Blog For Arizona

Frameshop: How to Understand Conservative Psychology

The key to persuading anyone is not always just to have a better argument, or even have the facts on your side. Sometimes the key to persuasion is to understand how those you seek to influence think. We liberals often have difficulty understanding why conservatives act and believe as they do when the "truth" is so manifestly clear to us. I often hear (heck, I often say), "how could they be so stupid?" Well, they are no stupid than average person (who, admittedly, can sometimes be amazingly stupid), but they are operating on a different moral framework.

There has been popular awareness and appreciation for the mental differences between liberals and conservatives for several years now, but much of that difference is explained in terms of rigidity vs. flexibility, change vs. inertia, and, frankly, smart and adaptable vs. dumb and plodding. The explanation of the mental differences between liberals and conservatives is often frankly denigrating to conservatives.

But Jonathan Haidt, who studies the neuro-biological basis for morality, has an explanation for the mental differences that is actually more powerful, explanatory, and nuanced. He suggests a mental moral equalizer with five sliders: harm, fairness, in-group, authority, and purity. In liberals, the first two are high and the last three fairly low. In conservatives, all five are about equal, with all being somewhat lower than liberals' harm and fairness settings. In this view, conservatives are actually better-rounded and more attuned to the full spectrum of human morality. I predict that this view of the moral mind will catch on among conservatives, and thus will become a very useful way of communicating with, understanding, and influencing conservatives.

Watch Haidt's exploration of the idea at TED:

Giffords Nixes Impeachment

DFATucson has been pressing Gabby Giffords for awhile now to get off the dime on impeachment and, as a very minimal sign that she's willing to fulfill the Constitutional role for which we hired her, perhaps sign a letter being circulated by Rep. Wexler calling for investigations of possible criminal acts by the Bush Administration (which could lead to an impeachment).

To that end, DFATucson has been demonstrating with a "Honk to Impeach" rally outside Gabby's office every Monday from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. (drive time). The rallies have been very well-received by the public and have brought a lot of awareness to members of Gabby's staff how much sentiment in favor of impeachment there is among the public, as well as some press coverage.

One good thing the Gabby did was direct her Chief of Staff, Maura Policelli and much of the rest of her local staff to meet with DFATucson regarding impeachment. Video of that meeting will be available online very soon.

DFATucson recently got an email from Policelli recently outlining the Congesswoman's position on impeachment:

"The bottom line is that Congresswoman Giffords will not be signing on to impeachment legislation, resolutions or letters.  I know that is a disappointment to your group, but assure you that Gabrielle is working tirelessly on many local problems and national issues of great significance."

In other words, Gabby's not willing to lift a finger to protect the Constitution from the criminals inhabiting our White House.

What I find most mystifying about Giffords' attitude is her apparent blindness (though, admittedly it isn't just her, but the entire gang of "Shrumian" consultants that she and Democrats like her are wont to heed) to the strategic politics of impeachment.

The standard Democratic defense of sitting on our thumbs regarding impeachment goes like this: we are winning the debate, so don't change the terms. We are headed toward an easy victory in 2008 with a Democratic President and larger margins in Congress (maybe even a filibuster-proof majority), so why allow the Republicans to stir up a mess over impeachment, accusing us of using it as a political ploy (which they would certainly be able to recognize from experience, I guess...). You are just playing into their hands and walking our Democratic candidates into a political buzz saw with no benefit. These guys are lame ducks and out of there in less than a year anyhow...

This is kind of political deep thought that gives us Democrats consultants with win-loss records like Bob Shrum, hence my derision for these political Solons as "Shrumians." This line of thought might seem like prudent wisdom to you, but in fact it is just an example of how Democratic strategists have so consistently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory so frequently in recent years.

It can be summed up in a single word: timidity.

