor to the accounts of the rich. All that means is that for whatever reason some wealth was destroyed and some wealth is created.
The tax code is largely responsible for the redistribution of wealth. Here is a detailed, academic explanation of how capital gains and dividend income is very much responsible for the absolute fact of the concentration of wealth at the top by those and only those that can benefit by capital gains and dividends:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/the-concentration-of-capital-gains-and-dividend-income/
This is based on research by the Congressional Research Services and is what legislators in all parties use.
Some of the bailouts were arguably unnecessary. On this we agree in principle, to a degree. I happen to think that the auto bailout saved many, many more jobs in the ancillary businesses, small businesses in many cases, that feed into the auto industry. And as such was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Many conservative (and progressive) small businesses would have suffered otherwise. Bailing out some of the financial giants in the manner in which they were bailout is entirely arguable, and we might agree more than not if we dug into the details of those bailouts. One of the battle cries of Occupy is, after all, “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out.” :)
I also happen to believe that the stimulus package prevented the loss of millions of jobs with its combination of tax cuts (a conservative idea) and municipal and state spending projects. It was too little and a bit too late to have a more effective result on growth, but there are many analyses that show it stemmed job loss and prevented further decline in employment rates. I have a post on my blog that gives details about how state and municipal budget problems should have been MORE vigorously addressed as they are now a drag on the recovery and are contributing to real GDP at a negative rate.
As far as health care reform, sorry, you are just plain misinformed. Perhaps the individual mandate will be found unconstitutional, but there are not very many that are able to condemn the bulk of the reforms on firm footing. It WAS modeled after policy initiatives that REPUBLICANS have been pushing for years. That is simply a fact. Again, the devil is in the details, but IT IS NOT A GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER OF HEALTH CARE. (I wish it was a single payer system… it is not. It would be more efficient, more fair, reach many more people who deserve “life” as in the terms clearly stated in the Constitution.)
To not speak of either of these things in rational terms based on the data and the facts surrounding both things is extreme. Palin’s insistence on death panels in the ACA was extreme. And supremely dishonest, especially in light of the effects of for-profit health care industry which DO contain “cost containment” panels that DO decide which insurance “beneficiaries” live or die based on what the panel decides to give benefits for. My wife used to work for one, so I know whereof I speak.
There is actually quite a bit of cross-over between Occupy and true Tea Party concerns, “true” as in before the Koch brothers and other wealthy, self-interested individuals co-opted the movement for their own satisfaction and political advantage… Not a few of the Occupiers I associate with are confessed tea partiers that agree with Occupy’s message that the dangers and disadvantages of the corporate/government marriage is NOT in their interest. You’d be surprised.
I found out from city councilor Charlie Longo that Gratwick was the “leading proponent for the proposed pay per bag” trash program. In my eyes, that was an “extreme” proposal that only would’ve hurt the taxpayers of Bangor. So, “extreme” is really in the eyes of the beholder.
Longo can’t do math.
“Unfortunately, extremists of all persuasions are increasingly framing our public conversations with simplistic solutions, substituting sound bites for thought.”
Mr. Gratwick, this is exactly what I’ve seen and heard you and Joe Baldacci say regarding the MaineCare reform proposals/Dorthea Dix issue over the past few weeks. You give no real thought, no real resolutions(besides don’t cut anything), only simplistic solutions made to make good soundbites. Lead by example.