This is Part 2 of a post on the removal of the Family Planning provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009. You can read part 1 here.
A lot of my friends will probably be dismayed that I sympathize with the choice to remove that particular provision from the Act. As I mentioned in Part 1, I am happy to discuss it, and reserve the right, as an intelligent, honest adult to change my views when presented with another, more durable position and argument.
But I wanted to tackle a broader issue in this post.
I supported Barack Obama. I voted for him. I campaigned for him. And I continue to support him. But I'm also trying to manage my expectations. And I tell you, even in so doing, I will be disappointed by him, and - if the circumstances indicate it the right course - even vote against him in 2012.
Dear friends, please calm down. Like I said, I respect him tremendously, and continue to support him. But the possibility must be admitted.
I read through the comments on the article at thinkprogress, and I was struck by how many people emphasized that "he won". I got the distinct impression that to many of these (admittedly self-selected) people, he won = he can do what he wants/truly believes in.
Should we compromise on our most treasured principles? Of course not. But that is a luxury that no president has, at least not on all principles. When principles conflict, he must choose whichever principles are senior to other principles. For a good president, this may mean governing with the goal of unifying a country that cannot afford to be destroyed by divisiveness, especially at a moment of grave crisis.
So he will disappoint, he will become hated by the left, and the right, and possibly, eventually by middle America as well, for reasons that may, or may not, be of his own making.
As much as George W. Bush's insistence that history will vindicate him smacks of denial and an inability to admit present errors (Errol Morris' recent discussion with Presidential photographers on the NYTimes highlights the difference between admitting errors in appearance and public relations versus errors in policy), he is right that American history has rehabilitated men who were vilified in their own time. It's reasonable to assume that Lincoln would've been impeached had he lived through the end of the Civil War by his own party (as Johnson was during his presidency).
It has also bitten the other way. Andrew Johnson was heralded as a hero around the dawn of the 20th century, while later historians regarded him as a racist and one of the worst presidents to ever serve.
If circumstances dictate how a sitting President is treated in his own time, it's worth taking a look at what Obama is like to face:
In all probability, Obama will preside over a collapse in the dollar and Treasury bonds. Whether that is a precipitous devaluation or a collapse depends on a lot of things not completely within his, or America's control. (It depends upon the economies and political stability of the Middle East and China, two areas that most American presidents, however much we would like to believe, have little, if any, constructive say.)
He will likely preside over an economic contraction that will see one out of every ten Americans officially unemployed, perhaps translating into a real unemployment rate of around 20 percent.
He will preside over first deflation, which will devastate American debtors and producers, which may leave them so crippled that they can't take advantage of the increased competitive advantage that comes with a weaker dollar.
On his watch may also be a period of inflation, in which debt cancellation makes its way through the stealthy method of "quantitative easing" (i.e. printing money), which will make pensions and budgets (but not lifestyles and stomachs) whole.
He will preside over an increased American footprint in Afghanistan, a country that has even less of a history of centralized government and probability for Jeffersonian democracy than Iraq.
He will preside over increased difficulties and conflicts at home, an increase in property and personal crime as people begin taking out their economic and personal frustrations on immigrants, minorities, and businesses.
At worst, the economic perils of our debt overhang and political convenience might lead us into a shooting war with (or financed by) our creditors (Gulf States, Japan, China).
He is going to disappoint a lot of people. Those who support him have set the bar so high, and he faces so many constraints.
The only people he won't disappoint are his detractors. It is always easier to tear down than to build up. And there will be plenty to attack, no matter how it ends up.
In spite of all this, I urge you, do not despair, young Americans. Because for whatever it's worth, there may be no other current American statesman who has both the temperament, intellect, and charisma to both make good decisions and convince opponents and the public to work with him. And in times of greatest danger, we have a chance to show our character, our maturity, our commitment to a cause greater than our individual lives and cares.
We must all become community organizers, in our various, multivariate, overlapping communities, however we define it. This isn't some hippie call toward universal love - this is as serious as any organized human endeavor upon which continued existence hinged. I am reminded that the most enduring honorific given to George Marshall was "organizer for victory".
When I look at current circumstances - personal, national, and global - I see a lot of problems that are not of my individual making, and problems that I may have contributed to. I don't have all the answers, but thanks to filtered reading of news and analysis, I have a general sense of what needs to happen - at least in my life. And it means, for me, anteing up and kicking in, like a man. (Glory, hallelujah.)
