Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Liberty and Individualism

Sometimes the best insights and discussions come when they are least expected. Such was the case yesterday, as I thought more about social science and the individual than I have in a long time. I will try to bring together many of the thoughts and ideas from that discussion into this entry.

Over the past several months, I have been looking for ways to make sure that I retain and apply everything learned in and out of classes in college. Blogging, I realized, is a means to that end. Now with more personal motivation to blog, more entries will definitely be on their way to this page.

Pre-19th Century: Liberty and Government

While the concept of liberty intersects heavily with political philosophy, with negative liberty considered protection from the elimination of rights, while positive liberty is the freedom to act. Negative liberty arose with its modern context in Enlightenment philosophy.

As the concept of progress replaced views of cyclical history in political theory, thinkers saw liberty as a means to achieve a better society. By giving individuals the freedom to act, they would behave (more or less) in a way that benefited the greater good. Hopefully, for these philosophers, individual liberty would help the people more than aristocratic rule and feudalism. This sunny byproduct of rationalism arose from the writings of Rousseau, who had such faith in humanity to suggest that:

"The general will is always in the right and inclines toward the public good...People always desire what is good, but they do not always see what is good."

Rousseau continued on to express the necessity of preventing corruption of the popular interest to maintain the purity of the general will. Here is an exclusive emphasis on negative liberty, in the interest of good governance. It was in this spirit that the early American notion of liberty arose. Faith in the intentions of mankind, overseen by a protecting government hybridized between aristocratic and popular rule, would bring collective benefits.

The 19th Century: Rugged Individualism

The perception of liberty would change in the nineteenth century (1) for the American experience and (2) for philosophy as a whole. The "pursuit of happiness" therefore would take on greater importance than ever before.

(1) The frontier spirit, represented by Andrew Jackson and other icons of pioneering in the West, pervaded American thought as thousands of settlers operated almost independently in the virgin lands of mid-America. As pioneers moved West, they fought not only with unfamiliar land and distance from authority, but Native Americans. In a decades-long struggle that raged with particular ferocity on the farm line in Texas, frontier America overcame the Native American threat to Western security and successfully plowed millions of acres for their survival and sustainability. The frontier, according to Frederick Jackson Turner, was closed by a self-made race of men. In truth, the frontiersmen definitively earned this sense of worth.

America thus left the nineteenth century with an ethic of the individual operating not for the government as an institution, but for a larger ideal of autonomy and ability to conquer. This could possibly relate to the rise of romantic nationalism, transcending the operation of government itself. Irish nationalist Thomas Francis Meagher said in 1846, "A strong people alone can build up a great nation." In sum, the individual could achieve greatness as the sole master of his own fate.

(2) John Stuart Mill made a push in the direction of the modern perception of the impetus for individualism as part of his Harm Principle:

"The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

At this point in the evolution of individualism, the right of the individual to possess positive liberty becomes distinct, not a means to achieving greater social progress. Mill still upholds the value of negative liberty by asserting that one must be considerate of others' liberty in his actions. Thus, in application, both positive and negative liberty entail the same governmental actions, but arise from different intentions.

The Early to Mid 20th Century: Heritage and Decay

The memory of the American frontier began to fade, yet the sanctification of positive liberty did not fade. The United States fought two world wars with a strong sense of national pride, and waged an ideological conflict in the Cold War under the popular banner of liberty and sovereignty. Great American political figures built foreign policy around the right to self-determination. Th United States sought to replicate its own journey and fight for freedom in other countries around the world. But to what end? It is not possible to promote a standard of liberty abroad when its meaning is lost domestically.

The decay of liberty came not from a place of authority, but as a collective shift. After all, history is the sum of the thoughts and actions of individuals manifested through certain recorded events and documents. As has occurred before in history, the population continued to understand liberty as freedom of action, but forgot its origins, as outlined above. Positive liberty dominated negative liberty as an ideal, and service to government lost priority as an aspect of the importance of freedom. As the foundations of negative liberty are eroded, and the individual forgets that it is critical to not harm the liberty of another. When the respect of the other leaves the equation, the stage is set for radical individualism. Ayn Rand provided philosophical backing for the movement that came.