The voters don't much care for it, and politics isn't very kind to those who are characterized by it. Timidity is the reason why Congress' polling is in the toilet no matter how much good and useful legislation they manage to pass. People can smell it in their leaders—and Americans don't respect the timid. Americans would much rather you be bold and wrong than timid and right. They worship you and put you on our money if your happen to be lucky and wise enough to be bold and right.

Let's take Gabby's race against Tim Bee as an exemplar for a tight contest in a swing state, which it really is, and think about the political consequences of impeachment rearing it's "game changing," "suck the air out of the room," "playing into the GOP's hands" head.

What is the first thing that would happen if Gabby in some way advocated impeachment? Why the GOP would attack her as a loon, and accuse her of playing politics. Great. She gets a few news cycles to lay out all the very specific and well-documented ways in which this Administration has broken the law and violated the public trust. Her cred with the Democractic base and at least 2/3rds of independents goes through the roof.

Now, Tim Bee gets a choice. Does he join in the baying from the GOP, or does he lay low? From what I know of Tim, he may lie low and try to say little. Why? Because the last thing he wants to spend his slice of the public's attention on is defending the record of the Bush Administration's excesses and policy failures. He wants to run as some other kind of Republican... preferably one that isn't from the Republican Party that contains Bush and Cheney and their menagerie of chuckleheads, NeoCons, and religious maniacs.

Which is why the worst possible thing for the GOP is to make this election about Bush's record. Which is why we should make it about Bush's record. He's a lame duck, so the only way to do that with any political potency is by injecting the issue of impeachment into the election.

Gabby and her "Shrumians" hope that by trying to appear moderate and prudent and vewy, vewy qwiet, she can eek out a victory over Tim in November. Tim hopes pretty much the same thing. Either of them could be right about the outcome with that strategy. More likely Gabby will be proven right—but it's no sure thing.

How to turn that into a landslide? By hanging Bush around Bee's neck like a rotting albatross, and making Tim try to convince voters it smells good. Defending Bush against the threat of impeachment is the only way to get Bee to stand up for the Bush legacy.

Once Bee is forced into that corner, he's done. No squeaky margins—we have a landslide. Independents and Democrats will deliver hard and enthusiastic margins and even a lot of Republicans won't be able to stomach Bee defending wiretapping, torture, politicizing our justice system, outing our intelligence assets for political revenge, and unconstitutional signing statements, just to name of few of the acts Bee could be forced to answer for or publicly repudiate.

Many in Gabby's camp think they need moderate Republican votes to beat Bee. They are only going to get them if Bee cannot be seen as any sort of moderate Republican. Nor does Gabby need them if she fully engages the ire of the independents against the last 6 years of Republican rule. Only by luring the Bee into the Bush, as it were, will independent produce the huge Democratic margins that they will when the issue is the Bush record.

By making this election only about the future, and failing to acknowledge and make strategic political use of the history we just suffered through by taking impeachment "off the table," Gabby and Democrats like her are giving their Republican rivals a chance to redefine themselves and distance themselves from the Bush legacy that is rightfully theirs to bear.

By running solely on how she and the rest of the Democratic Congress are "working tirelessly on many local problems and national issues of great significance," Gabby is ensuring the kind of tight race that impels her to such contemptible timidity in the face of outrageous assaults on the rule of law and our constitutional order.

HCR 2038: The Arizona Republican Legislature's Backdoor TABOR

Unable to summon the political will to control spending though they control the state legislature, the Republicans want to put the state on a starvation diet that will affect the health, education, public safety, and welfare of every Arizona citizen.

Their means for accomplishing their evisceration of the public fisc is House Concurrent Resolution 2038, which if passed would go on the 2008 ballot for voter consideration. Now that Taxpayer's Bills of Rights (TABORS) have been roundly discredited by the meltdown of public services in Colorado as a result of the adoption of a constitutional TABOR, Republicans seek another means to accomplish their goals. A lowered constitutional cap on the percentage of aggregate personal income government may spend is the means they've chosen in Arizona.

