An American President: The Case for Obama 2012

Barack Obama knows the American Dream because he’s lived it . . . and he wants everyone in this country to have that same opportunity, no matter who we are, or where we’re from, or what we look like, or who we love. And he believes that when you’ve worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity . . . you do not slam it shut behind you . . . you reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed. – Michelle Obama, September 4, 2012

For the past four years, I have closely followed the presidency of Barack Obama. I embraced  Obama’s candidacy in the early stages of the Democratic primaries in late 2007, spent many weekends canvassing local neighborhoods and knocking on doors to get out the vote in the summer and fall of 2008, and celebrated his election and inauguration in January 2009. I supported Obama then, despite his relative youth and inexperience, because I saw a man of character, vision and common sense; a man who remains cool under pressure and looks at the long term effects of policy, who exercises good judgment. Obama the man impressed me as uniquely capable of uniting this country at a time when our political and social fabric had been torn asunder by eight years of go-it-alone unilateralism in foreign policy and a survival-of-the-fittest mentality in economic policy.

Four years ago, Obama was the only viable candidate committed to ending the tragically flawed War in Iraq and refocusing our efforts in Afghanistan; jumpstarting the hunt for Osama bin-Laden and restoring America’s reputation abroad; and addressing America’s health care crisis while working to restore the American economy in a fair and sensible manner.

From the moment Obama was sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, he has been attacked from the right as an enemy of free enterprise and criticized from the left for coddling Wall Street and caving to conservative demands. I have not agreed with everything Obama has done as president  – more on that later – but I have not forgotten the enormity of the burdens he inherited and the incredible political obstructionism he has confronted along the way. A fair assessment of Obama’s record suggests he has delivered on his key promises and put the country on the right track. Is he perfect? Of course not. Are we exactly where we would like to be? No. But the Republican alternative to Obama in this election is a spineless man with no core beliefs, who as far as I can discern would have us revert to the very policies that resulted in economic calamity, tragic warfare, massive deficits, the highest degree of inequality since the 1920’s, and a damaged American psyche. I’ll stick with the guy we have.

The Economy. When President Obama took office, the world financial system was on the brink of collapse and the American economy was experiencing its worst decline since the Great Depression. The United States was losing 750,000 jobs per month and the GDP was declining at a rate of nearly 9 percent. Before Obama placed his hand on the bible, unemployment and debt were soaring at record levels and the economy was in free fall. While it is appropriate to ask if we are better off today than four years ago, one cannot fairly judge the performance of the U.S. economy under President Obama without acknowledging the terrible conditions he inherited. The declining economic indicators of his first year were out of his control. A fair assessment must allow for the time needed to implement new policies. Economies are always slow to shift course, especially following a collapse of world financial markets.

It is irrelevant whether and to what extent the policies of President Bush are properly blamed for the sordid state of affairs Obama inherited. I personally do not believe any President has as much control over or responsibility for the economy as is popularly imagined; from the price of gas to the value of the dollar on international markets, presidential policy makers exert little control. I do blame President Bush for converting the budget surplus of 2001 into eight straight years of record deficits and a growing debt burden, for this was the obvious and fully expected result of two unfunded wars, a prescription drug plan not paid for, and large-scale, across-the-board tax cuts. But other aspects of the global financial crisis, the trade imbalances, and the worldwide recession were not the fault of President Bush any more than high gas prices are the fault of President Obama.

So, let’s simply acknowledge that President Obama was confronted with the worst economic crisis the country had faced in nearly 70 years. How did he respond? Obama did several things at once. He put a floor under the free fall and prevented a downward spiral that could have led to the Second Great Depression. He single-handedly saved the Big Three automakers from collapse, saving more than 1 million jobs in the process. He drove the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provided much needed stimulus and prevented cuts to state governments that would have cost at least 300,000 education jobs and hundreds of thousands of police officers, firefighters, and other state and local government workers. He reappointed Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve, backing the Fed’s use of record-low interest rates to better enable bank lending and economic growth. And he put his administration’s full support behind the Targeted Asset Relief Program (TARP), first implemented by President Bush, which allowed the country’s major financial institutions to survive and prosper and world financial markets to stabilize.

By the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect, the financial system had recovered (in the end, most of the TARP funds loaned out by the federal government were repaid), the auto industry had turned the corner and now competes fiercely and profitably on world markets, and monthly net job losses became monthly net job gains. Since then, the United States has added over 4.5 million private sector jobs and unemployment has declined from a peak of 10.2 percent in late 2009 to just over 8 percent now.

It is true that unemployment remains far too high and the economy has not grown as fast and as deep as everyone had hoped. I sided three years ago with economists such as Paul Krugman who argued that the stimulus was not large enough, that we needed a massive influx of government-created, New Deal-style jobs directed at putting people immediately to work, fixing and repairing the nation’s infrastructure, and sparking a faster economic recovery (see “The Lingering Great Recession: Jobs Needed”). President Obama took a more cautious, less Keynesian approach. The resulting job growth occurred in the private sector, offset partly by fewer government jobs. But neither Paul Krugman nor I had to deal with Republican intransigence and the rise of the Tea Party. Presidents must not only implement policy, they must deal with political reality. And there was simply no way the Obama administration could have pushed for more stimulus without sacrificing its ability to get things done on other fronts. That is the way Washington works and, while this president is less enamored of the political game than many of his predecessors (think Clinton, LBJ, FDR), he has demonstrated a masterful capacity to understand what can be achieved and what cannot.

It is a myth that Obama simply spent hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful government expenditures. In fact, one-third of stimulus “expenditures” were in the form of middle class tax cuts, which affected 95% of all taxpayers. Another third was in restoring cuts to state and local governments to prevent massive layoffs of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other essential government workers. The actual spending that did occur was properly targeted on re-building the nation’s infrastructure – roads, bridges, tunnels, and schools – which have been badly neglected and are in great need of fixing; on education; and on an historic commitment to clean energy. And by expanding America’s social safety net, Obama ensured that the poor and the unemployed would be taken care of while investments were made in low-income housing, food stamps, and child care.

Everyone agrees that the resulting recovery has been slower than desired, the deepness of the worldwide recession more profound than we were led to believe at the end of 2008. But once the stimulus, the bailouts, and the looser monetary policies of the Fed went into effect, we went from a net loss of 750,000 jobs per month to net gains of nearly 150,000 jobs per month in 2010 and 2011. Economic growth is slower than we would like, but it is a substantial improvement over where we were and shows the economy is moving in the right direction. Are we better off than four years ago? Simply put, yes. According to a study of economists at Princeton University and Moody’s Analytics, Obama’s stimulus package alone created over 2.7 million jobs, and without the stimulus, bailouts, and lower interest rates, unemployment would have risen to 16.5 percent, more than double what it is today.

Reforming Health Care. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama has achieved what no President before him was able to accomplish. Every progressive president in the 20th Century, from Theodore Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, tried and failed to enact a comprehensive national health plan. The failure to do so was among Harry Truman’s most bitter disappointments and nearly destroyed Clinton’s presidency in his first year. Despite vitriolic opposition from the right, what has come to be known as Obamacare is far more moderate than its critics claim. The much despised individual mandate, for example, was pioneered by the conservative Heritage Foundation and championed by Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney (until President Obama embraced the concept). Much to the disappointment of his liberal supporters, Obama quickly gave up on the public option in an attempt to appease conservatives. The foundation of the Affordable Care Act is a much expanded client base for private insurance and drug companies. Health-care exchanges, set to begin in 2014, are another conservative concept adopted by Obama’s health plan. Indeed, Obamacare is far to the right of Clinton’s 1993 proposal and very similar to proposals originally advocated by Richard Nixon in 1974 and Bob Dole in 1996.