The Late 20th Century and Early 21st Century: Radical Individualism

While I will never be a Luddite, technological expansion that redefined communication faster than the natural human tendency to adapt accordingly resulted in the final puzzle piece for the most recent change in perception of the individual. In what some writers label "The Cult of the Individual," the increasing mobility and interconnectedness of humans allowed for the deconstruction of the age-old sense of community. People now possessed unprecedented control over their own contact and communication.

Fusing this tendency with the loss of respect for the other and the dominance of positive liberty at the expense of negative liberty leads to an emerging culture of entitlement. Selfishness and self-absorption becomes an ethic, in a perversion of the heritage of positive liberty. As a population naturally forgets history over time, the context behind the value of positive liberty is lost. Americans especially seem to forget that their forbears experienced a journey to attain and maintain their positive liberty, which codified the right to act for oneself. Now, the sense is that certain rights are earned by virtue of simply existing.

In no way is this a universal value, but it has become entrenched in popular culture, helped along not only by the aforementioned progress of technology, but by changing connections in the communication between the public and business.

Consideration of Neo-Marxist Response

With business in mind, it is possible to blame private institutions as creating the sense of entitlement and radical individualism, as well as many other related problems in modern society. It is tempting to place blame on something altogether intangible such as "the corporation," yet one finds a causality dilemma: did the business create the values or the values create the business?

My interpretation of history as the sum of individual decisions and discovery and the measurement of foundational change by ideas (see Hegel here) leads me to differ from a Marxist-leaning interpretation. Class struggle is superseded by the clash of ideas.

The Future of Liberty and Individualism

I will choose to focus on the more optimistic solution to this problem, maybe because it fits my context as a policy-minded college student still youthfully idealistic.

From consideration of the small window I have found into the history of liberty, it seems that John Stuart Mill articulated the balance of liberty best. The value and understanding of the intentions behind negative liberty is necessary for a nation to succeed, as Meagher suggested. My personal values and desire to strive for the knowledge of God's love in all things, as well as the personal journeys of others all require understanding the value of positive liberty.

Government, therefore, should seek to reconnect with what Rousseau believed was the benefit and necessity of the general will to the furthering of the collective good. The promotion of negative liberty and national service ties in with the classic Kennedy quote of asking what one can do for their country. Therefore, the two forms of liberty must work together to bring about both what the individual wishes to seek, and what the individual must contribute to the government and collective good to ensure that all individuals have the opportunity for the same pursuit.

John Steinbeck, from "East of Eden"

"This I believe: That the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government that limits or destroys the individual."

Monday, October 19, 2009

A Perspective on Afghanistan

After embarking on a campaign to be more informed about current events through more in-depth reading and analysis, it feels like the right time to reenter the blogosphere. Typing thoughts instead of just talking about them in a disorganized way helps to bring positions together with much more completeness and clarity. On that note, it's time to consider the war in Afghanistan.

Background
Afghanistan rests in a historically volatile area in Central Asia. Subject to Soviet power politics, it became the center of a proxy conflict in the Cold War. The United States facilitated the rise of the anti-Soviet government, who launched a radical Islamic campaign in the state. Al Qaeda found a safe haven in the area, and became enmeshed in Afghanistan and the Taliban government. After 9/11, it was only logical to pursue the Taliban/Al Qaeda link to undermined global terrorist networks. Therefore, the war in Afghanistan began.

Now it's time to dispel myth number one about the Afghan war. The citation of time as a factor in supporting withdrawal is a fallacious one. The much-heralded troop "surge" in Afghanistan would have increased the number of troops in Afghanistan from just 30,000 to 60,000. Consider that American forces in Iraq were consistently at four times or more of the level of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The key point is that Afghanistan has never been a large-scale conflict, and that it cannot be defined in terms of a record-length war that in itself justifies withdrawal. As the Economist aptly put it in the most recent edition: "The Afghan conflict, it is often said, has been not an eight-year war, but eight one-year wars."

Strategic inconsistency and deprioritization characterized the first seven or so years of the Afghan war. Therefore, it is important to consider that when understanding the current direction of Afghan policy, the "war" has been much more of fragmentary conflict across the country since 2001. The Al Qaeda and Taliban link is also an important factor to keep in mind.