Arizona already has a 7.41% cap on government expenditures. The Republicans want to lower that by over a percentage point (about $2.2 billion in 2008). The resulting mandatory cuts would prevent our government from deciding to save, force massive cuts in services, and have many of the same deleterious effects as a TABOR.

The people of Arizona originally saw fit to limit the state's spending to 7% of aggregate personal income. In subsequent years, as the state was given responsibility for the health care of many citizens, long term care of the elderly and disabled, and construction of our children's schools, slightly more leeway was needed to meet these new obligations. That we have been able to get by with a modest additional 0.41% since the state's founding is quite remarkable and testimony to the normal parsimony of our elected officials.

These Republican anti-tax anarchists now want to slice more than a full percentage off the cap, regressing to far more below the original cap. There is no way the state government will be able to function and provide the essential services that a modern civil society requires. They want to return us to some ideological Golden Age of the 19th century in which government did little or nothing for its people, except, of course, for those already wealthy.

Their plan is irresponsible, underhanded, and disingenuously presented as a fiscal restraint, when it is actually just fiscal suicide.

Giffords and Mitchell: The New Center? Let's Hope Not... UPDATED!

NATIONAL JOURNAL: "The New Center"

National Journal is getting a lot of ink locally (e.g., here and here) due to their ranking the ideology of many of 2006's frosh congresscritters, including Arizona's Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell, smack dab near the center of the political spectrum.

When you take a closer look at the actual votes on which National Journal based their ratings, however, what they actually seem to be measuring is mostly how two key issues - Iraq and immigration - are causing some Democrats to throw out their principles in the name of expediency and poorly-judged pragmatism.

Note: The headings stand for Economy, Social,  and Foreign policy.

A closer analysis of the fairly small sample of bills upon which the rankings are based indicates that in most respects Giffords and Mitchell both generally hew closely to the party line on most issues other than immigration and Iraq. The moderate nature of both candidates is largely a feature of their shared (and mistaken, in my view) hands-off approach to the war in Iraq, and their perceived need to armor themselves against the immigration fire-fight in Arizona.

Giffords is not ranked as notably more "economically moderate" than, say, Rep. Ed Pastor - at least in terms of her actual votes. She has not been nearly as much of an economic conservative in her votes to date as her overall centrist ranking, and her membership in the Blue Dogs, might suggest.

What Mitchell champions, however, is clearly out of step with most of his caucus - not surprising considering he too made a bid to join the Blue Dogs. What is surprising is that his rhetoric, and to a lesser extent his votes, actually indicates that he is much more in tune with conservative tax philosophy (coddle the rich and soak the middle class), yet it was Giffords who got the nod from the Blue Dogs. Maybe Mitchell's tax rhetoric put him too far to the right even for the Blue Dog's comfort. In the end, I think that Mitchell's ranking as a 'moderate' on economic matters, is rather too generous. He actually deserves to be in amongst the Republicans proper when you take into account his advocacy, as well as his votes.

UPDATE 3/14/08: Mitchell has made it two years in a row now that he has voted against his own party's budget. If he's trying to establish his fiscal conservative credentials, I think he's more than done the job.

Despite their fairly middle-of-the-road rankings in social policy, neither member is sending many overt signals to the 'values voters'. They do score considerably more conservative than other Dems in the Arizona delegation and the Caucus overall, but that is almost entirely down to votes having to do with immigration and immigrant rights.

The big difference between 'social centrists' like Gabby and Harry and the rest of the caucus is how terrified they are of creating a record that can be characterized as 'pro-immigrant.' The callousness and pettiness that these 'centrists' will stoop to in order to avoid giving racists and xenophobes any ammunition is often farcical.

On foreign policy, both members score more conservatively than their Arizona Democratic delegation-mates, but that is predominantly down to their votes on Iraq. Their score also includes a few instances when their urge to throw money at a military system outstripped any fiscal restraint or desire to look deeper at our actual strategic needs - a common and unfortunate Democratic habit that our members default to in order to forestall being labeled as anti-military, but that results in massive pork and a flabby, wasteful military.