And, so, those of you who are disappointed by what Obama has or hasn't done in his week-plus(!) as president, I tell you, take heart, not in the man who sits atop our political structure, but by the energy and promise his ascent has inspired in ordinary Americans of all walks of life, in the promise of crisis revealing a truer character and commitment to sacrifice and service that has, for too long, been a concealed part of American identity, in the resurgence of ancient principles overcoming habits of present, perpetual want.
I lack the quality of language or imagination to articulate precisely what I want to say. Fortunately, I don't have to rely only on my abilities. I will close with the final paragraphs in JFK's Inaugural address:
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
4 comments:
If people missed out on this offshoot conversation coming from this article via twitter.. a review:
ryamada @JeffreyLin More seriously, I do know a Cornell econ prof that wants to look at the arbitrage market for adoptions of young girls from Asia
JeffreyLin @ryamada arbitrage in terms of...money? any life here is better than a life there almost definitely
ryamada @JeffreyLin Question: if life (especially as a girl in China) is so cheap, why does it remain so expensive for American parents to adopt?
ryamada @JeffreyLin Presumably there are factors (norms, politics) that prevent the "market" from efficiently eliminating the arbitrage opportunity
to be continued...
answer:
I believe you have to cast aside your analytical mind and wear the shoes of a compassionate person. i can not look at this from a monetary/politics/ or even a social standpoint. you have to go smaller. its about people. no, the person. imagine ur a parent. how desperate would you have to be, if you loved your child, to have to sell that child? you would most likely be in a lot of debt, a druggie, or barely able to support yourself. as your kid came along, you cannot support them. either you sell the child or you both die. so, its not just about "how much it would cost to feed/raise that child." you'd want enough money to feed yourself for a while, to get by, and thankful someone else can give your kid a better life.
the adopting parents are willing to pay, able to pay, and compassionate enough to pay. after all, your giving money to the parent of your adopted child.
with that said, these emotions probably ring louder for me because "selling young girls" have been a big part of chinese culture and history going far far back. There have been women I know, related to, and/or heard in stories that were sold when they were girls. They were girls whos parents were too poor to even feed themselves and the hardest decision was to sell the girl just to live another day. Unless you're psycho, and i know some are, it is not normal and not easy for a parent to give up their child. And even if it seemed that way when they gave them up, they might've been too young, but regret it later and want to find the child again. (too much lifetime tv, television for women). Many chinese girls, all throughout history, were sold as maids to wealthy families. The social gaps were just too great. The poor, farms or whatnot, could barely have enough for themselves, and the landlords could live on their riches forever.
Another case is when girls were sold for money so the son could have a proper wedding. Again though, it is because a lot of people were so poor, but also because of the tradional importance of the male "namebearer" in the family, when time came where the family needed a big chunk of money, the only option was to sell the daughter.
This isn't just a Chinese historical culture thing or with girls. A similar story was told in the movie "A Knight's Tale" where Heath Leger's character was sold to a knight when he was a young boy.
so why do people do something that seems overpriced, or irrational? things like this i don't believe is about the money. you could observed this in ancient china or today, the amount of money paid for the girls would be different, the form of money is even different, but what stays the same is how the parents, adopting parents, and the adopted child feels. there is no "logical" price on love and human connections. that is why parents, when their kids have been kidnapped, would give up everything and take on debt or do just about anything to have their child back safely. you can work to get back money, even if u have to work in McDonalds or scrub toilets, but u can't revive a person.
Jeff,
Thanks for your comments. I think that part of the peril of starting and leaving off a conversation at 4am EST when one or both of us is sick is that there's the chance for an incomplete description of the project.
I think it's fair to say that adopting parents from the West are willing and able to pay. A friend/mentor from my astronomy days spent well over $50k to adopt a young girl from mainland China, and had to make several flights to be interviewed/processed by the adoption agency.
The issue is not whether or not human life is a commodity, or whether it ought to be a commodity. I think a careful analysis shows a different, but clear answer on both fronts. The question is this: given that we are not so far removed from a time in Chinese history where large orphanages housed unwanted girls, girls that were sometimes outright abandoned in the street, is there a way of structuring a system that would permit more people from the developed world to more easily adopt?
I think it's a complicated problem, but I assure you that this particular economist is motivated by a genuine desire to help more abandoned/unwanted children in Asia, and not to achieve an academic feather in his cap.
I for one would be very interested to see how international adoption is regulated by national and international organizations, and precisely what fraction of the costs actually go to the child's care, the biological parents, the respective governments, etc.
I am sorry if my initial representation of the issue was not complete. But I assure you Jeff that I always think with my heart first, and my head second. It is by no means a virtue, but simply an ordering that I seem to have stuck with for quite some time, one that has served me reasonably well.
Post a Comment