Why We Fight
The Afghan war never received the criticism of aggressive neoconservative foreign policy that the Iraq war grew to receive. Legitimate justification exists for the presence of American forces in Afghanistan, before the debate on future strategy even begins. Understanding why the United States has fought in Afghanistan is key to understanding what to do next.

First, the rise of Western globalism triggered reactionary movements such as Al Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups that sought to destabilize the new world order they saw emerging. Firmly attached to radical Islamic ideology, these groups justified their pursuit of power via terrorism. In this sense, terrorism is one of the many flashpoints of conflict that occur over time when a power structure changes, in this case the monolithic American power. However, terrorism exists much more intangibly that the geopolitical conflict that characterized earlier international conflict. Because of the intangible and psychological power of terrorism, (some terrorists operate in the name of Al Qaeda without any connection to the actual organization) destroying it entirely is not possible.

However, the primary justification for American presence in Afghanistan comes from the need to deconstruct global terrorist networks to prevent the unification of the anti-Western ideological movements that seek to undermine security of all nations. Furthermore, Central Asian security itself depended on eliminating entrenched and organized terrorist groups, as Pakistan's conflict in its frontier regions demonstrates.

Another impetus for the American presence in Afghanistan is that of the drug trade. While only a minimal link between opium production in Afghanistan and Western Hemisphere drug operations exists, the 90% of world poppy plants that come from Afghanistan further threatens regional security. Myanmar's security is just one example. The illicit narcotics trade funds organized crime around Asia, and thus destablizes governments and undoes social order.

For the global humanitarian interest, the Taliban government undermined the well-being of the Afghan people through economic backwardness. The CIA World Factbook cites:
"Afghanistan's economy is recovering from decades of conflict. The economy has improved significantly since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 largely because of the infusion of international assistance, the recovery of the agricultural sector, and service sector growth. Real GDP growth exceeded 7% in 2008...It will probably take the remainder of the decade and continuing donor aid and attention to significantly raise Afghanistan's living standards from its current level, among the lowest in the world."

Only through some foreign intervention, whether military or not, could this be solved.

What We Must Do
Complete withdrawal from Afghanistan is out of the question, for the aforementioned reasons and context. However, a legitimate debate is broiling in Washington about what policy direction to take. Indicating political pragmatism and centrism, President Obama found more support with Republican lawmakers over Afghan policy than Democrats. The recent policy review with the complex interaction of the President, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, and General McChrystal opens the debate over a counterinsurgency policy versus sustained military action.

Counterinsurgency options involve carefully removing individual targets to destory resistance hierarchies. This policy assumes that by removing Al Qaeda leadership from the equation, the security threat from Afghanistan will diminish. Advanced military technology could accomplish this, evoking thoughts of Tony Stark and Iron Man awesomeness.

Based on the previous contextual assessment of Afghanistan, this policy does not hold water. Removing leadership and key terrorist figures would not solve the larger problems that make Afghanistan more unstable and prone to being a security threat. For this reason and ones to be listed, my personal viewpoint is that the United States should make an effort to pursue a cohesive strategy to eliminate all vestiges of Al Qaeda in the region in the short term, and eliminate any future tendency for the Afghans to return to radical dependence by improving the country's economy, restructuring the agricultural sector away from poppy farming, and working to eliminate widespread corruption in the Afghan political and tribal system.

First, eliminating Al Qaeda's organizational capabilities will do the most towards hindering terrorism in the region. This policy is agreed upon even in Vice President Biden's policy proposals. However, the main distinction comes in the ensuing proposals.

Preventive practices are by far preferable to remedial short-term solutions. Therefore, avoiding any future repeats of pre-2001 Afghanistan is vitally important. In order to accomplish this, the economy must be improved, and a basic standard of living and human rights encouraged among the population. This policy will remove the ideological ground radical groups can use to attract locals to be sympathizers to their cause.

Furthermore, Afghanistan must be weaned from poppy farming. The Taliban feeds on poppy farming, and keeps the rural poor as sympathetic through buying what a legitimate government would not. Only through a widespread effort to educate farmers and provide new crops and diverse sources of agricultural livelihood aside from poppy production will the United States succeed in destablizing the funding and entrenchment of the security threats in Afghanistan, for the Taliban as it exists today operates closely with Al Qaeda.

