Soon after the election last year in the Wall Street Journal, Gerald Seib wrote about the opportunity presented by the financial crisis for Barack Obama. Perhaps he was simply reacting to Rahm Emanuel’s statement that, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Seib summed up that perspective on crisis by saying that:
The thing about a crisis is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential.
That really captures the essence of a crisis mentality. Unfortunately it only looks at the silver lining while ignoring the cloud in front of it. The assumption is that we all can see the dangers of the crisis cloud. Unfortunately the only part of the crisis cloud that most people see is the front side – the possibility with any crisis that we will fail. The problem is that right in front of the silver lining he spoke of there is the hidden backside of the crisis cloud which we conveniently forget.
Because of the sense of urgency that tends to accompany a crisis we not only begin to view once optional courses of action as essential, in many cases we go beyond that and begin to view once forbidden courses of action as excusable.
Here are a few examples of the forbidden becoming excusable:
- After 9/11 we were all too willing to give up our expectations to some basic privacy as we rushed to pass the Patriot Act.
- When the economy became obviously distressed last year we allowed the government to bail out massive private banking institutions.
- As the economy continued to flounder we let the government take over two of our three largest car makers and run roughshod over those who previously had stakes in those companies.
Driven to Distraction
In our rush to respond to the crisis we also run a very real risk of failing to account for some important factors. Such is the case as we take a crisis mentality into our efforts to reform health care in the U.S. For one thing, we feel a sense of urgency to cage this dragon of rising costs and because of that rush to action the people of the nation – and especially the members of Congress – have become so distracted with health insurance reform that they fail to recognize that having health insurance is not the same as having access to affordable health care. Second, those who are opposing the administration on health care have become so distracted by the specter of a public option that they are saying (and probably thinking) virtually nothing about the inclusion of an individual mandate in every single reform proposal under consideration. Michael Cannon at the CATO Institute suggests that the leaders of Congress are actually counting on that distraction to get what they want.
Perhaps part of that silence is a result of the fact that much of the vocal opposition is being pushed by the health insurance industry which stands to benefit from that provision (offsetting the other crippling effects that the health care bills would have on their industry). Such a mandate would once have been obviously unfathomable but now we are seriously considering it because of our health care crisis.
If government were supposed to try to protect us from ourselves (which they have tried to do and which is why they argue that the individual mandate is necessary) then they might as well go all the way and make the consumption of soft-drinks illegal (since they are not beneficial to our health) or require that individuals may not incur debt for anything except for shelter and transportation (since anything else is unnecessary for a decent life).
The problem with so-called crisis managers, or maybe in the current case, Crisis-Opportunists”, is the lack of understanding of the Law of Unintended Consequences. I think you are making an allusion to that in your points. In in my experiences in business, those whom I have seen try to manage crises, usually screw it up because they see symptoms and completely mis-diagnoses the real underlying issues. Moreover, they think there is a crisis, when in reality there is not a crisis, and in most cases the crisis situation could have been avoided if the people who try to manage the crisis would not have been asleep at the wheel that led to the crisis.
Any crisis-opportunist also understand that the best way to manage the crises–as opposed to solve the problem–is to manage information. Currently, we have a conspiracy, of sorts, in information spin management. There is a group of people who are masters at spinning the current situations into their own self-serving opportunities. There are some problems that are labeled “crisis” when, in fact, they are just the normal ebbs and flows of life; and there are other situations that are leading to crisis, that are conveniently ignored, mis-diagnosed, or intentionally mis-represented.
I would think that a crisis opportunist would have a vested interest in maintaining a crisis mentality – just a thought.
Exactly!!
I have seen too many managers who cannot operate and function UNLESS they create a crisis. They have great ability to create something out of nothing. First, they control the flow of information, they create silos of individuals or groups who begin to fear and mistrust other individuals or groups, and thus the manager can become the master puppeteer.
One of the only ways that I have seen others overcome such a situation is to call out the puppet master in front of others, and then to reach out to the other groups who have been put at odds. That way, they can at least compare notes and try to fully understand all that is being said.
Now that is the way it can be done in some relatively smaller organizations I worked; however, the bigger the organization, the more opportunity for the master puppeteer to take control because it gets hid behind layers and layers of bureaucracy. It becomes harder and harder to call out the Master until it is to late. Also, the sheer weight and volume of the supposed crisis can crush an individuals capacity to call out the master. Moreover, the master is very, very skilled in deception, half-truths, mis-direction, and mis-information. In short, they are snakes!