I will take a closer look at the particular votes that earned Giffords and Mitchell their milquetoasty middle-of-the-herd street cred after the flip, and consider how well-deserved are their carefully-crafted, centrist images...

 

A Record of Abject Failure

This is for the conservatives who continue to cling to squishy, non-quantifiable notions vindicating the Bush Administration as anything other than an unmitigated disaster for America.

Here's the cold hard numbers. You may not like them. You may think they are irrelevant. But you have to deal with the fact that America and Americans are measurably worse off because a sizable plurality of us having been unwise, gullible, or plain stubborn enough to elect these utter incompetents - twice (or arguably, at least once... ok, maybe it wasn't a plurality either time, but it was close enough that they were able to make it stick...).

If you voted for Bush the first time it might be forgivable - he did simply lie about everything he intended to do as President. If you voted for him a second time - shame on you. You would be doing the rest of the country a favor by simply not voting in the next election, or any future election until you recognize your error - your judgment fundamentally flawed, and we'd be better off if you joined the ranks of the disaffected non-voters.

See the proof after the flip...

GOP planning to campaign again on immigrant issue

Link: GOP pressing immigrant issue.

I didn't realize that Republican strategists were actually pushing Congressional recommit votes on immigration-related language to paint Democrats as pro-immigrant. I have to say, I'm utterly delighted that they are hanging that anchor around their own necks.

I think most Americans, and especially independents, recoil at policies and political stands they see as cruel, petty, or mean. And there is little in American politics today that is meaner and slimier than the hatred wrapped in patriotism that is the hard-right GOP message on immigration. I get a little frisson of delight when I imagine the ads they are brewing up using these votes.

"Gabby Giffords didn't vote to cut off the health care coverage of immigrant children. She didn't vote to kick immigrant children out of public housing. She wouldn't vote to punish public schools that enroll the children of undocumented immigrants. Gabby Giffords: she just won't screw those immigrant children."

Yeah. That'll work on the vast majority of Americans who aren't eaten up with xenophobic mania.

The GOP apparently didn't learn their lesson in 2006 when their ($) candidates who made immigrant-baiting a major theme of their campaigns got their clocks cleaned across the board. If they need some more tutoring, I think we Democrats should be happy to give it to them.

We need to establish a Democratic system of values regarding the immigration debate, however. The only reason why Republicans are driving this issue is because they at least have a consistent narrative - hateful and divisive though it may be. We Democrats need  to talk about eliminating the need for illegal border crossings, saving lives and reducing the crime along the border, treating both American and Mexican laborers fairly in both countries, and the great American tradition of welcoming and assimilating new citizens.

Democrats sound soulless and stupid when we ape Republican themes of cracking down on employers, and militarizing the border, and treating immigrants as criminals and undesirables; when our Democratic politicians 'me too' the block-headed policy initiatives of Republicans - like building a damn wall - it simply makes the insane seem sensible.

I don't want our party to create a compromise with the sheer insanity that passes for policy among Republicans. I would prefer the status quo ante to compromises that would make life even worse for the immigrants already here, endanger the lives of those that will surely come, and entrench harmful policies in our immigration law for another generation. This is a fight that we can win if we stop accepting the Republican terms for this debate: hatred, fear, xenophobia, and prejudice.

So the GOP wants to square off and make immigration a central issue? I say bring it on, because they have nothing useful to say on the subject. The only we won't win is if we accept that their vision of immigration of in America is in any way legitimate or useful. We have to name the prejudice and hate fueling the GOP's obsession with the immigration issue, or they get to continue to appeal to voters anxieties and prejudices without paying the electoral price. I am sickened when I hear Democrats talking about immigration in the same fearful and divisive way that Republicans do, simply because Democratic leaders aren't offering an alternative vocabulary of ideas.

We got lucky in 2006 that the American people are naturally resistant to demagogues, and largely resisted the GOP siren songs without much help from Democrats; we would be foolish to continue to rely on Americans' continued self-discipline if we aren't even offering a counter-narrative they can stop their ears with.