Finally, eliminating corruption in the Afghan political system must occur in order to promote a fair government and cooperation among rival groups that will allow for the functioning of a state. Hamid Karzai clearly either oversaw or allowed the rigging of the national elections recently, pushing the numbers to ensure his ultimate retention of power. Honest oversight of the elections and assessment of the structure and origins of Afghan politicians will go a long way towards preventing future security problems.

Hitches?
Pakistan is an important consideration in Afghan policy as well. With an overbearing military that often controls the civilian government, the United States must be sensitive to Pakistani moves to fight terrorism on its own soil. The recent initiative in South Waziristan shows promise. This alliance and coordination must be maintained in order to achieve success in the above goals. India must also be indirectly considered in the Pakistan front as well.

The main knock on this outlined course of action is practicality. A large commitment of resources is necessary to attain the goals of security and preventive policy. However, with a solid strategy, effective leadership, and international cooperation in all areas, not just military, will help with a cohesive and effective solution to the Afghan conflict.

The United Nations has outlined many of these goals already, and will continue to work for their completion. The international community must commit to solving Afghan problems, for no half-hearted efforts will be enough to maintain the peace and security necessary in Central Asia.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Information and Change

Instead of attempting to tackle specific current affairs like I have recently with healthcare and energy, I'm going to work on an overview of the state of modern culture in the developed world, mainly based in my own experience in the U.S.

Introduction

It's very difficult to step outside one's own experience to give an objective assessment of current times. Good histories don't really emerge until years after events, when enough information is still available about them combined with a better understanding of how they fit into the context of the world. For example, some left-wingers were ready for the Bush administration to bring on some radical new world order in which we all marched in chain gangs under the yoke of authoritarian corporatism. Also, some right-wingers were ready for President Obama to resurrect every idea in the Communist tradition and sadistically and systematically destroy the American economy by this point in his presidency. Time soothes these notions and reveals truth.

However, revisionist history is one of the more painful things for the student of history to deal with. For various reasons, the caretakers of historical knowledge decide to alter their insights into past realities to avail their conscience and draw false connections between the past and present. The Civil War is one of the prime examples of this revisionism that much of the time is based in an errant pursuit of "political correctness". In my experience in history classes, the Union side is always subtly taught as the morally and politically justified side in the war, just because of today's shifting views on the need for a larger central government and greater equality. At the time, however, nothing was this clear cut, and the North was as guilty as the South in fomenting the conflict. A good historian should try at all costs to avoid falling for the traditional "the winners write the history books" mentality.

Today and Yesterday

With that in mind about perspectives and history, how is our present cultural and social state different from the past? Nostalgia for the the mid-20th century could well be considered revisionism. Undoubtedly, every time period has its shortcomings. In the early 21st century, however, we have seen an unprecedented rise in globalization (or westernization) and cultural collision. As Fareed Zakaria talked about in The Post-American World, the fall of the USSR brough the United States into a unique position of unipolarity unrivaled since the height of the British Empire. American ideals and values have spread with every McDonald's and Starbucks that gets thrown up in a foreign country. Of course, there are other countries putting their unique imprint on this new globalism, as well as ones fighting for a larger piece of the pie. This has bred a sense of cultural superiority and apathy among many Americans that could come to harm us in the future. This is not the first time I'll make a comparison between the late Victorian era and today.

The engines of this mechanical West-driven globalism are powered primarily by economic influence. The collapse of Western banking and regulation systems notwithstanding, the average joe in a foreign country knows many of the same things Americans do about popular culture. A good example is American words that are copied in other languages, such as "los jeans" in Spanish meaning (ta da!) "jeans" in English. It takes huge economic engines to power this globalization process, so we have seen a rise in corporate multinationals. This is what makes the modern era distinctly different from the past.

Media Multinationals

Google is always a quick and easy resource for a blog, and I found this Columbia Journalism Review resource on major media companies. Time Warner, CBS, and Disney own an enormous share of the media market, sometimes nearly monopolizing appealing coverage of things like sports or news. This control allows these multinationals great control over what they report and the information they pass on. The average news-watcher won't know any better when ESPN comes to gobble up local sports reporting stations or something similar occurs.

Traditional media is not faring well either, as the Media Daily News reported in February:
"Traditional media's 26% drop will be from $141.3 billion in 2008 to $112.4 billion in 2013. That segment stretches from newspapers to TV to out-of-home."