While many innovative cost-saving measures are yet to take effect, in the last two years we have experienced the lowest increases in health care costs nationwide than at any time in the past decade. Although not the single-payer, universal system that is my preference, the Affordable Care Act has moved the country in a more compassionate and fiscally prudent direction. It expands coverage to 30 million people previously uninsured, prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions, expands Medicaid and strengthens Medicare, allows parents to keep their children on family health plans until age 26, and disallows insurance companies from dropping patients after they become sick. The Affordable Care Act is a singular achievement in American history and makes the United States a kinder, more decent society.

Investing in Clean Energy. The nation’s first black president may also be our first green president. Obama has made an historic commitment to power America with clean, renewable energy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and dirty coal. Under Obama, we have doubled our renewable energy capacity, from solar panels to wind turbines, producing enough clean energy to power all five boroughs of New York City. Part of this success is due to the stimulus bill, which targeted $94 billion for unprecedented investments in projects from weatherizing federal buildings to building solar thermal plants in the Mojave. Half of the investment comes from tax incentives and loan guarantees that require matching private sector funds and investments. The administration has adopted new fuel efficiency standards that require automakers to increase the average, unadjusted fuel-economy rating of their vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, more than double the efficiency of today’s cars. This will conserve nearly two billion barrels of oil annually and reduce carbon emissions by 21 percent. And by executive order, federal agencies must now reduce their carbon pollution by 28 percent over the next ten years, enough to eliminate 101 million metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere, equivalent to the climate-heating pollution of several small countries.

Protecting Consumers and Students. Obama has overseen the most sweeping reforms of Wall Street since the Great Depression, fashioning rules under the Dodd-Frank legislation that prevent banks from using consumers’ money to invest in high-risk financial instruments. He established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers from unethical lending and credit practices. Through the Credit Card Act, the major credit card companies must now include a box on your statement that provides how long it will take to pay off your debt by making only the minimum payment, and they cannot so easily lure college kids into mountains of debt by providing easy credit.

Obama has enacted stricter and more effective food safety laws. And he reformed the federal student loan program by lowering the cost of student loans and allowing students to repay them over 20 years as a low, fixed percentage of their incomes. As explained by President Clinton in Charlotte, this means “no one will ever have to drop-out of college for fear they can’t repay their debt. And it means that if someone wants to take a job with a modest income, a teacher, a police officer, if they want to be a small-town doctor in a little rural area, they won’t have to turn those jobs down because they don’t pay enough to repay their debt.”

Civil Rights and Liberties. The most significant and lingering civil rights issues at the start of Obama’s presidency were (1) the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military and (2) to enter into state-sanctioned marriage with someone of their choosing, a constitutional right deemed sacred by all other Americans. To his credit, the president secured the consent of the top military brass in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a humiliating policy that forced gay service members to lead dishonest lives in order to serve their country. And although he had previously opposed same-sex marriage, he has since publicly expressed support for the right of all Americans, gay or straight, to marry. He has extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, changed housing rules to disallow discrimination in public housing on the basis of gender and sexual orientation, issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other, and pushed for the United Nations to adopt a policy supporting gay rights worldwide.

Foreign Policy and Peace. Mitt Romney is not anxious to engage President Obama in a foreign policy debate, because by any reasonable measure, Obama’s record in this area is stellar. As promised, he ended the War in Iraq and oversaw the efficient withdrawal of American troops, quietly putting this tragic and flawed war behind us. He immediately refocused American military and intelligence efforts to capture and kill Osama bin Laden and, when the moment of decision came, overruled the Secretary of State and Vice President in ordering the riskiest alternative before him, the raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed America’s number one global enemy and produced a large cache of new intelligence against al Qaeda. Republicans have sought to ridicule Obama for taking any credit, but as Andrew Sullivan has noted, “If George Bush had taken out bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda’s leadership, and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he’d be on Mount Rushmore by now. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies. . . .”

In Libya, Obama ordered the intervention that ousted Gadhafi and protected Western oil supplies at minimal financial cost and no U.S. casualties. He did not act unilaterally, but respectfully and appropriately involved our European and NATO allies, an approach that also has served us well in confronting Iran. Indeed, a combination of strict sanctions, diplomacy, and internationally coordinated pressure on Iran has proven far more effective than grandiose threats of war.

Leading foreign policy conservatives, including Robert Kagan, a national security adviser to John McCain, has strongly praised Obama’s Asia policy. Obama has made China a key strategic priority, adding to U.S. military presence in the Pacific while challenging China on human rights, trade, and economic espionage. He also has taken significant steps to reduce the threat of nuclear war by negotiating further reductions in America’s and Russia’s nuclear arsenals.

I was disappointed in Obama’s decision not to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and I have taken issue with the legality and collateral consequences of Obama’s increased use of drone missile strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. I continue to believe that drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill and display an American arrogance that reflects poorly on American values in the Muslim world. But admittedly I am more willing to trust Obama’s instincts and decisions on these highly sensitive, secretive matters, because Obama’s words and deeds suggest he is at least sensitive to the long-term effects of American military might. Obama signed a detailed Executive Order banning torture and the “enhanced interrogation” techniques that undermined the rule of law and degraded America’s standing in the world and he has closed a number of secret detention facilities. In short, Obama acts like a Commander-in-Chief concerned for America’s long-term interests.

The Alternative. If I had lingering doubts about an Obama second term, and I do not, they would be erased by a look at the alternative. Mitt Romney is a poor second choice not because he is a bad person. I do not doubt that Mr. Romney is a relatively nice man. Like the President, he has a beautiful family and appears to have been a good father and faithful husband. But on matters of policy, on where he stands on fundamental values, on where his heart rests, I simply haven’t a clue. In Massachusetts, Romney was a moderate, pro-choice Governor who openly supported gay rights and designed a health care plan upon which the Affordable Care Act was modeled. Only six years ago, he was a strong proponent of the individual mandate, which he knew then was essential to the state’s ability to provide and pay for universal coverage. Romney has since reversed his position 180 degrees on these and so many other issues that I do not know who Mitt Romney is or what he would do if elected. To obtain his party’s nomination, Romney has proved willing to say anything. He is beholden to the right-wing extremists of his party, although I cannot help but question whether he believes everything he says, or how long it will be until he says something different. In Romney, I do not see a man with any core principles.

A Matter of Character. No president or man is perfect. Obama is no exception. He has made his share of mistakes. There is much unfinished business. The economy continues to grow at too slow a pace. Unemployment remains too high. The deficits must eventually be brought under control or the federal budget will be consumed by interest on the debt, making it more difficult for the government to do the very things liberals and progressives care most about. But I continue to believe in this president and I remain confident in America knowing he is in the White House. He has conducted himself with grace and calm in very trying times. He has managed crises and conflicts with intelligence and dignity. I trust him to do all he can to keep our troops from harm’s way while protecting the freedoms we most cherish. He believes, like I do, in a country that values fairness and productivity, safety and liberty, individual responsibility and community. I love what Obama said in Charlotte during his acceptance speech, because it summarizes precisely how I understand the essence of the American ideal:

We insist on personal responsibility, and we celebrate individual initiative. We’re not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system, the greatest engine of growth and prosperity that the world [has] ever known.