The master puppeteer counts on this and unless their is organized opposition, then the master will win. It is an extremely frustrating situation. And I am only talking about a 100+ person company in which I have tried to take on the master. Now, considering an organization–let’s just call it the United States of America–in which there are 300 million people, the levels and depth of the master puppeteer becomes exponentionally more difficult to contend against.
Ultimately, we are left to either the courts or the legislature and ultimately the people to overcome the master puppeteer. And when the majority of those become complacent or evil in their own right, we are headed for destruction. I hold out hope that the majority still can distinguish right from wrong, but the master puppeteer and his legions of crisis-opportunists are increasingly strong and pulling more people over to the dark side.
Using your same example though, the attacks on 9/11 did require some response. It was an actual crisis.
Whether that response was adequate or went too far is a matter of debate and one for the history books now.
But arguing for inaction in the face of rising insurance costs for families just for the sake of maintaining an ideology (as you seem to argue frequently) is akin to arguing for a non-response to 9/11 because Code Pink opposes ALL forms of war.
The inclination of so many to be unrealistic about real crisis because it may require a response that runs opposite of their ideological preferences is an equally dangerous road to follow.
I would prefer a world without war. Ideologically. But I would also prefer my family not fall victim one day to a terrorist attack. So I chose the lesser of two evils in supporting the Afghanistan military actions. I could do this because I allowed reality to trump the purity of my ideological convictions.
Many of you “limited government” folk seem incapable of doing the same, and therefore make great, reaching, and often irrational strides to downplay real crisis.
The banking crisis: a reality that demanded a response.
The economic crisis: a reality that demanded a response.
Rising insurance costs: a reality that (I believe) demands a response.
Debate over response is healthy. Pretending lack of action is a logical course because your chosen ideology offers no realistic solution is reason to rethink your ideology, not attempt to downplay real crisis.
This isn’t to say crisis doesn’t become excuse for political agenda. It definitely does. But there are two sides to the issue, and often the small government crowd seems incapable of recognizing that we live in an increasingly complex world (both socially and economically) and no matter how nice it sounds, or how much we want to believe it true, we simply cannot solve every problem with Milton Friedman’s “free market” philosophies and a solitary goal of limited government.
Simply, it’s unrealistic.
Jason,
You have to really cherry-pick from my writing to suggest that I argue for inaction. I have argued at times that inaction is worse than the proposed action, but just because we are in a crisis does not mean that we can’t make it worse; so even if you don’t agree with my position you can’t rightfully say that it is an impossible position to take.
If you’d like I can share over two years worth of posts where I argue in favor of action on health care.
I was very supportive of military action in Afghanistan 8 years ago and continued to be supportive until more recently when it began to appear that we had no way forward. You can disagree with my assessment, but you can’t claim that I will never support military action even in response to a 9/11.
One of the problems with “government vs free market” debates is that so many people fail to recognize that “free market” does not mean “free-for-all market” nor that in many ways and especially in some industries we do not currently have a free market.
It’s unfortunate how often one person can try to debate about the proper response and end up being accused of promoting inaction or sticking their head in the sand.
9/11 was a legitimate crisis. Pearl Harbor was a legitimate crisis. Nonetheless, either or both may have been less of a crisis if those in charge had listened and acted prior to those events. But, just because there could have been action prior to those events does not in any way change the nature of those things as crises.
As with all things, we must view them across a spectrum. Some things that others legitimately see as a crisis, I contend may be better categorized as an issue that needs attention. And the differences in opinion on those should actually lead to discourse and debate.
Also, let me state that government does have a very legitimate role in dealing with these matters: either at the crisis level or the “issue” level. Nonetheless, “free-market” is not necessarily and expression of total government dis-involvement, but rather of the bare minimum necessary so as to allow reasonable people solving legitimate issues without inappropriate amounts of interference. If I believe in a free-market without any government intervention whatsoever, then I would, by definition, disapprove a an FDA, or an SEC, or other such legitimate government entities. My small government viewpoint might be better defined as limited government intervention. Furthermore, and to a basic human needs perspective, I am all for government involvement to help those who truly cannot help themselves (but that is a discussion for another day).
In my opinion, rising insurance costs is not necessarily a crisis. There are roughly 85% of the American population who have insurance coverage. Yes, the cost is going up, but I am yet to be satisfied that this is a crisis. I argue it is an issue that needs attention and analysis, but does not move to a crisis state similar to a 9/11 or a Pearl Harbor event. My concern is that a legitimate issue is being distorted into a “crisis” of epic proportion that is argued can only be solved by the government, and ultimately the solution on the table is to nationalize the insurance industry. Maybe this is ultimately the best solution, but I don’t think the proposed legislation addresses anything that is actually being called a crisis. My concern is the ulterior motive of control by the government of something that for the most part (admittedly not perfect) takes care of health care.