This means that there is statistical proof that we will only continue to see the rise of larger media congolmerates with the sustained decline of traditional information services. Here is yet another change evident in today's world.

The Gilded Age of Information

This control of information has reduced standards of accountability, especially in journalism. Many news anchors today (especially male ones) wear more makeup than credibility. CNN Headline News has become about as valuable as the magazine rack in the grocery store checkout line. ("Celeb Talk and Gossip = News!! OMG!") The best analysis I have heard on television of the reasons behind today's economic problems and the subprime mortgage crisis that touched it off came from the strongly Christian conservative "700 Club" anchor Gordon Robertson, not CNN, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, or any other network that claims news it its first priority.

Instead, the media outlets look inwardly to the celebrities and tabloid material, making the death of Michael Jackson more important than any world event in several years and continually reporting on the unfolding drama from lawyer battles and manslaughter investigations instead of discussing the implications of significant world events outside of well-worn sound bites. Does this maybe again sound like the cultural decay of the late-Victorian, unipolar world of the Gilded Age British Empire?

Moreover, an idea that gets thrown around a lot is the declining sophistication of news reporting. This is also assuredly a sign of increased apathy among the run-of-the-mill news watchers. This is evidenced in everything from comic strips to presidential debates. Calvin and Hobbes cartoonist Bill Watterson said in 1995 that comic strip changes "have now gone so far as to take a serious toll on the art." The vice presidential debates between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden in 2008 had a grade-level reading average of 7.8 for Biden and 9.5 for Palin.

However, this average was skewed by sentences such as "What I would do, also, if that were ever to happen, though, is to continue the good work he is so committed to of putting government back on the side of the people and get rid of the greed and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington," and "The middle class under John McCain's tax proposal, 100 million families, middle-class families, households to be precise, they got not a single change; they got not a single break in taxes." Since these sentences technically registered highly on reading level, they dragged up both candidates' overall speech sophistication average. Meanwhile, the eloquent and understandable Gettysburg Address by Lincoln in 1863 registered an 11th grade reading average without any political mishmash. Overall it seems like there is a certain degree of dumbing down in the spread of information, still resonating with the apathy and cultural stagnation of the Gilded Age.

Opinions and Facts

Based largely on personal observation, many of the apathy-facilitating news outlets have consistently blurred the line between where they report on facts and when they give opinions. Gone are the paragons of television reporting like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow who distinctly said things like "that's the way it is" when reporting facts, and carefully discerning their own opinions from these facts. It seems that many mainstream news sources today are concerned with only presenting opinions before carefully approaching known facts. This is another change in today's world.

Hope?

With the decline of local news sources, there are still some accessible news outlets that operate independently of the large, dumbing-down tendencies of the large media groups. However, some of these sources prefer radicalism and the preaching of disillusionment instead of actual progress.

The greatest hope I see for this kind of situation is Americans that wish to be informed is to diversify the news sources they read and to actively discern between rational fact and possibly irrational opinion. There still exist many credible news sources available, it's just slightly harder than plopping down on the couch and whipping out the universal remote.

With that in mind, I would like to believe it's possible to overcome the worrying changes evident in the presentation of mainstream information. Otherwise, it may take some cultural shock from the course of world events in the future to make many Americans come to terms with the insular attitudes that have begun to develop among them.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

America's Energy Future

Continuing on the strand of citizens fulfilling their expected role in a contract with government, I'm planning on focusing on energy policy. This has always been a particular interest of mine (though I'm probably not especially informed on it), and I have an interest in pursuing it in the future.

Today's Energy Debate
Having just finished judging some summer camp debate rounds on the convoluted, barely-ekeing-through-the-House (219-212) Democratic-sponsored energy bill that deals mostly with a cap-and-trade policy, I have become convinced that as with many things politicians do, the energy debate has become sidetracked from a purer vision of America's energy future both in the short and long term context.

Ideological supporters of a fresh energy policy seem to be very good at thinking with their hearts on the issue. Many environmental advocacy groups propose radical solutions for the fear that global warming will end us as surely as the upcoming movie 2012 predicts apocalypse at the end of the Mayan calendar. Meanwhile, energy traditionalists seem content and complacent with our tried-and-true energy policies that the American economy has been reliant on for at least a century. When these two sides clash, both accuse the other of wanting to destroy America. This is sadly predictable of ideologues in the age of cable news. So how about (my view of) an honest and not sidetracked assessment of the contemporary energy debate.


