Category: Society

The Silent Majority

Political observers were surprised last week when legislation to approve gay marriage in New York went down to a substantial defeat.  But some of the explanations offered were even more surprising.

“Certainly this is an emotional issue and an important issue for many New Yorkers,” said Senator Tom Libous, the deputy Republican leader.  Yes, that’s true enough, and if feelings run high on a contentious issue one could expect politicians to fear a backlash from voters.  But then he went on to add: “I just don’t think the majority care too much about it at this time because they’re out of work, they want to see the state reduce spending, and they are having a hard time making ends meet.” (See, “New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill.”)

What could he possibly mean? If voters don’t care, what do legislators have to fear?  Presumably, that would make it easier for them to vote their consciences or, at least, vote to satisfy a vocal minority fighting for what they see as their rights.  And, then, what does this have to do with unemployment or budget deficits?

But maybe he really meant that voters do care about it.  And could he be implying that with so many bread and butter issues to confront, legislators fear being seen spending too much time on “trivial” issues like gay marriage.  On the other hand, polls indicated that most New York voters supported the bill, though a substantial vocal and virulent minority opposed it, as well as New York’s Roman Catholic bishops.

The Times reported that during the debate, “Opponents remained mostly silent; all but one of those who spoke on the floor supported the measure.”  Possibly the silent legislators were afraid of provoking an attack from those who opposed the bill, an attack worse than the almost certain attack they will get from gay activists.  Perhaps they were afraid of the bishops. Perhaps they just afraid of change.

Sometimes, an unconscious motivation can be traced to its avoidance or its denial.  It’s not always the case that when someone says they “don’t care” they really mean they do.  In this case, however, that explanation gains further plausibility from Senator Libous’ final comment to the reporter who interviewed him:  “I don’t mean to sound callous, but [what I said is] true.”

He must think he sounds callous. But we are still left wondering, what actually is “true?”

But Why?  And Who Is Being Fooled By Whom?

One of the bright spots in the economy – perhaps the only one – has been the renewed profitability of investment banks.  But a recent story on The Daily Beast suggests that the picture is misleading – if not illusory.

Nomi Prins describes in detail the various accounting tricks that the big banks have resorted to in order to inflate their profits:  most of them have changed their reporting periods, so it is now virtually impossible to compare this year’s figures with last year’s;  then they have massively reclassified their debts and assets;  finally, the mergers and acquisitions that have occurred have melded together (or not) quite different accounting procedures and sets of figures.  It’s a mess – but it’s a mess that has been made to look good because trading profits have been emphasized and credit losses disguised.

It is not hard to figure out why they want to create this appearance of financial health.  It will help persuade investors to trade with them, and, as they are in fierce competition with each other, their relative profitability will attract yet more money.  An additional motive is to pay back their TARP loans, so they can get out from under federal supervision for their compensation policies.

It’s worth noting that the one thing none of them seem eager to do is lend money to small businesses.  That would really help the economy as a whole as it would increase productivity and add to jobs, but that does not generate the quick profits they are seeking.

Prins concluded: “Trading profitability, albeit inconsistent and volatile, is the quickest way back to the illusion of financial health, as these banks continue to take hits from their consumer-oriented businesses. But, appearance doesn’t equal stability, or necessarily, reality.” (See, “Worse Than Enron.”)

This is crafty and deceptive, but it is not unconscious.  One might argue it is an essential part of our competitive system, and those who are playing the game know it very well.  But what is unconscious and truly dangerous here is that high levels of risk are being minimized all over again.  To be sure, sub-prime mortgage derivatives are no longer driving the market, and AIG is no longer supporting the illusion of insurance against loss.  But, as Pins notes, “appearance doesn’t equal stability.”

She argues that a greater degree of transparency is required:  “we need an objective, consistent evaluation of bank balance sheets complete with probing questions about trading and speculative revenues, allowing for comparisons across the banking industry.”  That will help regulators check what is really happening.  But it could also be a reality check for those who, caught up in the relentless competitive drive for profits, will want to keep on betting the farm and, once again, put us all at risk.

The Dread of Changing Health Policies

A couple of weeks ago, the government set up new guidelines for breast cancer screening – and provoked a storm of protests.  The evidence, carefully sifted by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, showed that a mammogram every second year was sufficient to protect women in their forties, not the once yearly test previously recommended.  But they did not reckon on the emotional fallout from their announcement.

For many people, it looked like the Task Force was taking a crucial protection away from women.  That view was shared by the American College of Radiology, not surprisingly as that group obviously did stand to lose income from less testing.  A number of politicians as well as The American Cancer Society, closely aligned with public opinion, joined in the protests.

In this political climate where stakeholders are bitterly contesting congressional healthcare proposals, the new policy aroused fears of rationing and other forms of government interference.  Everyone is on edge about the charges and counter-charges, up to and including the notorious allegations of “death panels.”  But that actually did not seem to be what was at stake.

A follow-up story this week told more of the reasoning behind the policy change.  While there was a very slight but statistically significant increased risk of some cancers going undetected with the new policy, there was also a greater risk of over-diagnosis.  The Times noted that “Dr. Barnett Kramer … of the National Institutes of Health described over-diagnosis as ‘pure harm’ because it means that women are treated with measures like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery for tumors that do not need treating.” (See, “Behind Cancer Guidelines, Quest for Data.”)

