HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mayberry Machiavelli » Journal
Page: 1

Mayberry Machiavelli

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jan 17, 2004, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 20,833

Journal Archives

Highly recommended article by Dr. Atul Gawande on the political fight over PACA.

Dr. Gawande describes the nature of the health care problem and why it is easier to demagogue against solutions than to provide simple solutions that are easy to sell. He also describes the main types of arguments used against PACA in a broader historical context of how similar lines of argument have been employed to resist other social changes in the past:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html



...

Two decades ago, the economist Albert O. Hirschman published a historical study of the opposition to basic social advances; “the rhetoric of intransigence,” as he put it. He examined the structure of arguments—in the eighteenth century, against expansions of basic rights, such as freedom of speech, thought, and religion; in the nineteenth century, against widening the range of citizens who could vote and participate in power; and, in the twentieth century, against government-assured minimal levels of education, economic well-being, and security. In each instance, the reforms aimed to address deep, pressing, and complex societal problems—wicked problems, as we might call them. The reforms pursued straightforward goals but required inherently complicated, difficult-to-explain means of implementation. And, in each instance, Hirschman observed, reactionary argument took three basic forms: perversity, futility, and jeopardy.

...

The rhetoric of intransigence favors extreme predictions, which are seldom borne out. Troubles do arise, but the reforms evolve, as they must. Adjustments are made. And when people are determined to succeed, progress generally happens. The reality of trying to solve a wicked problem is that action of any kind presents risks and uncertainties. Yet so does inaction. All that leaders can do is weigh the possibilities as best they can and find a way forward.

They must want to make the effort, however. That’s a key factor. The major social advances of the past three centuries have required widening our sphere of moral inclusion. During the nineteenth century, for instance, most American leaders believed in a right to vote—but not in extending it to women and black people. Likewise, most American leaders, regardless of their politics, believe people’s health-care needs should be met; they’ve sought to insure that soldiers, the elderly, the disabled, and children, not to mention themselves, have access to good care. But many draw their circle of concern narrowly; they continue to resist the idea that people without adequate insurance are anything like these deserving others.

...



(more at link)

The article is short, basically a blog post, but very concise. I personally think Gawande is the best writer on social, ethical and political issues surrounding medicine right now. If you are unfamiliar with him, I'd recommend you check you his books and articles. He is a gifted writer and his style is not dry at all, it's informative but also entertaining reading.

Many of his articles are compiled online at the New Yorker's website, and a lot of these have been incorporated as chapters in his books:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/atul_gawande/search?contributorName=Atul%20Gawande
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sun Jul 1, 2012, 12:35 PM (3 replies)

Who is running Romney's campaign? Is there a name?

Is there a Schmidt, Axelrod/Plouffe, Rove, McAuliffe, Atwater etc.?
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:25 PM (10 replies)

Romney will avoid saying or doing much of anything of note before November if he can.

Even though he likes to pander, he won't pander with a big appointment like VP, it'll be someone predictable like Portman or Pawlenty.

If he can get away with mumbling platitudes but not committing to any position, such as on immigration issues, Arizona law/DREAM act etc., he will do so.

If he can avoid tough in depth interviews, he will do so and only go to events with supporters.

If polling shows him "in range" like within a few percentage points behind, he'll be fine with that.

To make up the difference and get over the hump, he'll rely on:

-A billion dollars worth of GOP SuperPAC negative ads saturating media in OH, FL, VA, NC, CO, NV etc.

-Voter suppression campaigns like Rick Scott's in as many GOP governed states as can be carried out.

The results of the voter purge/intimidation campaigns won't be seen until election night, but the media saturation ones WILL be seen in polling going up until the election.

It's only if the SuperPAC ad blitz doesn't show a sufficient effect getting him into range in OH and VA near election time that we might see him take any kind of chance or go out on a limb, but not under any other circumstances, I think.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:52 PM (8 replies)
Go to Page: 1