THE POLITICS OF NO

The political environment of the last 30 years has made it patently clear that neither party is able to work with the other party in order to achieve any sort of progressive response to the issues facing our society. The only common ground between the two political parties appears to be their entrenched and recurring refrain of, "no!" Whether it is increasing the debt ceiling, reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan, or deciding what time to have lunch, decisions are based on party lines rather than common sense or an effort to build consensus. As citizens we should be very concerned, perhaps even frightened, as our government continues to demonstrate an inability to address, discuss, and implement any policy designed to resolve the many pressing issues which are and have been at a crisis level for years.


For example, the current level of our society's ability to educate the leaders of tomorrow is poor at best. While our pride in our country is critical to our ability bond as a community, it has also become an obstacle as citizens who try to offer constructive criticism are often thrown back by a chorus of, “No!” In fact, most Americans if asked where the United States ranks in the mean performance of mathematical skills worldwide would surmise that the United States may not be at the top of the list. But surely, most Americans would believe we are in the top five or top 10. However, the truth is we are ranked 25th. In fact, we are well behind other notable nations such as Poland, the Slavic Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, and even those pesky French.

As for our rankings and science, we do climb a few steps and reach 20th in the world. Yet, we still fall behind Poland, the Slavic Republic, Hungary, Canada, and are tied with the Latvians. At this point a reasonable person would ask themselves, "how did the nation with such an incredibly high standard of living drop so low in education?" The answer is twofold.

First, our standard of living is not as high as we might expect. The 2010 the adjusted standard of living, which takes into account in income, inequality, and education, ranked United States at 12th and the world. We fell short of surpassing Finland. Iceland and Ireland also hurtled past us as well. It should come as some consolation that we did manage to a clip France which ranked 14th (which may be due to the fact that they take off a month each year for vacation when most Americans are lucky to have a week off).

Second, if you understand the basic model of world economics is that there is one metaphoric plate-and that the entire world feeds from this one plate- it should not surprise you that when other nations improve their quality of life, their portion size increases and our portion decreases. This leveling off has had the effect of lowering our standard of living while other countries increase their standard of living. While this is not an irreversible trend, it will remain an obstacle unless we address the underlying causes for failure to keep up with changing world economy. As a small example, 30 years ago a good portion of the world's computers were made in the United States. Not many people realize that if you combined Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Gateway, and other US computer manufacturers that they did not measure up to just one Chinese company, Foxconn. In fact, even 30 years ago Foxconn was 100 times larger than all of the US computer manufacturers. This should have been addressed by our policy makers, but it was not as they were too busy saying no to each other on issues that, while arguably important, do not affect the quality of life of the average American.

Honestly, has your life been directly impacted by gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, the Pledge of Allegiance, or whether flag burning should be a crime? Has your life been impacted by inflation, increased gas prices, the diminished value of the dollar (which by the way is one of the reasons that gas is so high as the dollar buys less gas), or a shrinking manufacturing base that continues to see stagnant growth and fewer new jobs? My guess is that the last group of issues has had more impact on our quality of life than the first. Yet, we seem to be distracted by the smoke and mirrors and men behind the curtain who puppet our national leaders like the great Oz and keep the issues focused away from those that impact each of us every day.

Our continued inability to seek consensus will eventually cause our Republic to further deteriorate economically. The disparity in wealth in and our nation grows each year and creates dangerous class divisions. We continue to ignore the fact that our government supports healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid. In 2008, the United States spent $2.3 trillion dollars on health care that is more than three times the $714 billion spent in 1990. What this means in real dollars and sense is that the cost of healthcare is a continual drag on our economy and our government's inability to work towards resolving what has been a healthcare crisis in this country will continue to cause economic problems for all of us whether we have health insurance or not. Apparently, it does take a rocket scientist to figure out that if five people go the hospital without insurance that the other five people that have insurance will end up paying more to cover the cost of services to all 10. In 2008, healthcare accounted for 16.2 percent of the gross domestic product. That’s 16 bucks of every one hundred spent. However, in the politics of no, we don't address this issue. Instead, we simply say “no” to any policy that may attempt to resolve it. I'm not suggesting that Obama care was the best solution, but perhaps it was a step in the right direction that may not survive the current environment of no.