Interestingly, those who did the research and prepared the new recommendation were surprised that the Task Force dared to accept their proposal.  They knew, of course, what a tempest was likely to be stirred up.  Maybe the congressional discussions on health care reform this year emboldened them to act, hoping to participate in a new climate of rationality.

But the rest of us got another lesson in how charged with anxiety healthcare issues are – and just how difficult it is to bring about change.  What we don’t know we know is how easily rational thinking becomes a casualty of dread.

How It Is Changing

For many, using food stamps has been a confession of failure.  Only the pressure of feeding their families drove them to accept the help it offered.  But now the program is turning out to be more and more successful.  According to The New York Times:  “a program once scorned as a failed welfare scheme now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children.” (See, “Across U.S., Food Stamp Use Soars and Stigma Fades.”)

What is bringing about the change in social attitudes?

For one thing, of course, poverty is more widespread now, more inclusive.  Blaming the unemployed gets harder to do when there are so many of them.  Moreover, people now have the banks and hedge fund managers to blame for the economic mess they are in.

But also there has been a substantial effort to repackage the program.  Before the recession began, “the Bush administration led a campaign to erase the program’s stigma, calling food stamps ‘nutritional aid’ instead of welfare….  By the time the recession began, in December 2007, ‘the whole message around this program had changed,’ said Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington group that has supported food stamp expansions. ‘The general pitch was, ‘This program is here to help you.’ ”

Some conservatives, like Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, resist this effort to re-label and recast the program.  Calling it “camouflage,” he adds,  “it’s really not different from cash welfare….  Food stamps is quasi money.”

But government efforts seem to be gradually paying off.  Interviews with those receiving nutritional aid reveal the mixed feelings and conflicts of those who are navigating their way through this shift in public attitude. “It’s embarrassing,” said Mr. Dawson, 29, a taciturn man with a wispy goatee who is so uneasy about the monthly benefit of $300 that he has not told his parents. “I always thought it was people trying to milk the system. But we just felt like we really needed the help right now.”

Others express how much it is also a matter of identity:  “I always thought people on public assistance were lazy,” he said, “but it helps me know I can feed my kids.”  A mother, who said she once considered herself “middle class,” spoke of her desire to put an occasional pot roast on the table.  A father figured out a compromise: While “some people put piles of steaks in their carts,” he will not use the government’s money for luxuries like coffee or soda. “To me, that’s just morally wrong,” he said.

And, no doubt, it helps that this process of redrawing the categories of poverty and class has been going on for some time.  According to The Times, a recent study found that “half of Americans receive food stamps, at least briefly, by the time they turn 20.”

Step by step, choice by choice, people are struggling to maintain their identities and sustain their pride while adapting to our new economic realities.  It is a slow and painful process.

The Lesson of the “Interfaith Amigos”

On Monday, The New York Times carried a story about three clergymen who have formed a kind of traveling road-show to promote interfaith understanding.  The approach worked out by Rabbi Ted Falcon, the Presbyterian minister Don Mackenzie and Sheik Jamal Rahman is counter-intuitive – but highly instructive. (See, “Three Clergymen, Three Faiths, One Friendship.”

Most of us, fearful of hurt feelings and conflict, tend to approach our religious and cultural differences by emphasizing similarities. Diplomats typically begin their negotiations by defining areas of agreement.  The underlying assumption is that if we can get find the ways we are in alignment, then we have a basis for tackling the difficult differences.  But the three “Interfaith Amigos,” as they have come to call themselves, work the other way.

“The three say they became close not by avoiding or glossing over their conflicts, but by running straight at them. They put everything on the table: the verses they found offensive in one another’s holy books, anti-Semitism, violence in the name of religion, claims by each faith to have the exclusive hold on truth, and, of course, Israel.”

The problem with stressing only similarities and agreements is that everyone suspects that the difficulties are being evaded – and how can you trust that?  There may be a feel-good moment, but then the doubts and suspicions linger on.

As Rabbi Falcon put it: “We try to honor the truth. This is the truth for you, and this is the truth for me. It may not be reconcilable, but it is important to refuse to make the other the enemy.” The aim of such discussions is not agreement, just understanding.

This is a lesson that could be more widely applied in the aftermath of 9/11, and especially now as our mid-east wars are increasing the rift between Muslim Americans and the rest of us.  An article in Foreign Affairs high-lights the problem:  “According to a 2006 Gallup poll, a third of Americans admire ‘nothing’ about the Muslim world. Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslims. A July 2007 Newsweek survey indicated that 46 percent of Americans think that the United States is accepting too many Muslim immigrants, 32 percent consider American Muslims less loyal to the United States than they are to Islam….”  And so on. (See, “The Real Shock of Fort Hood.”)

And American Muslims, for their part, have tended to react by becoming less visible, believing that “suppressing their Muslim identity was better for their health, that they couldn’t take their civil rights for granted, and that their interests depended on the absence of serious future attacks within the United States.”

Moreover, “many Muslims perceived the implementation of the U.S. Patriot Act as biased. Thus, to most U.S. Muslims, maintaining a low profile simply by demonstrating unalloyed approval of their adopted country’s policies would have been unprincipled and unpalatable. Yet the absence of a fervently patriotic response only confirmed the suspicions of many non-Muslim Americans.” (See, “The Real Shock of Fort Hood.”)

We need to talk, and certainly we could learn better ways of talking from the three “Interfaith Amigos.”