The Coming Democratic Sweep

Bush's approval rating has fallen to 28%, its lowest level yet. Much further and his quip about Laura and his dog being the only ones following him might turn out prophetic. But the Harris poll revealed a few things more than just how disliked Bush is, it revealed how much we Americans dislike our government in general. No one comes out smelling like a rose, except in a highly comparative sense.

Current ratings of president, senior cabinet members and parties in Congress

"How would you rate the job (READ ITEM) are/is doing – excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

Base: All adults

	Excellent	Pretty Good	Only Fair	Poor	Not Sure	Positive*	Negative**
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice	12	33	29	21	6	45	50
President George W. Bush	7	22	22	48	2	28	70
Democrats in Congress	5	29	34	24	7	35	58
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi	5	25	33	23	14	30	56
Vice President Dick Cheney	5	20	25	44	7	25	68
Defense Secretary Robert Gates	4	25	36	19	16	29	55
Congress	3	24	43	27	4	27	69
Republicans in Congress	3	20	41	33	4	22	74
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid	2	19	35	17	26	22	52

*Positive = excellent or pretty good
**Negative = only fair or poor

The only thing more repellent to the American people than their President seems to be their Vice President. The only thing less popular than the Vice President seems to be the GOP Congressional minority that was just turfed out in the last election. Seems they aren't doing any better in the opposition than they fared in the majority.

Of course, conservatives will crow that the Democratic majority and it's leaders Pelosi and Reid aren't all that much more popular; indeed Pelosi appears almost as toxic as Bush, and Reid fares worse than even Cheney. Problem with that theory is that lots of folks don't even know who Reid and Pelosi are, so the comparison isn't really apt. The more telling metric for Reid, Pelosi and the Democratic Congress are their negatives, which are all well below 60%, whereas the GOP figures are all near or above 70% (save for the outlier Rice, who is demonstrably irrelevant to Administration policy and a damned lackey anyhow).

The poll's Right/Wrong track is also trouble for the GOP in 2008. Even though voters turfed the GOP majority, they are growing ever more disenchanted with the country's direction, shifting another 5 points since the mid-terms. We're still in the territory of the 1994 Republican take over. This means that voters are going to be looking to Democrats for new leadership in the Presidency, and willing to make further changes in Congress. This favors an additional increase in the Democratic majority.

Right Direction or Wrong Track

No Opinion's, Not Sure's and Decline to Answer's Excluded

"Generally speaking, would you say things in the country are going in the right direction or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?"

Base: All adults

	TREND	Right Direction	Wrong Track
		%	%
2007	April	26	67
	February	29	62
2006	November	31	58
	October (10/25)	27	63
	October (10/13)	29	62
	September	31	59
	August	26	64
	July	28	61
	June	28	64
	May	24	69
	April	27	65
	March	31	60
	February	32	59
	January	33	54
2005	November	27	68
	August	37	59
	June	38	55
	January	46	48
2004	September	38	57
	June	35	59
2003	December	35	57
	June	44	51
2002	December	36	57
	June	46	48
2001	December	65	32
	June	43	52
	January	46	39
2000	October	50	41
	June	40	51
	January	50	38
1999	June	37	55
	March	47	45
1998	December	43	51
	June	48	44
1997	December	39	56
	April	36	55
1996	December	38	50
	June	29	64
1995	December	26	62
	June	24	65
1994	December	29	63
	June	28	65

How do I know that this dissatisfaction isn't with the Democrats' handling of their new majority and that the GOP are going storm back into the majority? Because that degree of volatility simply isn't possible in our gerrymandered, incumbent advantaged, money drenched electoral system, for one. But more importantly, the issues that voters are hot for change on are Democratic issues. The war in Iraq and health care are the major drivers of voter dissatisfaction and Democrats own reform on these issues. The GOP prescription for Iraq and health care are more of the same, stay the course, and have a health savings account and a second mortgage to pay for your drugs. The electorate is at a breaking point and the GOP has nothing to offer them on their biggest concerns that isn't already tried and discredited. 2008 will be an even greater Democratic landslide than 2006.

