Every day, every one of us faces problems of some sort. Those problems range from the ordinary like not being able to find a parking place to the extreme like being diagnosed with cancer. In many ways, it is the ability of mankind to solve problems that has differentiated us from other forms of life. We use tools. We are able to conceptualize both the problems and the solutions. We are able to teach our children (and out friends) the solutions to certain problems so as to eliminate them from the daily list of difficulties. Much of human history has been an ongoing story of problem solving. How can we get to town? We solved the problem first with walking, then by riding horses, and then with cars or other vehicles. How do we feed out families? We solved the problem first with hunting and gathering, then with growing our own food and finally with a well developed agricultural sector that grows food for all of us. Even war has just been a history of solving problems. Every time a new weapons has been created, it has been in response to a problem that needed a solution.
Given that human history is mostly problem solving, one would think that the greatest skill which people would prize in their leaders is the ability to do just that. We need a mayor who can figure out how to get the garbage collected and the criminals off the street. We need a governor who can make sure that all children get a good education and that businesses can survive in the economic climate of the state. We need a president who can figure out how to keep Americans safe in a dangerous world and who can take steps to improve the lives of our countrymen. For most of American history, success in solving the problems that faced us has indeed been the criteria that has been used to judge success or failure.
Lately, things have clearly changed in this country. Oh, there are still plenty of issues about solving problems that take up the lives of our government. But now, we have something new, something that we really have not had to this extent for a century and a half. Americans are divided as to identifying the problems that need solving. Think about it. Is it a problem that not all Americans have roughly the same income as the rest of us? Some folks think that income inequality is a major problem to solve, while others see nothing wrong with it. Is it a problem that each ethnic, sexual or racial group is not proportionately represented in government, industry and education? Again, some folks think that lack of this sort of proportionate equality is a major problem facing society while others think that we need to guarantee equal opportunity but not equal outcomes. Is it a problem that many people are restricted in what they can do in their daily lives like buying guns, having an abortion, worshipping God in a public forum, expecting privacy in their daily lives, and the like. We all know that these are issues that some see as problems while others do not.
What seems to have changed most in the most drastic way during the last few decades is that the areas in which there is general agreement on the list of "problems" we all face has shrunk in a major way. Americans used to agree that one problem with which to deal was the need to avoid hurting people by the actions of others. Now, it seems that only some people agree with that. Many others think that we have reached the point where "the greater good" is more important than worrying if actions will hurt people. Just look at the architects of Obamacare and what they thought. Obamacare is a law which was designed to force everyone to have the insurance that Washington bureaucrats thought best even if the individuals across America did not agree with that assessment. Obamacare was designed to get rid of any policies that did not comply so that the people enforcing the law estimated that close to 100 million policies across America would be cancelled. We all need to have the same thing or almost the same thing. To Obamacare's proponents, that was one problem they were solving. They did not consider (except as an obstacle to passage) the major stress and upset that this law would inflict upon something like 40% of the country as their health insurance was lost. Even the president's lie about the ability to keep current policies was a move to prevent the obstacle to passage only. Obama did not care about the effect on individual Americans; it was not even a problem he considered.
This same sort of disagreement over the problems we face affects all manner of issues. Think of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. To many, the problem there is 1) the possibility that Iran might actually use those weapons against the USA or Israel, 2) the effect that a nuclear Iran would have on all of its neighbors, and 3) the increased likelihood that a nuclear Iran and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to its neighbors would have on terrorist groups like Hezbollah, al Qaeda, or Hamas getting nuclear weapons. In many ways, the problem boils down to a major increase in the chance of nuclear war. Watching the recent negotiations with Iran, however, it seems clear that for the Obama administration, the main problem to be address is how to come up with a foreign policy "victory" to take attention away from the failed Obamacare rollout. The administration may solve the "problem" that it perceives and tens of millions of people may die as a result.
Given that human history is mostly problem solving, one would think that the greatest skill which people would prize in their leaders is the ability to do just that. We need a mayor who can figure out how to get the garbage collected and the criminals off the street. We need a governor who can make sure that all children get a good education and that businesses can survive in the economic climate of the state. We need a president who can figure out how to keep Americans safe in a dangerous world and who can take steps to improve the lives of our countrymen. For most of American history, success in solving the problems that faced us has indeed been the criteria that has been used to judge success or failure.
Lately, things have clearly changed in this country. Oh, there are still plenty of issues about solving problems that take up the lives of our government. But now, we have something new, something that we really have not had to this extent for a century and a half. Americans are divided as to identifying the problems that need solving. Think about it. Is it a problem that not all Americans have roughly the same income as the rest of us? Some folks think that income inequality is a major problem to solve, while others see nothing wrong with it. Is it a problem that each ethnic, sexual or racial group is not proportionately represented in government, industry and education? Again, some folks think that lack of this sort of proportionate equality is a major problem facing society while others think that we need to guarantee equal opportunity but not equal outcomes. Is it a problem that many people are restricted in what they can do in their daily lives like buying guns, having an abortion, worshipping God in a public forum, expecting privacy in their daily lives, and the like. We all know that these are issues that some see as problems while others do not.
What seems to have changed most in the most drastic way during the last few decades is that the areas in which there is general agreement on the list of "problems" we all face has shrunk in a major way. Americans used to agree that one problem with which to deal was the need to avoid hurting people by the actions of others. Now, it seems that only some people agree with that. Many others think that we have reached the point where "the greater good" is more important than worrying if actions will hurt people. Just look at the architects of Obamacare and what they thought. Obamacare is a law which was designed to force everyone to have the insurance that Washington bureaucrats thought best even if the individuals across America did not agree with that assessment. Obamacare was designed to get rid of any policies that did not comply so that the people enforcing the law estimated that close to 100 million policies across America would be cancelled. We all need to have the same thing or almost the same thing. To Obamacare's proponents, that was one problem they were solving. They did not consider (except as an obstacle to passage) the major stress and upset that this law would inflict upon something like 40% of the country as their health insurance was lost. Even the president's lie about the ability to keep current policies was a move to prevent the obstacle to passage only. Obama did not care about the effect on individual Americans; it was not even a problem he considered.
This same sort of disagreement over the problems we face affects all manner of issues. Think of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. To many, the problem there is 1) the possibility that Iran might actually use those weapons against the USA or Israel, 2) the effect that a nuclear Iran would have on all of its neighbors, and 3) the increased likelihood that a nuclear Iran and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to its neighbors would have on terrorist groups like Hezbollah, al Qaeda, or Hamas getting nuclear weapons. In many ways, the problem boils down to a major increase in the chance of nuclear war. Watching the recent negotiations with Iran, however, it seems clear that for the Obama administration, the main problem to be address is how to come up with a foreign policy "victory" to take attention away from the failed Obamacare rollout. The administration may solve the "problem" that it perceives and tens of millions of people may die as a result.
No comments:
Post a Comment