One of the many things I dislike about politics ...

As a lay observer of politics, I am amazed by the sophomoric mistakes our leaders make.  After reading this blog, you might conclude that I am naïve, and you might be right at that.   

As a student of behavioral science, I learned decades ago that there are two important components to group decision-making.  One deals with content, and the other with process.  You might say two sides to the same coin.  Separating one from the other or ignoring it can be foolhardy.

The debate of the past four years on health care, and for the past two years on immigration, illustrates the problem for me. 

Healthcare Debate

Polls suggest that most people agree that the system needed overhauling.  The annual cost increases were not sustainable.  Few seem to argue that lifting certain conditions regarding limits on coverage, excluding pre-existing conditions, and including dependent children to age 26, were not desirable changes to be made. 

We were told that 37 million compatriots lacked insurance because they just could not afford it.  Most, if not all of us who can afford it, do not mind contributing more to help our brethren gain coverage.   It is part of the American tradition to be generous toward those who are less fortunate than we are. 

In my view, there seems to be consensus on the policy to make health insurance more affordable and more accessible to every one.  So what is the main issue?

Ramming the law down the opposition’s throat was a huge mistake.  The arrogance of the majority to impose its will on the minority was shortsighted.  Experience has taught us that major legislation is more readily accepted when more people are involved in its formulation.  Involvement, we have learned, leads to participation, and participation leads to increased “ownership”.  People tend to like more what they help construct.  Ignoring this time-tested notion is, in my view, the single most important cause of gridlock. 

There are, of course, other legitimate philosophical differences that separate the two sides.  By poisoning the well, it makes it harder to reconcile them.

So far, what we have witnessed is a failure of process, not necessarily a failure of policy.  Proponents, when defending the law, point out all the benefits of the law (content).  Opponents, when attacking it, point out all the failures of process. 

So, where are we now?  41 million people are now uninsured.  The cost continues to rise, and so does the deductible in some cases.  Several screw-ups in the law are not yet fixed.  Parties are deadlocked in a so-called Mexican standoff, not willing to budge to mend what is obviously wrong with the law.  Why?  Anger has led some to advocate repealing the law, while in practical terms this would not be so easy.  Court challenges continue to raise fears that the law might be struck down on constitutional grounds. 

Four years later, like Nero before them, Rome is burning while the politicians continue playing the fiddle.

Immigration

Polls show that most people are against the executive action taken by our president.  Yet, not many people advocate that we should deport 12 million people.  They say that it would not be good for our country, our economy, and our conscience.  Few advocate that we break up families, or separate children from their parents.  So what is going on? 

Again, we seem to agree on policy, but disagree on process.  Ramming things down the opposition’s throats creates resentment and unleashes getting-even sentiments.  Win-lose approaches have a way of turning later into lose-lose outcomes. 

Allowing 5 million people (who have been in the country 10 or more years) to come out of the shadows without a clear path to permanent status is a halfway measure, in my view. 

In essence, we are creating a two-tier population, the alphas and the betas.  The former have all the rights, and the latter just a few.  What about those additional 7 millions who have been in the country for less than 10 years?  Why is it OK for them to stay in the shadows?  Why create yet a third-tier?  Let’s call them the gamma people.  You know, those with no rights to speak of, subject to deportation at any time, to be separated from their loved ones.    Should we wait another 5 years before we allow them to come out of the shadows? 

The big elephant in the room has been and continues to be the lack of border security.  A country that does not control its border is not a master of its own destiny, it has been said.  No border can be 100% secure.  It is almost impossible to accomplish that.  Under Soviet rule, people managed to sneak across the highly fortified borders, often risking their lives.   Most people want the border to be more secure.  How could you judge that?  By the amount of leakage!  Thousands and thousands of undocumented people crossing each year equals a leaky border, not a secure one. 

A much better approach by the president would have been to ask the newly elected leadership in Congress to come up with their recommendations for solving the problem. Not by forcing down the throat of the House of Representatives what the Senate Democrats (with some help by Republicans) might have agreed to last year.

Many perceive that the President wanted to stick it to the Republicans after they won control of Congress, that he refused to accept the verdict of the American people, and that he wanted to send a message that he was still someone with whom Republicans had to deal: a sort of macho thing.  Never mind that he could have passed comprehensive legislation during his first two years, when Democrats had control of Congress.  I am afraid that he might have unleashed the proverbial desire to get even, to the detriment of us all.

In Closing

Representative Pelosi, during a press conference following President Obama’s announcement, reminded us that it was President Lincoln, a Republican, who abolished slavery by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, not the Congress of the United States. 

I think most, if not all of us, will agree that it was the right thing for President Lincoln to do.   I think that most, if not all of us, will agree, that the price the nation paid was huge: 450,000 Americans died fighting in the Civil War. 

I found Pelosi’s argument based on moral equivalency deplorable.  Slavery and illegal immigration are not the same, in my view.