Most Important Issues for Government to Address

"What do you think are the two most important issues for the government to address?"

Spontaneous, unprompted replies

Base: All Adults

	'01	'02	'03	'04	'05	'06	'06	'06	'06	'06	'07	'07
	Dec	Dec	June	Oct	Aug	Feb	June	Aug	Oct	Nov	Feb	April
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
(The) war	12	18	8	35	41	27	27	28	29	33	29	30
Healthcare (not Medicare)	5	10	14	18	11	20	12	12	13	15	12	15
Iraq	-	11	3	9	6	5	8	7	8	10	10	13
The economy (non-specific)	32	34	25	28	19	15	14	16	15	12	9	10
Education	12	11	13	7	8	8	7	8	9	7	7	9
Immigration	1	1	2	2	3	5	20	10	12	11	7	9
Crime/violence	1	2	3	1	3	1	2	3	2	2	2	6
Terrorism	22	17	11	7	7	6	4	9	7	3	9	5
Taxes	6	5	11	8	5	6	4	4	5	5	7	5
Employment/jobs	7	8	8	10	3	5	7	6	6	7	4	5
Environment	1	3	2	1	3	2	3	2	2	2	4	4
Foreign policy (non-specific)	2	4	2	3	2	3	2	2	3	2	4	4
Social Security	3	2	4	4	10	7	5	2	5	4	3	4
Military/defense	4	1	5	3	1	3	4	3	3	3	3	3
Gas and oil prices	X	X	1	1	10	2	8	8	4	1	1	3
Second Amendment (right to bear arms)	*	X	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	2
Religion (decline of)	2	1	1	1	*	*	1	1	1	1	2	2
Domestic/social issues (non-specific)	2	2	1	2	2	*	3	1	*	1	1	2
Homeland/domestic security/public safety	8	9	3	6	2	3	2	4	3	2	3	2
School safety	X	X	2	*	1	1	1	1	*	*	*	2
Energy	X	X	1	1	4	4	4	4	2	1	2	2
Budget/Government spending	X	X	X	X	X	X	5	2	3	3	5	2
Drugs	2	3	3	*	2	1	1	2	1	1	3	2
Poverty	1	2	3	*	4	5	4	3	5	3	2	2
Medicare	1	1	4	3	2	5	1	1	2	3	1	2
Abortion	1	1	1	4	2	1	1	1	2	1	1	2
Peace/nukes	2	2	3	*	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	1
Welfare	1	1	3	*	3	1	1	X	1	1	1	1
Family values (decline of)	*	*	1	1	1	*	1	1	1	1	1	1
Election reform	X	1	1	*	1	1	*	1	*	*	2	1
Bush	X	x	x	X	x	1	X	*	1	x	*	1
Downsizing government	*	X	X	1	*	*	1	*	*	*	1	1
AIDS	*	*	2	X	*	*	*	1	*	*	2	1
National security	6	3	6	5	2	2	2	3	2	2	2	1
Homelessness	2	2	1	*	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	1
Human/civil/women's rights	1	1	*	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	1
Ethics in government	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	*	1
Inflation	X	X	X	X	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	1
Judiciary	X	X	X	*	2	1	1	*	*	1	1	1
Moral Values	X	X	X	2	2	*	1	1	1	*	1	*
M.E. peace	2	2	2	*	1	1	*	1	*	1	*	*
FEMA	X	X	X	X	X	*	*	1	X	X	*	*
Disaster relief	X	X	X	X	X	1	1	*	*	*	1	*
Same sex rights	X	X	X	1	1	*	2	*	1	*	1	*
Medical research	X	X	2	2	1	2	*	1	*	1	1	*
Air Safety	1	*	*	X	*	X	*	1	X	*	*	*
Other**	3	8	8	8	1	5	6	5	8	8	6	6
Not sure	11	10	12	9	8	6	6	6	10	9	9	8