But we also believe in something called citizenship . . . a word at the very heart of our founding, a word at the very essence of our democracy, the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations. . . .

We don’t think the government can solve all of our problems, but we don’t think the government is the source of all of our problems. . . . As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us, together – through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.

It makes no sense to reverse course now. I believe too much in this country to not give this president an opportunity to finish the work he set out to do. I continue to believe that no one is better equipped to bridge the gap between red America and blue America than President Obama. He is not a Democratic president. He is an American president. And should remain so for four more years.

On the Water's Edge: Another Dose of Heschel

Our goal should be to live life in radical amazement. . . . [To] get up in the morning and look at the world in a way that takes nothing for granted. Everything is phenomenal; everything is incredible; never treat life casually. To be spiritual is to be amazed. – Abraham Joshua Heschel

Last week, Andrea and I spent time in the northernmost portions of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, on the shores of Lake Michigan, where the air is clean, the water clear, and the sky a deep blue. There is something about life at the water’s edge that causes one to reflect upon the wonders of nature and the magnificence of the Earth. Walking each morning along the shoreline and looking out over the horizon, I am humbled by the abundant beauty of the world in which we live. This is especially so where vast expanses of water meld into cloud formations that line the borders of the universe. From here, I become temporarily transported into another place and time, far from the hustle of everyday life. The country’s political divisions are muted, economic concerns set aside, the pressures of life momentarily forgotten.

The Canadian geese are at home as they congregate along the sandy beach, unhurried and content to let time pass slowly as the trees sway quietly in a late August breeze. The sun reflects off the lake’s surface as mild waves calmly swish to shore. A small boat anchored near the coastline rocks silently as the undercurrents of Lake Michigan gently caress its underside. I feel the presence of God on these walks, alone in my thoughts; the peacefulness of the universe fills me with awe.

It is times like these when I find myself revisiting the words of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, exploring once again his writings on God, religion, and the human quest for understanding. Heschel is uniquely capable of describing the ineffable. His words have a way of touching the soul and connecting God and man and nature. Although concerned primarily with issues of justice and compassion, Heschel spoke also of the mysterious wonder of God’s universe; the feelings of awe and “radical amazement” that help us gain a deeper perception of the divine. “Awareness of the divine begins with wonder,” he wrote. “Wonder rather than doubt is the root of all knowledge.”

Heschel turned religious assumptions upside down. He spoke not of humanity’s search for God, but of God’s search for man. The purpose of religion is to help us respond to God’s need for humanity, God’s challenge for us to heal and repair the world, to live at peace with one another, to lead lives of love and compassion. “The Almighty has not created the universe," he said, "that we may have opportunities to satisfy our greed, envy and ambition.”

Heschel wrote often about God, prayer, and the nature of human life, topics to which everyone, of all religious faiths, could relate. He did not waste time trying to prove the existence of God, but instead explored how we can cultivate our inner lives to become aware of God’s purpose for the human experience. His words were ecumenical in nature and resonated widely as he sought to unite rather than divide people of diverse backgrounds. To Heschel, “prayer is meaningless unless it is subversive” of humanity’s callousness and indifference. “Prayer must never be a citadel for selfish concerns but rather a place for deepening concern over other people’s plight.”

Heschel’s writings combine a universal sense of spirituality with humility and respect for the divine. He taught that God has a stake in the life of every human being and that “God’s voice speaks in many languages, communicating itself in a diversity of intuitions.”

He understood also the importance of the Sabbath; to renew the soul and find sustenance one day a week. To help us survive the materialism and spiritual degradation of modern society, a concept diminished not only among Jews but Christians as well. “Gallantly, ceaselessly, quietly, we must fight for inner liberty” to remain independent and liberated from the material world. “The Sabbath is the presence of God in the world, open to the soul of man.” Although I have never committed to its practice, I am conceptually drawn to the notion of the Sabbath as a day to reflect, study, and pray. The world would be a calmer, more fulfilling place if more people of faith practiced the Sabbath as envisioned by Heschel.

Even in a country as “religious” as the United States, the true notion of the Sabbath is mostly a relic of the past. Like Heschel, I struggle with the failures of religion in human life. Too often, instead of ennobling humanity in its search for answers to life’s ultimate questions, religious institutions are confined to creeds, rituals, dogmas, and their institutional advancement. Heschel expounded upon this in a series of lectures he gave at the University of Minnesota in 1960, published in an essay entitled “Depth Theology” in The Insecurity of Freedom: Essays on Human Existence (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1967):

[T]here is an inherent weakness of religion not to take offense at the segregation of God, to forget that the true sanctuary has no walls. Religion has often suffered from the tendency to become an end in itself, to seclude the holy, to become parochial, self-indulgent, self-seeking; as if the task were not to ennoble human nature, but to enhance the power and beauty of its institutions or to enlarge the body of doctrines. It has often done more to canonize prejudices than to wrestle for truth; to petrify the sacred than to sanctify the secular.

Heschel taught we must strive to see the world from God’s perspective; to give voice to those who suffer in silence, fight injustice, and emulate God’s compassion for human beings. He recognized the limitations of language to convey what is essentially unique, the mystery of faith and humanity’s response to God. The religious institution loses its way when “faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit.” Among the most vital dimensions of religion, often missed “because of its imponderable nature . . . is that which goes on within the person: the innerness of religion. Vague and often indecipherable, it is the heart of religious existence.”

Walking along the shores of Lake Michigan last week helped me to reawaken my sense of awe and wonder, to ponder the essence of God and nature. Upon returning to Philadelphia and confronting the reality of everyday existence, I am forced to examine life anew, to see the divine in my fellow human beings and to perceive the world through the eyes of God. It is comforting to know that we are not alone. Although incapable of complete understanding, I am reminded of God’s presence in nature, in humanity, and in the messy reality of life on Earth. As Heschel reminds us, “Just to be is a blessing. Just to live is holy.”

The Enduring Lessons of Baseball

Where we love is home,

Home that our feet may leave, but not our hearts.

--Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

There is wisdom to youth; an ability to perceive essential truths in life’s many dimensions. I reflected upon this sentiment Sunday while we drove Hannah to Washington, D.C., for her college orientation and the start of her freshman year. A warm, cloudy day, it began to rain shortly after we arrived, a small reminder from God that life at American University faces the same obstacles and pitfalls as all other destinations. As Hannah unpacked her belongings and arranged her dorm room, I experienced a moment of melancholy; a recognition that my youngest child has reached the end of an era and is about to embark on a new stage in life’s journey. I am proud of Hannah as she takes another step toward independence; and yet, hopeful optimism is tempered by a sense of loss that the little girl who so depended on me for 18 years may now find her way without me.