Banking was not a crisis that needed government intervention. Government involvement for stabalization may have been appropriate, but that intervention has now led to pay-Czars and others (the Law of Unintended Consequences). It also led to government intervening in a business transaction that created a more serious problem: Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. Just because Treasury Secretary Paulson and Ben Bernanke said it was a crisis, did not make it a crisis.
The economic crisis–together with the banking crisis–was nothing more than a contration of an over active government involvement in various sectors of industry. It was not a crisis. Yes, it is damn uncomfortable right now, but it is not like the Great Depression and using such terms by those in power to exascerbate an normal contaction of an economy is causing greater problems. And the solution that has been provided will bankrupt this country ultimately. It is not a good solution–whether it was a crisis or not–to pour $780 billion into the economy with a less-than 1 multipler effect, taking funds from TARP to nationalize the auto industry that was failing. Again, even if it was a crisis (and I will allow that your definition of that as a crisis is more reflective than my view that it is just an “issue”) the government and its leaders have significantly mismanaged it, have mislead and misinformed and have usurped power. Now to me, that is the real crisis.
The government has the constitutional responsibility to provide for the general welfare, not to overtake the roles, duties and responsibilities of the citizen in their normal business pursuits. Maintaining the general welfare means they keep the shysters, snake-oil salesmen and crooks in jail. It does not mean taxing the people to death and providing corrupt public solutions that fail and falter with the ever-changing political winds of the day.
Of course, this is just my opinion and I reserve the right to be wrong!
Not to be picky, but the government does not have the constitutional responsibility to provide for the general welfare. For one thing, what you are referring to is in the preamble to the Constitution which is essentially the plain language description of what the Constitution was supposed to accomplish but it is not part of the law of the land – it’s simply the description. For another thing, what the preamble actually says is that the people were ordaining and establishing the Constitution in order to “. . . provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .” There is a significant difference between providing and promoting – which is essentially setting the stage for a level laying field, acting as referee and not as a participant. Thus there is direct Constitutional authority to oversee how the common defense should be provided, but no specific authority as to how the general welfare should be promoted. The only mention of general welfare within the governing portion of the Constitution is the statement that Congress had authority to collect revenue to pay for the things that it was Constitutionally authorized to do, including those things having to do with the general welfare.
If we want to know what the Founders had in mind to promote the general welfare we should look at what “general welfare” items they stipulated that Congress could engage in namely, regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states (not within the states), establishing laws over naturalization and bankruptcy, coining money, fixing standards of weights and measures, establishing penalties for counterfeiting, establishing post roads and post offices, regulating patents and copyrights, and maintaining a court system inferior to the Supreme Court.
I respectfully disagree with regard to “promote” vs. “provide”. Yes, the Preamble says “promote” but Article I, Section 8 preamble says: The Congress shall have power to lay taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…”
The following from the Cato Journal is an interesting essay on the powers and some of the thinking of Madison. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html
Article 1 Section 8 also goes on to state what they meant regarding the things that the government was to provide for the general welfare (as I listed before). Essentially the section enumerates those things which the Congress was tasked to provide in their efforts to promote the general welfare.
I agree and think that Article 1, Section limits the means in order to provide. I believe we long ago went past the original intent of Congress’ authority and it has taken on extraordinary and unconsitutional authority to do what it does. Whether it is to promote or provide, I think the real issue is that Congress’ authortiy is severely limited but is now used in excess. Thus, if we went back to the original intent of the authority and the purpose for the use of that authority, we would not be in the mess we are in today with the deficit, the entitlements, the programs, etc.
I think you and I are in complete agreement on what Congress can and cannot do, their usurption of power beyond the Constitution and the results of a corrupt (well maybe not corrput, but definitely spurious Court.
It certainly sounds to me like we are in agreement there.
To many of the problems we have been having as of late can be traced to lobbyist money, Its time for publicly funded campaigns.
Their are bills to this regard as well. Senate Bill 752 And House Bill 1826
I am not yet familiar with either of those bills, but my initial reaction (as usual) is to be skeptical of the chances that they will pass and accomplish the goal of truly cleaning up campaigns – I would expect something as effective as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform bill that is serving us so well already.
I would highly advise reading the FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS section of each bill. Both bills are pretty easy to understand actually, their short(for a bill) at 52(senate) pages and 55(house) pages long so reading the entirety isn’t very hard. Polling on the bills shows that 80% of democrats 65% of republicans and 78% of independents support it. Additional Info
Once you brought those bills to my attention I intended to become familiar with them – I’m glad to hear that they are not thousands of pages in length like the health care reform bills.