*Less than 0.5%, X = Not mentioned as specific issue
**Including government/politics (nonspecific), housing, Foreign Aid, trade, disability, promoting democracy, race relations, campaign finance, youth and programs for the elderly (not Medicare/Social Security)
Note: The August column refers to the August 24th release

Methodology: This Harris Poll was conducted online among 1,001 adults April 20-23. Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online. In theory, with a sample of this size, one can say with a 95% probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/-3 percentage points.

---

Frameshop: Compensation Caps, aka Medical Malpractice Tort Reform

This is a rewrite of an earlier editorial length article on the subject of 'tort reform.' In the prior version, I stayed within the framing of those seeking to limit the liability of doctors and insurers. By challenging the frame, I think the argument becomes more powerful. The facts don't struggle against the opposing frame, they support the new one. Rhetorical figures become more powerful and invested with clearer values. This is not however a complete reframing of the issue; it is only a negative frame. It creates an alternative way to view the opposing policy, but it does not create a solution. The packaging of the right way to approach medical malpractice policy awaits another day. That framing excercise is harder because the policy package is not simplistic - rather it is a complex package of reforms which is difficult to summarize. The reason I'm republishing this article, is a Harvard School of Public Health study of malpractice claims was just published that demonstrates very clearly that the problem of unmertiorious claims is vastly overstated, and is not addressed by arbitrary award caps. Also, I was adding some material to Utah Senate candidate Pete Ashdown's wiki on health care, and was thinking about the issue of 'tort reform'.

The medical malpractice (med-mal) insurance industry, some politicians, and even some misguided doctors, have of late been misleading the public about the efficacy of caps on med-mal awards, a.k.a. ‘tort reform,’ to contain healthcare costs. These people have generated a deluge of coordinated letters to editor and public relations events in Arizona recently. They are telling the public that med-mal awards are driving the high inflation rates in the health care sector we’ve seen over the past several years. But the truth is that their so-called ‘tort reform’ is just a free ride for insurers and incompetent doctors on the backs of seriously injured patients.

‘Tort Reform’ is really nothing more than arbitrary compensation caps protecting doctors who harm or kill their patients and the companies who insure them. Policy makers actually interested in reforming the torts process would advocate for ways to remove non-meritorious claims from the system, not for placing a strict limit on the compensation a jury can award to victims of malpractice. The cost of caring for a child paralyzed or otherwise disabled for a lifetime by malpractice can run into the millions, yet these so-called ‘reformers’ want to cap all awards at a low level, regardless of the facts of the case. That’s not justice, that’s risk management, and it’s not what our court system is based upon. Why is a legislator, who may be getting campaign contributions from the insurance industry, better qualified to put a price on a lifetime of pain than a fellow citizen who is disinterested but knows the facts of the case?

Frameshop: Socialized Medicine

There is little that is more nonsensical than the argument against universal healthcare coverage that goes, "We don't need socialized medicine in this country because..." As if the system of healthcare we currently have isn't 'socialized'. We have a 'socialized' medical system in this country already. It's just a crappy, peicemeal, unequal 'Socialized' system. The choice this county has to make is not between 'socialized' medicine and 'private' medicine (the only people who have private medical care in this country are the uninsured, and they would prefer almost anything else), but between efficient, lower-cost, equitable 'socialized' medicine and ever-more expensive, bloated, profiteering 'socialized' medcine that leaves millions of Americans out.

Frame Shop: Swinging Independents and Republicans to Voting Democratic

President Jimmy Carter recomended a series of questions for those who aren't sure how they should vote. I found these immensely well stated. You really do have to eliminate the clutter and rhetoric of the Right and pose stark contrasting values to make the choice abundantly clear: Daily Kos: Questions and Answers.

"I had lunch in Plains with a family from Panama City, and a high school girl asked me why she should be a Democrat.