Sometimes it is the little things one notices on days like this, the photographs, posters, and possessions Hannah brought with her to school and which she now places on her shelf, desk, and wall. As she unpacks and puts on display the varied pieces of her brief history, I am comforted by the realization that it is these seemingly insignificant objects and symbols which document meaningful attachments and bonds between us. Whatever the future holds, there is a father-daughter connection that will endure for a lifetime.

On the shelf above her desk is a copy of Eat Bananas and Follow Your Heart (Bookstand Publishing, 2011), a collection of my past essays, dedicated to Hannah and Jennifer, which provides a permanent record of my thoughts on life, baseball, faith, and the world around us. Near the window on Hannah’s side of the room, on a small section of the wall, is a St. Louis Cardinals pennant, accompanied by a picture of David Eckstein, Hannah’s favorite player from years past. In the photograph, Eckstein is sliding into home plate, the red-and-white birds on the bat and familiar number 22 adorning his uniform. The picture is from the 2006 season, when Eckstein was World Series MVP. It was during that magical season Hannah and I forever bonded over the Cardinals, when she fully embraced the team as her own, sharing in my inexplicable, irrational, and lifelong passion. Angled on her desk is a picture of Hannah and me at the entrance to Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, each dressed in bright red Cardinals’ shirts and hats, smiling confidently, if a bit apprehensively, before entering the lion’s den on a warm summer evening.

There are certain topics Hannah and I do not much discuss – boys, the general anxieties of being a girl in the 21st century, and other areas of which I am of little help – but through our mutual love of the Cardinals we have developed a language and system of communication all our own: the combination high-five-fist-pump when the Cardinals get a hit or Yadier Molina throws out a base runner; the diagonal crisscross-hand-slap and double-fist-pump when Freese, Holliday, Beltran, or any other Cardinal player hits a home run. It is the soulful and emotional side of baseball.

Hannah is, of course, far more sane and rational in her love of the Cardinals, more selective in her expenditure of emotions for what is, after all, something over which she has no control. But she knows the heartache of the game; she understands the spiritual transcendence of connecting to a team, the joys of a winning season, and the disappointments, pain and repeated sufferings that accompany large segments of every season. She understands that baseball is a lot like life, mostly a game of failure and, in the end, often a collection of unfulfilled promises. “Baseball is the only field of endeavor,” Ted Williams often reminded us, “where a man can succeed three times out of ten and be considered a good performer.”

Baseball endures for reasons that transcend the game. To fall in love with the game as a child and to commit one’s heart to a team requires a dedication to the romance of life, a search for meaning and purpose in something larger than the game itself. When I was twelve years old, I was the best player on my little league team. I batted cleanup, pitched, and played first base. The other kids looked up to me. The coaches relied on me to give our team a chance. There was nothing in my life as important as baseball. I looked forward to each game with exuberant anticipation. And yet, whenever I stood in the on deck circle awaiting my turn at bat, my stomach filled with butterflies and anxiety lingered quietly in the batter’s box. On most occasions, I used the nervousness to my advantage. It helped me to concentrate, to focus on the ball as it left the pitcher’s hand; to decide in a split second whether to swing, or not, as I attempted to reach base and advance the cause of my team; to hit a fast-moving round ball with a long, smooth, rounded stick.

Of the many lessons I learned from baseball, perhaps the most important is that, to achieve anything worthwhile in life, we must be willing to fail more than we succeed. The game teaches that when we strike out or make an error, we will have another chance in the batter’s box, an opportunity for redemption. “God gets you to the plate,” said Williams, “but once you’re there you’re on your own.”

Everything in baseball looks easy, slow and safe. But true fans know better, for the perfection demanded of each player, the full accounting for each pitch, means that one player’s success is balanced by another player’s failure. What is certain is that, in every game, in every at-bat, someone will fail. A 12 year-old little leaguer will look at a called third strike with the bases loaded and two outs in the last inning of a tied game, and then never forgive himself for this errant moment of indecision. Two years later, he will be called out at home plate on a boneheaded running play, ending the game and missing out on a chance at being a hero and reversing the hand of fate, disappointing teammates and coaches. These truths I know from personal experience. “Every day is a new opportunity,” Bob Feller said. “You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again. That's the way life is, with a new game every day, and that's the way baseball is.”

Baseball has likely meant different things to Hannah than to me. She never played the game competitively or dreamed of playing in the Major Leagues. She was ten years old in the spring of 2004, when MLB Extra Innings and satellite television entered my life and Cardinals baseball invaded my kitchen and living room. With the nightly games broadcast on whichever room I occupied, Hannah experienced with me the ups and downs of each season’s team. As she did her homework, brushed her teeth, texted her friends, a Cardinals game was inevitably on in the background, her father inexplicably enmeshed in the outcome of each at bat.

In the summer of 2006, Hannah and I traveled to Pittsburgh to see the Cards play the Pirates. Hoping for a weekend of Albert Pujols home runs and acrobatic defensive plays by Jim Edmonds in the outfield, the season hit a low point as the Cardinals’ offense went mysteriously absent. Swept by the last-place Pirates, it was a long ride home. But as Hannah experienced with me the pain and suffering of loss, we were unexpectedly rewarded in October when the Cardinals made the post-season and, to most everyone’s surprise, won the World Series, a feat they would repeat again last year.

Over the years, Hannah has courageously accompanied me to many Cardinals-Phillies games, enduring the hostile fans of brotherly love fame. To my chagrin, she always insisted that we proudly don Cardinals t-shirts and hats in support of our team. “Stand up for your principles, Dad!” she demanded whenever I would meekly suggest that, in Philadelphia, things can get a little dicey when wearing the colors and logos of the opposition. I breathed many sighs of relief when those games ended and we arrived safely home.

It seems the Cards lost more than they won whenever we saw them in person, usually in slow, torturous fashion. But despite our bad luck, we bonded over these shared experiences. Looking back, I would not exchange the time I shared with Hannah (and Jen when she was not off at college or summer camp) for a Cardinals victory. As a father, it has always been a joy to spend time at the ballpark with my daughters, despite how miserable I become after a Cards loss. I hope to have more such experiences in the years to come, though I know time and distance may sometimes stand in the way.

With Hannah now tucked away at college, it feels a little lonelier, the quiet slightly more permanent and transparent. I find solace in knowing that, as Hannah develops into a young woman and learns to use her newfound wings, we will forever share the experience of baseball and a love of the Cardinals. Together, we will celebrate when they win and commiserate when they lose.

“There is something transformational about connecting with the game at the right time in your life, almost always in youth,” writes former major leaguer and Penn grad Doug Glanville. It is then “when you learn to fully embrace its character and every potential: the patience and endurance required, the long season, the triumph, the forgiveness. When you fall in love with this game, there is no doubt.” Even as childhood fades, we continue to know the wisdom and affection that the game imparts. Baseball endures through life’s many challenges; its appeal and intergenerational bonds remain intact even when the world becomes, as it sometimes does, a lonely, sad and pressure-filled place.