There is no doubt (outside of those who fall to the right of the Heritage Foundation) that global warming is leading the global environment down a path towards unpredictable and increasingly inhospitable conditions for mankind. There is also no doubt that moving towards sustainable sources of energy for our power grid will require a painful transition from coal and natural gas. The American Coal Council estimates job loss in the coal and other related industries to occur in terms of millions. Finally, there is no doubt that alternative and sustainable energy sources are a long way from total viability. The American Enterprise Institute cites that renewable sources of energy (not including hydroelectric power) had only a 2.3% American market share in 2007.

So considering that global warming is a problem, nonrenewable energy sources by defintion cannot be used indefinitely, the transition from these sources will inevitably hurt, and that there is a long way to go for viable alternative energy sources - where do we go from here?

Nuclear Power
This is the only non-fossil fuel that has a sustained presence in the American energy market, satisfying 20% of our domestic demand. However, nuclear power also happens to be extremely divisive and cliched in discussion. For example, try to carry on a reasoned discussion about nuclear power without mentioning Chernobyl.

In truth, nuclear power is a safe and reliable source of energy when properly maintained. However, it is enormously expensive to ensure that such standards are met and all insurance against potentially apocalyptic nuclear meltdown occurs (cue aforementioned environmental groups). So let's say for now that nuclear energy is not the easiest way out of our current energy situation.

Energy Efficiency
There are few issues out there that consensus can exist so readily on, and I firmly believe energy efficiency is one of them. However, as with reducing obesity costs in healthcare, it requires individual initiative.

The magazine National Geographic reported in depth on energy efficiency in March 2009. Simple electricity savings in the American home can include reducing usage 8% alone by turning off electronics instead of leaving them on "standby". Further savings can come from using energy efficient appliances and refitting homes with efficient windows and doors to minimize heat loss. However, most Americans polled for the magazine indicated they would not prioritize energy efficiency, especially when disposable income is harder to come by.

To the rescue comes everyone's favorite American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or as you probably have seen referred to ad nauseum in your nightly CNN/MSNBC/FOX watching as "the stimulus package" (or "Obama's Marxist lovefest" for the latter station). But how effective will the ARRA be for energy efficiency? The D.O.E. reports that $2.7 billion in grant money was allocated from the $787 billion total to encourage local government projects in energy efficiency research. So basically, more bureaucracy en route to our true goal.

The political speech poster boy town of Greensburg, Kansas has made huge strides in building a model community of energy efficiency in the wake of a tornado. Such moves are possible by the individual American. Undoubtedly, it will be costly. However, considering buying highly rated appliances, thinking conservatively about gas usage, and even turning off the "standby" electronics can make a dent (just as healthy lifestyles in healthcare) in American energy usage. As a result, we buy ourselves more time in finding practical and effective solutions for energy futures.

International Cooperation
All of this is well and good until the rest of the world comes into focus. Rising powers like China and India seem intent on plowing ahead with fast-paced industrialization. Pressures from conventional powers to reduce emissions and energy usage are as offensive to these countries as it would have been if a large authority came in and asked the United States to stop the Industrial Revolution for a somewhat more intangible higher purpose. Their reluctance is understandable. The climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark this winter will be a key collision of opinions for a chance at future global energy policy.

If diplomats pull the right strings and the right political avenues are taken, the United States could be in a good position to make things happen in the realm of global energy responsiblity. Otherwise, more of us just might accede to the Greenpeace view of an unchecked world future.

Way Down the Road
Time to bring out the 3-D glasses and other trappings of your Back to the Future 1950s culture when considering the mysterious sci-fi nature of future energy solutions. In anywhere from decades to centuries, after all of the current energy situation debate is put to rest by the march of time, some pretty cool things could happen in the providing of power. Among them is nuclear fusion, which is a current government research initiative. Undoubtedly, solutions will arise in the future and will become the accepted permanent solution to energy needs, just as coal must have seemed to people like Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan. However, on the road to that inevitability, we must accept current truths and look forward with a sense of practicality and purpose.