I asked her a series of questions that all bloggers should use in discussions:

Do you prefer peace or war?

Do favor tax breaks for the richest Americans or working families?

Would you rather destroy the environment or protect it?

Do you approve the torture of prisoners?

Do you think our government should secretly spy on your family?

Do you think we should abandon every nuclear arms control agreement negotiated since Dwight Eisenhower was president?

Do you approve of your part of the national debt now being $28,000 per person and increasing by $300 each month?

Do you think we should meld religion and government?

She gave me the Democratic answer to all the questions, and I believe that most Americans will agree, no matter if their state is red or blue.

It is sometimes easy to forget what a brilliant feel for the American character and values Jimmy Carter has, given his widely denegrated tenure as President. But recall that Carter came zooming out of nowhere, much like Dean, as an unknown Governor of a state that hasn't been very important in national politics. Only Carter won the Primary fight and went on to win the General. He had an air of scandal at his back from a failed Presidency, too, and he played it perfectly with his signature line, "I will never lie to the American people." Unfortunately for him, he kept his word, and Americans didn't much care for the Truth after all. Obviously, however, this is a man Democrats should be listening to right now.

I also highly recommend Carter's recent book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis. Carter addresses what should be a central concern of every democrat and Democrat: actively bringing the so-called 'Values Voter' back to the side of democracy, civil society, limited government, and social responsiblity toward our poor, our oppressed, our children, our legacy, and the heath of our planet. Too many people have been seduced and blinded by the ideology of hate that the Theocratic Right has used to wedge these people of conscience away from voting for responsible candidates. More than anything else, reconcilling these voters to secular and rational governance will be the great political feat of this era.

 

Frameshop: President Bush’s NSA Domestic Wiretapping Program

The Administration and Congressional Republicans are thwarting legitimate Congressional inquiry into the President’s domestic NSA program. This abuse of power should be a major issue in the 2006 season. I don't hear candidates talking about often enough. This is potentially THE issue of 2006. When I do hear them talking about it, I very seldom recognize a genuine understanding of the issue and the values at stake. Toward improving the tone of the debate, I wrote a little memo combining accurate statements on the legal issues and an appropriate framing of the issue. I'm very interested in feedback.

Summary:
The Administration’s legal justifications for the program are implausible. The complete lack of information forthcoming about the actual conduct of investigations, the identity of citizens affected by the surveillance, or scope of the program makes impossible any responsible conclusion about the legality or illegality of the program. The Congress must fully investigate the program before legislating or making any other recommendation or finding about the program. Such a constitutionally responsible investigation is being blocked by the Administration and by the Republican Party in Congress.

Talking Points:
•    “Congress has a duty to investigate violations of American citizens’ 4th Amendment Rights. But this Administration and the Republican Party in Congress are blocking the constitutional process for partisan advantage.”

•     “This Administration claims the power to violate the 4th Amend and insists that no one - not the Congress, not the Courts, not the people - can stop them.”

•    “Republicans in Congress won’t stand up to this Administration even to protect the Constitutional rights of American citizens.”

•    “The Administration created a constitutional crisis by claiming the right to ignore the law and the doing everything they could to keep it quiet.”

•    “A responsible determination of the legal issues isn’t possible until we have the facts, and the Republicans in Congress and this Administration are blocking any inquiry into the facts.”

•    “This Administration is throwing legal sand in the faces of the American people and Congress rather than explain how this program works and why it’s needed.”

•    Stopping terrorists is everyone’s interest, but it doesn’t override our Constitution and the rule of law.”

The solution to the Constitutional crisis the President has created by ignoring the law lies in:

1. Congress using its full subpoena power to investigate thoroughly the factual issues to determine,
2. the Administration’s genuine need to use the methods selected to obtain the information instead of using FISA to obtain the information (especially given 72 hour retroactivity),
3. the intelligence value of the information actually obtained versus the intrusion imposed upon the public.