As Hannah finds her way in the world, she will inevitably make her share of errors; like the rest of us, she will strikeout and fail at times, only to wait for her next at bat. I hope that baseball has imparted a degree of wisdom, essential knowledge, and real and metaphorical life lessons that will give her the strength to confront difficulties. I trust that Hannah is, like her older sister Jen, a wiser and steadier person than I. For they understand what I occasionally forget, that in the words of Henry Stanley Haskins, regardless of how the Cardinals perform in any given year, “What lies behind us and what lies before us, are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”

The Lost Art of Disagreement

We sorely test our ability to live together if we readily question each other’s integrity.  It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being.  But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side. – Senator Edward Kennedy, October 3, 1983

During my second year of law school, I read with mild amusement in The Washington Post that then-Senator Ted Kennedy had accepted an invitation to speak at Liberty Baptist College (now Liberty University) in Lynchburg, Virginia.  Liberty Baptist was established by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, the arch-conservative founder of the Moral Majority, an organization many credit with the rise of the Christian Right in American politics.  To Falwell and most of the students at Liberty Baptist, Ted Kennedy represented everything wrong with American society.  A liberal Democrat and symbol of the American Left, Kennedy was on opposite sides of the Moral Majority on almost every conceivable issue.  Kennedy supported abortion rights and the Equal Rights Amendment, opposed prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools; he was instrumental in helping to enact federal civil rights laws, which many southerners believed undermined states’ rights and local control.  Kennedy was a passionate advocate for national health care and government’s role in alleviating poverty, pollution, and discrimination.  Even his support for a nuclear freeze offended the anti-Communist, Cold Warrior Falwell.  A Catholic from secular leaning Massachusetts, Kennedy’s world view did not fit well on a college campus that embraced Falwell’s social and political conservatism and belief in biblical literalism and fundamentalist Christian theology.  To many students at Liberty Baptist, Kennedy was a modern-day Devil.  I had difficulty imagining how a Kennedy speech in Falwell territory could possibly go well.

I was wrong.  On October 3, 1983, Kennedy appeared before a packed house and gave one of the best speeches of his career.  Kennedy mixed humor with insight and spoke from the heart.  He joked that many people in Washington were surprised that he was invited to speak at such a conservative school, and even more surprised that he had accepted.  “They seem to think that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Kennedy to come to the campus of Liberty Baptist College.”  But Kennedy understood the importance of dialogue and respect for opposing views:

I have come here to discuss my beliefs about faith and country, tolerance and truth in America.  I know we begin with certain disagreements; I strongly suspect that at the end of the evening some of our disagreements will remain.  But I also hope that tonight and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right of others to differ, that we will never lose sight of our own fallibility, that we will view ourselves with a sense of perspective and a sense of humor.

Kennedy reminded this mostly conservative Baptist audience that, as a Catholic American, he too loved his country and treasured his faith.  But he warned of the perils of absolutism and self-righteous certitude.  “I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society.”  He noted that the nation’s founders were men of varying faiths and that, while the United States shared a history of religious pluralism and tolerance, it also had experienced periods of prejudice and discrimination.  “Let us never forget:  Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.”

It is doubtful Kennedy changed many minds that day, but his willingness to address the students and faculty at Liberty Baptist College, and the polite, respectful reception provided him, helped promote, if not agreement on the substantive issues, at least mutual understanding.  Falwell had personally extended the invitation because, he said later, although most of the students opposed Kennedy’s politics, it was important that they hear and consider opposing views.  That Falwell and Kennedy could share the same podium served as witness to the importance of civil discourse and the exchange of ideas.  It demonstrated that, while liberals and conservatives may disagree on matters of policy, they share many of the same values and, as Americans who love their country and wish to make it better, differ only on how to make it so.  If we wish for a vibrant, healthy democracy, Kennedy said, “We must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree.”

Philosophically and politically, Kennedy and Falwell were diametrically opposed all their lives.  But they remained on friendly terms with each other.  When Falwell’s son applied for admission to the University of Virginia Law School (Kennedy’s alma mater), Kennedy volunteered to write a letter of recommendation and later invited the entire Falwell family to dinner at Kennedy’s house in McLean, Virginia.  Years later, when Rose Kennedy was in failing health, Kennedy invited Falwell, who at the time was in south Florida, to stop by the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach and pray with the family.  In 2005, when Falwell was hospitalized with severe pulmonary edema, he received a kind and encouraging letter from Kennedy, wishing him a quick recovery.  As Jerry Falwell, Jr., later reflected, “Both of these men understood that they could disagree without being disagreeable.  They were both lightning rods for their respective causes, but they treated each other with civility and respect.”

I note the Kennedy-Falwell story because it seems nowadays we have a diminished ability to engage in appropriate political discourse and disagreement, that we have lost a spirit of mutual respect, are less open to differing points of view, and rarely acknowledge our common humanity and good faith.

It may simply be that we are in the midst of a presidential election campaign, where every four years the airwaves are filled with out-of-context sound bites and false and misleading campaign ads (from both sides).  Democracy is a messy business.  It is why I am more comfortable with the world of ideas and policy than with the day-to-day clash of politics.

We live in an increasingly polarized world.  The rise of online news and the proliferation of cable news channels have made the world a more ideologically-entrenched place, less open to rational, civil discourse.  The American political scene operates increasingly on a mix of emotion and insecurity.  Our political leanings are reinforced, and not challenged, by the ascent of intentionally-biased news outlets, from Fox to MSNBC, and by ideologically-inspired blogs and websites.  Acerbic commentators and demagogues, mostly but not exclusively on the right (e.g., Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Ed Schultz) demonize anyone who disagrees with them and successfully energize large swaths of sheep-like followers to view Democrats, or the Obamas, or whoever needs to be attacked that day, as the enemy.  

I understand that politics, religion, and similar human endeavors do not always lend themselves to easy conclusions and reasonable disagreements.  But there are ways to discuss differences that promote honest, good faith debate, where each side has the opportunity to learn from and be challenged by the other.  Consider the days when William Buckley Jr. debated the likes of John Kenneth Galbraith and other liberal intellectuals on Firing Line. Reasoned dialogue cannot occur, however, when people absolutely convinced of the rightness of their cause begin demonizing their perceived enemies. I see it almost every day on Facebook, where a small group of “friends” post angry, bitter, ad hominem attacks (“Obama is a liar” or “Obama’s a socialist out to destroy America”), and discussion stoppers (“If you hate this country so much, why don’t you leave”). 

Name calling serves only to suppress genuine debate and disserves the democratic process.  When language is used as a weapon, it closes down debate.  Take an emotionally charged issue like abortion.  If I am called a “baby killer” or am told that to be pro-choice is to favor a new Holocaust, there is no room for reasoned discussion.  Perhaps if my pro-life friend understands that I do not think he is a woman-hating fascist, and if he accepts that I am not in favor of infanticide, we can try to reach some common ground.  Tone down the rhetoric and my opponent may learn that I, too, believe abortion is morally wrong in most cases and that, as a society we should attempt to find reasonable ways to reduce the total number of abortions.  I will never agree that abortions should be outlawed, but we may find other areas of common ground.  Perhaps if we start from a position of mutual respect, my pro-life friend will learn that I understand the intensity of his feelings and agree that abortion is indeed about the termination of a human life.  We will not need to debate the philosophical issue of when life begins.  But perhaps I can show through statistical studies that abstinence is ineffective and that prohibiting abortions will not eliminate them, but only make them unsafe and threaten our civil liberties. 