Healthcare Reform and Obesity

Call the title strange, but this is a good example of the various opinions on the ideal interaction between people and their government.

Introduction
To make a generalization, liberals generally expect that the government should be trusted to provide services to the citizenry for the greater good and advancement of society. This can take the form of infrastructure growth, federal grants for college tuition, Social Security, Medicare, or anything that makes a good Reaganite cringe when spoken of in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars. Conservatives generally distrust the government in providing these services, preferring instead to hearken to individualism and the value of work ethic and perseverance in the private interest to yield the greater good and advancement of society. Now, I have a passion for history, so I know that this in no way adequately explains the complex and interwoven strands of political groups and motivations in American history and how various parties have formed to garner their loyalty around a single banner. However, it's a good foundation for addressing this facet of the health care debate.

Popular Opinion
I don't put a lot of trust in poll numbers, because the majority is not inherently right. We have this nice culturally engrained link between popular sovereignty and progress, but that's not so! Furthermore, studying statistics taught me that polls can be very unreliable to boot. Anyway, there is no doubt that most Americans are of the opinion that health care reform is needed. CBS reported in June that, in fact, 72% of Americans support a "public option" for health care. No doubt, like me, most of these respondents have very little idea about the complexities of insurance policy and don't know what they're agreeing to. But what are the implications of this popular opinion, and what can people do about it?

The Cost Debate
The first key issue about the health care debate that has bothered me is the ideological opposition to its cost. There has been a furor between the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the White House on the cost of reforming health care:
"The Congressional Budget Office, standing tall in the face of Democratic outrage, provided analysis that shows the President’s plan will NOT reduce government spending on health care like he said it would, and that it will substantially increase the federal deficit – despite tax increases." (Wall Street Journal 7/24/09)

Truthfully, though, health care reform should not be measured in terms of how much it costs, but how much it will save in net terms. The main principle is that the government will attempt to wrangle the growing costs of providing benefits and insurance to an aging American population reliant on specialists and prescription medication. Thus, costs will be reflected in the government, not in the private sector and consumer spending, as they have to this point. The Obama administration claims, according to the New York Times, that its plan will save both households and the nation a sum total of about $2 trillion over ten years. This is where the debate truly lies: in cost with the consideration of savings over time.

Personal Responsibility
Now there is a legitimate political argument over health care. I am inclined to support a government option if it serves to maintain the insurance industry but introduce competition in order to keep insurers honest and reduce their exploitative practices. However, there is more that one can do besides have an opinion on healthcare that will probably only have an effect on Washington if your local Congresspeople are soon up for reelection. One can have personal responsibility.

I've listened to enough oratories through high school speech and debate to know that rhetoric-based calls for social justice and populism can be tiring. I will try to avoid that. However, health care costs to a degree are a direct reflection of one's personal lifestyle. Genetics are the obvious exception, and I have no qualms saying that health care for unavoidable disorders and complications, like Multiple Sclerosis, is justified. I do not believe though, that the government should have the responsibility to insure bad lifestyles. Avoidable obesity is an instance in which the left-wing notion of government-provided services falls short and the more right-wing notion of lack of reliance on the government comes into play, striking a sort of balance.

Here are some facts from a study from the CDC released July 27th in Health Affairs:
"The annual healthcare costs of obesity could be as high as 147 billion dollars for 2008. Obesity is now responsible for 9.1 per cent of annual medical costs compared with 6.5 per cent in 1998.
The medical costs for an obese person are 42 per cent higher than for a person of normal weight. Obesity accounts for 8.5 per cent of Medicare expenditure, 11.8 per cent of Medicaid expenditure, and 12.9 per cent of private insurance expenditure."
To use the oft-quoted John F. Kennedy, "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." A social contract invokes expectations from both the citizenry and the government. We must not be a complacent populace in considering the health care debate, happy to vote 72% in favor of reform while sitting idly by. Promoting healthy lifestyles and countering obesity, especially in children, can make a dent in the cost and help the savings of healthcare in the long run. This is a bipartisan issue that requires no governmental action whatsoever, but can have the result of making the costs of a change in the healthcare more palatable.
Moving Forward
In considering policy options, the temptation can be to go for the convoluted, working the tight spaces of Washington political alliances and forging an imitation of Hegelian synthesis. Ted Kennedy has been the icon of that sort of bipartisanship. Assuredly it has its place. But how about a simpler way to cut a tenth of healthcare reform costs off instead of challenges by the fiscal conservative camp to reduce costs by nickels and dimes in whatever ardent health care reformers are willing to drop? Americans can accomplish this. It just requires living up to our end of the exchange of rights and responsibilities with the government.