We are continually bombarded by the politics of no which prevent us from discussing these facts rationally, logically, and with some basic intellect. It has even become difficult to have civil discussions on these topics as the “politics of no” has taught us the way to discuss policy issues is to interrupt, yell, mock, and belittle each other as if we were amongst four talking heads on the Fox network trying to shout down the other three.



Here, is a prime example of the politics of no. And, please understand that this is not meant to be a partisan attack on Republicans. Far from it is just an observation as they are currently the party in power both House and Senate. The current US debt is $14 trillion dollars or $46,000 per citizen. That would seem to indicate there are a lot of programs and expenditures that need to be cut or, in the alternative, though unpopular, other sources of funding need to be considered such as taxes. Despite this problem, and in the midst of this massive debt, the political party currently in power in Congress has introduced a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Here is why this is ludicrous: They are not currently legislating a balanced budget. In other words, they are arguing for constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, but, are in the meantime failing to do so. According to statistics from Congress, the percentage of bills introduced that become law has deteriorated to below three percent and continued to decline since 1976. This is the result of the politics of no.

If your party draws a line in the sand on one issue, and won’t discuss an issue on which both parties may have common ground, then the politics of no has done its job like a weed choking out new growth in the garden.

To keep some levity as the presidential race rolls on, keep score of how many times the candidate’s message is simply, NO! You'll be hard-pressed to find any candidate that is willing to say, “Yes!” It is politically expedient to continue to say no. We have allowed this to happen and we will continue to suffer until we do something to change it.

Do not be surprised or tearful, if this trend is not corrected, in 10 years when our standard of living drops even lower and leaves us envious of Estonia.

Fixation on Tragedy, Beyond Casey Anthony

I was asked to provide legal commentary on the Casey Anthony Trial.  Before being asked, I had not watched the trial or kept up on the developments.  In preparing for the commentary,  I discovered that the trial brought HLN (formerly CNN'S Headline News),  it's highest ratings for a month period of time.  So, the tragedy of death and the specter that the mother may be found guilty for the crime, created a ratings bonanza.  What is about tragedy and suffering that draws the public's attention?

The fascination with OJ's trial made some sense as he was arguably a celebrity and the case did have some interesting twists and turns.  However, the public's hunger for courtroom coverage since then and for non-celebrities is puzzling.   To put the focus on tragedy in perspective,  ratings for President Obama's Press Conference total 11.49 million viewers.  While Nancy Grace gathered nearly two million viewers for the same time period. And, that is not the actual coverage of the Anthony Trial, but re-hashing the days events.  Sadly,  Two and a Half Men gathered over 14 million viewers. And, it was a re-run.

What is it about tragedy that causes this frenzy?  We are more focused on the trial of one person than we are on the factors that cause people to become violent.  To boil it down,  if viewers had a choice between the Anthony Trial and a report on 48 hours on a study that illustrates the factors that cause people to become violent criminals,  it's safe to say that the Anthony Trial would gather at least ten times the viewers.

This sad development doesn't surprise me, but still saddens me.  In a culture where websites such as "the dirty" can make millions of dollars posting internet gossip and trash about ordinary people and label them as "sluts" or as having an STD,  it is no shock that glitz and drama beat out thoughtful dialogue.

The blood in the water that the frenzy has created causes me to doubt the sincerity of pop trash promoters' such as Nancy Grace.   Which do you think was first?  The draw of viewers or Nancy Grace's concern for the victim Caylee Anthony?    

As a trial lawyer, I can tell you that working on a trial is riveting.   However,  watching as a passive participant can be quite dull.  The evidence is not packaged in a quick tempo entertaining manner. The pace is often slow and plodding.  Yet, somehow, viewers will still stay fixed to the trial.  Is it because the focus on other's suffering helps alleviate the viewers? Or is it simply just morbid curiousity?

Meanwhile,  today in our country, as with every single day, a child will be reported missing or abducted. In fact, this occurs every forty seconds.  So, while you read this blog, a child was abducted.  Yet, there is no story or clamor for coverage for these forgotten souls.