If we can acknowledge the good faith of the other, perhaps we can agree that improved sex education and access to birth control more effectively prevents unwanted pregnancies, thereby reducing abortions.  Even if we cannot agree, at least we can acknowledge that the issue is not only about the morality of abortion – no one is actually “pro-abortion” – but its legality.  At issue is not the sanctity of life, a subject on which we both agree, but whether the government has the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term simply because she and her partner made a mistake (yes, human beings are flawed), or their birth control failed, or she was raped.  The issue is not whether abortion is morally good or morally bad, or whether one of us is “pro-life” and the other “anti-life”.  No, the issue is who gets to decide?  And when does the Government have the right to force a woman, or a teenage girl, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term?

I understand that, on some issues, like health care, liberals and conservatives disagree about the fundamental values at stake.  Liberals believe that health care is a right and that a compassionate society should ensure basic health care for all its citizens.  Conservatives believe that health care is no different than any other commodity, that only those who work and earn sufficient pay are entitled to buy health care services in the free market, and that society’s only obligation is to provide emergency hospital services to those who have no other option (such as the victim of a shooting or a car accident).  In today’s political environment, such disagreements take on the dimension of a moral crusade – compassion vs. freedom; socialism vs. free enterprise.  But perhaps we can agree on certain objectives.  Can we agree that an appropriate societal goal is to develop a system that will maximize the number of people who can afford health care without undermining advances in medicine?  Can we agree that increased preventive care is an effective means of reducing health care costs?  With respectful dialogue, we can at least define common objectives and find a basis for compromise.  But this can only occur when mutual respect and good faith prevail.  It is when America works best. 

“Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress,” said Mahatma Gandhi.  Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, will continue to disagree on many issues.  But if our disagreements do not once again become civil and respectful; if we refuse to acknowledge the inherent goodness of the other and proceed with humility, recognizing that none of us has all the answers and that good ideas exist on both sides, we will no longer progress as a democratic society or find a common basis for our citizenship.  And then our democracy will be troubled.  As Senator Kennedy told the students at Liberty Baptist College nearly thirty years ago, “[T]he choice lies within us; as fellow citizens, let us live peaceable with each other; as fellow human beings, let us strive to live peaceably with men and women everywhere.”

Lessons from Aurora: A Search for Common Ground

It is on days like this that we are reminded of how much more alike than different we are, when we see that tears have no color, when ideologies melt into a common heart broken by sorrow. – Charles Blow, The New York Times, July 20, 2012

Columbine.  Virginia Tech.  Tucson.  Aurora.  The meaning of each place was forever altered by the random violence of troubled people. When news of a mass shooting first breaks, we are immediately confronted with images of guns, death, and violence, the blood of victims, and the tears of friends and family.  As a parent, I know that but for the grace of God have I not received that frightening call, to learn that my child is the victim of a random, senseless shooting, at a school, a college campus, a political event, a movie theater. In Aurora, as elsewhere, memorials will be built, foundations established, and vigils held.  “Where there is sorrow there is holy ground,” wrote Oscar Wilde. 

I wish I could write that these events are a relatively new phenomena in the United States, or that however tragic, are exceedingly rare.  We are America, after all, the home of the free and the land of the brave. But it takes very little searching to realize that this simply is not so. Sadly, tragically, indiscriminate shootings occur all too frequently within our borders.  According to Time magazine, the United States averages nearly 20 shootings every year in which four or more people die.  Aurora is only the latest example.  The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has compiled a 62-page list of over 400 mass shootings that have occurred since 2005.  They seem almost routine:

• On July 17, three days before the Aurora shooting, a gunman stood outside of a crowded bar in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and opened fire, injuring seventeen people.
• On July 9, in Dover, Delaware, gunfire erupted at a weekend soccer tournament, killing three people and wounding two more.
• Over Memorial Day weekend, Chicago experienced 40 shootings and ten murders.
• On April 2, seven people were killed and three wounded during a shooting rampage at a religious vocational school in Oakland, California.
• On March 30, fourteen people were shot when three men opened fire on rival gang members.
• On March 8, a gunman opened fire in the lobby of a psychiatric hospital in Pittsburgh, killing one person and wounding seven more, including a police officer.
• On March 3, in Tempe, Arizona, fourteen people were shot when three men opened fire on rival gang members.
• On February 27, in Chardon, Ohio, a disturbed student randomly opened fire at a group of high school students sitting at a table.  Three teenage students were killed and two seriously wounded.
• On February 26, in Jackson, Tennessee, 20 people were wounded and one killed during a shooting at a nightclub.

It is a list without end.  The truth is made worse by the reality that virtually no one in American political life has the guts or courage to speak out against the insanity of an American-bred culture of guns and violence that serves only to breed guns and violence. 

“The bitterest tears shed over graves,” admonished Harriet Beecher Stowe, “are for words left unsaid and deeds left undone.”  It is time for the nation to search its soul, to come together and develop solutions to an all too American problem.

They say that “guns don’t kill people – people kill people.”  But when we equate liberty with the right of gun dealers and manufacturers to sell their death-molding instruments to as many people as possible; when we equate freedom with the right to buy as many weapons and bullets as one desires, we cannot be surprised when people use these instruments in destructive ways. 

We live in a nation with an historical link and emotional connection to guns; in some circles, the right to bear arms is more sacred than the freedom of speech or the right of assembly, the separation of church and state or the right to privacy.  Politicians fear the gun lobby.  Money talks and the gun lobby is loaded with money.  American democracy and public safety have become collateral damage of a nation with a warped sense of the common good.  “The fault,” said Shakespeare, “is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

We are nation of 300 million guns and few restrictions.  There are nearly nine privately-owned guns for every ten American citizens.  In most states, it is easier to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon than it is to get a driver’s license; easier to buy a gun, or two or three, than to buy a car or open a bank account. Toy guns are more highly regulated than real ones.  Is it any wonder, then, that 30,000 Americans die every year from gun related deaths, while 100,000 of us are assaulted by guns?  What does it say about us as a people that, since the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy in 1968, over one million Americans have died from gunshot wounds? 

When 24-year-old James Holmes walked into a packed Aurora movie theater last week, he had in his possession two pistols, a shotgun, and a military-style AR-15 with a 100-round clip.  He had legally purchased all of his weaponry, along with a cache of 6,000-bullets.  For much of his arsenal, Holmes needed only a credit card and an internet connection.  And yet, after he opened fire, killing twelve innocent people and wounding 58 more, we acted shocked and surprised and talked about not politicizing the tragedy.  A few days later, we went about business as usual. 

For the survivors of Aurora, and the families and friends of those who perished for no reason other than that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the tears and sorrow will linger for a lifetime.  “As we do when confronted by moments of darkness and challenge,” offered President Obama after the tragic shooting, “we must now come together as one American family.”

In the end, this is mostly an American problem.  We must develop our own solutions.  “The world is full of suffering,” said Helen Keller, “it is also full of overcoming it.”  It is time for common sense to prevail; to start a national conversation on everything from gun safety to the adequacy of our mental health system. 

Gun proponents must accept the need for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.  They must stop treating every attempt to restrict the unlimited sale of assault weapons and easy access to guns and ammunition as a threat to freedom.  Guns are not toys; they are instruments of death.  If we are going to allow ordinary citizens to own them, as a society we should be permitted to place a substantial burden on the individual to establish that he or she can be trusted with a gun.  Conversely, advocates of gun control must accept that there exists a long history and tradition of gun ownership in this country.  We must find a way to communicate in a manner that understands an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms and recognizes that there are many safe, responsible gun owners; and that laws alone will not prevent a determined, mentally disturbed person from accessing and using a firearm.  But we should not make it easy for him.