"Hello, World!"

With this posting I officially mark my re-entry into the rank and file of the desk-chair blogger. Blogging is a fascinating medium for expressing information, but it is not without its drawbacks. While it allows anyone with a decent internet connection to express their views to the world at large, there is nonetheless encouragement to do nothing more than shout (figuratively, of course) to the world a jumble of incoherent and irrational opinions. Therefore, I will strive to maintain a sense of intellectual honesty and coherency in my blogging.

I would be inclined to say that this resolution instantly lifts this blog above a good number of other blogs out there. However, as we all know, there is a large gap between the intent and what will actually occur. Wait-and-see seems like a good approach here.

With that in mind, I'm going to go for a "hello, world!" posting that will indicate the direction and mentality I'll work for in future blogs. Kind of like an inaugural address, right? I do wantthough to actually work with these guidelines, unlike the friendly rhetorical and political world of campaign promises expressed via inaugural address.

Empiricism
I don't possess more than a layman's working knowledge of philosophy (which may change over the course of college), but there are certain concepts that I adhere to. The first is my belief in our invariable shaping of our own subjective realities by experience. One of the most applicable quotes for me here comes from Orwell in 1984: "Men's minds are infinitely malleable." Therefore, I strive to be very cautious in being evaluative, especially of other people, because I can't hope to understand in full what leads them to their own personal beliefs. As a result, I will avoid speaking in absolutes and label generalizations as such when I make them.

Faith
A common question that would arise is how can I be firmly set on variable understandings between people and still consider myself a person of faith? I've been told that I'm inevitably becoming more atheistic as I learn more and question more about the nature of reality. There is no debate that the latter part of that statement is true. However, whenever I want to believe that my own questioning process somehow debunks faith, or God, or an objective truth, I remind myself at that point that the notion of faith incorporates that it is human and inevitable to doubt and find faith illogical. I'll say it directly: faith and logic don't get along. Empirically, however, our logic is colored by our own experiences, and can't be trusted to be any less subjective than our perception itself. This is where I am compelled to trust in the transcendent nature of faith, and how it takes many forms for different people. There is only one thing, then, that warrants no further explanation beyond the statement itself: "I am the way and the truth and the life." (John 14:6)

Optimism
It is a strong tendency of mine to be sentimental and optimistic. A large part of this stems from my own youth and relative innocence. I've never had anyone closer than a great-grandparent die through the end of high school, and never had to sustain life-threatening injury, or witness a near-total failure of reason and dehumanization in my personal life. So in reading what I write, understand that's where I come from. However, as a result of this tendency, I am firmly convinced that measured optimism stemming from a basic trust in people is a necessity to believing in progress in all levels of one's world - from personal morality to global social development.

Emotion
While compassion can be a great strength, it can also be a tremendous vulnerability. On a base level, people often surrender their rationality in order to "follow their heart" in the most Disney-esque way possible. I believe that this route, while deepening our experiences and enriching our relationships, sometimes leads people to become exploited and directed towards certain ideas because they want to believe something at the expense of reason. Perhaps I'm being intellectually lazy in making this statement, but I feel that each person's emotion and reason can be a personal strength and weakness and as a result, the two elements can mesh together in a personalized way that brings the greatest clarity. Does anybody achieve this state of enlightenment? Doubtful. Nonetheless, just as perfect love is unattainable by human endeavors, it is still something I must strive for in my life.

Irrationality
More times than not, people are simply irrational and act on false assumptions or petty motivations. This is something I have struggled to accept, but must. My optimism resides, however, in the ability of people to recover from these shortcomings. It seems to me that much of recent cultural development promotes self-absorption and irrationality, but that is another subject for a another time.

Basically this is my context and the launchpoint for everything I'll write. Future entries probably won't be as contemplative as this one, and I have a tendency to be sarcastic, but this entry needed to be what it was. So - "Hello, world! I'm Pearce."