Among the victims in Aurora was Veronica Moser Sullivan, a six year-old girl with a beautiful smile; three men in their mid-twenties, each of whom died while shielding and saving the lives of their girlfriends; a 24 year-old woman who was an aspiring journalist; a 27 year-old Navy technician; a 51 year-old father who had accompanied his two teenage children to the movie; a 32 year-old mother of two; a 29 year-old Air Force reservist; an 18 year-old recent high school graduate; a 23 year-old woman who had saved her money and planned to travel abroad; and a 27 year-old man who died on his birthday, days before his first wedding anniversary.  “In the night of death, hope sees a star,” wrote Robert Ingersoll, “and listening love can hear the rustle of a wing.”  It is time to find common ground, to set aside partisan differences and develop ways to prevent another Aurora.  We owe it to the victims of the Aurora shootings.  We owe it to their families.  We owe it to each other.

Is America Possible? A Mid-Summer Reflection

A spirit of harmony can only survive if each of us remembers, when bitterness and self-interest seem to prevail, that we share a common destiny. – Barbara Jordan

The Fourth of July came and went this year in the midst of a summer heat wave. During a mid-week flash of high temperatures and humidity, the sweltering sun and oppressive air lingered deep into the evening twilight hours. The large oak trees surrounding our house in Jenkintown politely offered a gentle shade but little relief from temperatures exceeding 100 degrees over much of the country. I decided a new grill could wait.

Within a few days began major league baseball’s annual mid-Summer break, a brief solace from the long, daily grind of the 162-game season that is America’s pastime. As I watched on television these elite ballplayers, the best of the best, compete in this year’s All-Star game, I was struck by the amicable diversity that is baseball today; whites, Latinos, blacks, and Asians, some hailing from far-off lands and speaking the languages of their native tongues, playing an American-born game in a uniquely American setting; a medley of cultures and personalities bonded by the common language of baseball. It is America at its best, a socially harmonious meritocracy, where the competition is fair, the grass and dirt between the foul lines lacking prejudged barriers. It was not always so, but for most of the past sixty-five years, ever since Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby broke baseball’s color barriers in the National and American Leagues, baseball has helped America become a better reflection of itself.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . The Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson and signed 236 years ago by 56 of our revolutionary forefathers, remains a powerful reminder of the possibility of America. These words continue to resonate, and speak to us, for they inspired a new nation and laid the foundation for sweeping social movements, for the end of slavery and the embrace of civil rights, to create a recognizably modern United States.

Still, there remains a lingering sense of dissatisfaction. The Declaration embodies an ideal of what the nation could someday be, but has not yet achieved. “I, too, sing America,” reminded the poet Langston Hughes in 1931. “I am the darker brother. They send me to eat in the kitchen.” For 175 years before our declared independence, and for the first seventy years of our national existence, nearly one of every eight people on the American continent, many brought here by whips and chains, were treated as chattel, recognized neither as citizens nor persons. “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?” asked Frederick Douglass in 1852. It is, he answered, “a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

By 1860, nearly four million people in the United States (out of a total population of 31 million) were the property of slave owners. In Mississippi and Louisiana, the number of slaves exceeded the number of free citizens; in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, close to half of the population was enslaved. It took a violent and bloody civil war that cost the lives of 618,000 Union and Confederate soldiers to finally abolish slavery on the American continent. It took another hundred years before America’s promise could become possible with the defeat of Jim Crow and the end of legalized segregation. Even then, from the descendants of slaves and the sons and daughters of sharecroppers and cotton pickers could be heard Hughes’ cry, “America has never been America to me.” For many of the black underclass in our inner cities today, the poetry of Hughes continues to hit home: “O, let America be America again – The land that never has been yet – And yet must be – the land where every man is free.”

In the annals of history, no nation on Earth can boast of a perfectly just society. That America sought “to form a more perfect Union” as set forth in the Preamble to our Constitution, is a testament to our high aspirations, the uniqueness of the American ideal, and our peoples’ willingness to engage in an historic struggle to better humankind; to open minds and mend hearts. But to fulfill a national promise and pursue an ideal takes time. Advances come slowly.

When I was nine years old, I read From Ghetto to Glory (Popular Library, 1968), an autobiographical account of the life of St. Louis Cardinals pitching great, Bob Gibson. Born in the slums of Omaha, Nebraska, the youngest of seven children, Gibson described what it was like to grow up poor and black in America, before Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights advances of the 1960’s, when segregation and racism prevailed throughout much of the country. This one book, about a childhood hero of mine, did as much to influence in positive ways my sense of racial justice as almost anything else in my life at that time. It is often the little things, a book (To Kill a Mockingbird), a movie (The Help, The Great Debaters), or a play (A Raisin in the Sun) that permits a nation to develop the empathy and understanding needed to slowly transform hearts and minds.

. . . that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Perhaps no phrase better personifies the American Dream than the right of Americans to the “Pursuit of Happiness.” To choose one’s profession or occupation, buy a home, educate our children, and enjoy the fruits of our land’s abundant resources are what drive American optimism and middle-class dreams of a bright future. But here, too, we have disappointed. In too many aspects of life, in matters of economics, politics, and finance, housing and health care, education and opportunities for advancement, money and wealth matter to an unhealthy degree. Not since the eve of the Great Depression has inequality and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small few been greater than it is today. When the top 1% of income earners boasts of more net worth than the bottom 90%, and the top 0.01% of households (about 14,000) receives more income than the poorest 25 million households; when corporate money maintains undue influence over our political life and public purse, and the Supreme Court fails to distinguish between free speech and unfettered corporate power, the idea of America remains unfulfilled.

“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor,” said John F. Kennedy on a cold, bright January day in 1961, “it cannot save the few who are rich.” Only when homelessness and large-scale poverty are things of the past; when good jobs are guaranteed to all who want to work; when health care is a right and not a privilege and our public education is among the best in the world; when racial and ethnic disparities are eliminated and children of all backgrounds have a fighting chance to succeed on equal terms with everyone else; only then, will America truly be America.

Is America possible? In some areas of American life – in sports, art, and music; in public accommodations; in the ethnic and racial makeup of our elected leaders in many of America’s largest cities – the idea and promise of America has taken root. African Americans today are listed among the ranks of CEO’s and Congressmen, news anchors and police chiefs, military generals and big city mayors. Four years ago, we elected our first African American president. We are, indeed, a land of opportunity, where class and race and prejudice can be overcome through hard work, education, and a little luck. But as I walk the streets of Philadelphia, I see another, darker side of America; an America where the mentally ill homeless wander the streets, beg for food and sleep on park benches; where pockets of extreme poverty and despair exist on the outskirts of high-priced condominiums and four-star restaurants, hidden from tourists and commuters. Black unemployment in our major cities is more than double the national average, fueling the scourge of drugs, crime, and violence that has plagued us for decades. For the forgotten underclass, America has not yet arrived.

I love America and its boundless energy, the diversity of its people, its natural beauty and abundant resources, its creativity and ingenuity. For me, a white man with a middle-class upbringing, a loving and supportive family, and a good education, America has been everything it promised, a land of free choices that allows the individual to pursue happiness and struggle with disappointment on his or her own terms. But some people seem to love a country that never existed and despise the country we have become. For those willing to impose a higher, more honest standard, we must acknowledge that the promise of equality in the Declaration of Independence, our aspirations “to form a more perfect Union” in the Constitution, our dreams of “liberty and justice for all” in the Pledge of Allegiance, have at times fallen short. To express genuine love for one’s country requires not uncritical praise, but an honest dialogue with a true friend. We should celebrate our accomplishments and appreciate our history. We must also recognize our failings and press for change.

When we work together and embrace our common destiny, we can do great things. Like a good baseball team, we do best when we strive to achieve our individual potential while supporting, backing up, and recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of our teammates, regardless of ethnic and racial differences. Together, we have created a rich and vibrant democracy, with a spirited and noisy public square; we have developed some of the world’s greatest universities, museums, research centers, newspapers, and public institutions; we have a dynamic and innovative economy and a strong work ethic; we are a land of diversity and beauty and energy. But we must never lose sight of our aspirations. “We have flown the air like birds and swum the sea like fishes,” said Martin Luther King, “but have yet to learn the simple act of walking the earth like brothers.

A Few Thoughts on Health Care

What we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country. – Edward M. Kennedy

In upholding the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court has settled for now the Constitutional authority of the President and the Congress to move the nation one step closer to universal health insurance for all. We still have a long way to go; more than 15 million people remain uncovered under the President’s health reform law and, because of the Court’s ruling, the proposed expansion of Medicaid is in some jeopardy, particularly in states like Texas and Louisiana, which seem determined to undermine the law. We still have the most expensive and least universal system of medical care in the developed world. But despite an entrenched and recalcitrant opposition, a Republican Party that has abandoned any attempt at responsible opposition and is instead interested only in the President’s defeat and which offers no reasonable alternatives to repeal, we have in place now a more just, more fair, and more universal health care system. No longer will medical care be restricted to only those who qualify for Medicare; or who are fortunate enough (like me) to work for a company or organization that provides good health benefits; or who work for the government, the military, or Congress. We are today a better, more egalitarian country.

With the Supreme Court’s affirmation, President Obama has achieved what no President before him accomplished. Starting with Theodore Roosevelt, who called for a national health system in 1912, in the past century we have witnessed Presidents repeatedly try and fail to enact some form of national health insurance. Harry Truman wrote in his memoirs that among his most “bitter disappointments as president,” what “has troubled me most, in a personal way, has been the failure to defeat the organized opposition to a national compulsory health insurance program.” John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson (who succeeded in enacting Medicare), Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton each tried and failed to enact comprehensive health care reform and universal coverage for all Americans. And while Obama’s plan does not quite accomplish the broad-based, universal national health plans contemplated by Roosevelt and Truman, it is nevertheless a singular achievement in American history.

With all the focus lately on the Supreme Court and the political impact of its decision, it is easy to forget why the issue of health care is so paramount. The need for expanded access to affordable health care is a matter that directly impacts the lives, and the economic and physical survival, of millions of Americans. For those with diabetes, Crohn’s disease, severe allergies or sinus conditions, cancer, heart disease, chronic pain, or the many other illnesses and ailments that cause humans to suffer and fear for the wellbeing of their families, the ability to obtain and pay for health care is a very personal matter. No one in this country should ever be faced with the choice between economic ruin and needed medical treatment. “Death and taxes aren’t the only certain things in life,” writes Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic. “Accident, illness, and injury are too. They’ve plunged the lives of plenty of Americans, even those who thought they had good insurance, into financial and physical chaos.”

Consuming nearly one-fifth of our economic resources, the United States has the most expensive health care system in the world. We spend per capita nearly twice as much as other industrialized nations. And yet, we don’t get better results. Compared to most countries with universal health coverage, Americans have lower life expectancies, higher infant mortality rates, and lower immunization rates. It should not be this way. Canadians spend about one-half of what we do on health care and enjoy excellent medical care. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. health care system ranks 37th in the world. American Exceptionalism? Clearly not exceptional or acceptable.

Before passage of the Affordable Care Act, 42 million Americans had no health insurance at all, and millions more were substantially underinsured. Disproportionately represented among the uninsured are the poor, the sick, and racial minorities. Many families are one illness or one layoff away from bankruptcy. The Act does not solve all of our problems, but it means that an insurance company can no longer refuse to cover someone with a pre-existing condition, or drop someone from their policy who becomes sick; and that parents can, if necessary, continue to insure their sons and daughters until the age of 26. It expands health insurance coverage to nearly 30 million people who were previously without any insurance, thus reducing the burdens and cost inefficiencies of the nation’s emergency rooms. Over the next couple of years, the Obama reforms will begin implementing new incentives for hospitals to deliver more efficient care and for more physicians to practice primary care. And it stops insurance companies from cherry-picking the people they cover.

We have been fighting over health care for most of my lifetime. Why does the United States, alone among all of the industrialized countries of the world, fail to guarantee health care to all of its citizens? Why are we so resistant to change the way we finance and administer health care in this country? Perhaps it is because we have always treated medical care as a market commodity instead of a social service. Except for those eligible under Medicare (the elderly) and Medicaid (the very poor), health care is regarded in this country as a privilege available only to those who can afford to pay for it. For the 60% of Americans that can afford it, or have been provided by their employers with comprehensive health insurance, the system works just fine. But tens of millions of others are one sick child away from homelessness. This is unacceptable in a country as rich and powerful as the United States.

I believe that basic health care is a right, not a privilege. “[Q]uality care shouldn’t depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face,” Ted Kennedy often reminded us during his lifelong quest for national health insurance. “Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.” While most of us rely on employer provided health plans, not all employers offer benefits, and some offer less comprehensive benefits than others. When unemployment rises and employers have less need to attract workers, the health benefits they offer are often reduced or eliminated. It is the nature of a capitalist economy. As one of my law professors said to my first-year class at George Washington University in 1982, “If you are concerned about morality and the public good, Divinity School is across the street.”

The Affordable Care Act is far from perfect and only begins to address some of our most fundamental problems. I would prefer a single-payer, national health insurance system based on the many superior models that exist, including in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, and many other capitalist-based democracies. Whatever flaws exist in those systems, and none are perfect, no one has to fear bankruptcy when they are sick. All citizens have equal access to quality medical care and can freely choose their doctors. Ask anyone from Canada and Europe about the U.S. health care system, and you are likely to receive, at best, a polite stare.

How can any informed person who is not wealthy think that a system based on private insurance is better than public health care? How can we look at per capita spending on health care in the United States, the bankruptcies, the unnecessary deaths, and the comparably weak health outcomes, and possibly defend our system against those of Europe, Canada, Israel, and Australia? Americans need to open themselves to the possibility that not everything we do is always the best. As Mark Twain once said, “You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”

While markets are effective for many goods and services, they are not the proper model for preventive medicine, hospital care, and medical services. When we treat health care as a commodity distributed according to one’s ability to pay, rather than a service provided according to medical need, we wind up with insurance companies and for-profit care providers trying to avoid risky, unprofitable patients and shifting costs back to patients. We should not blame the insurance companies for this reality. Investor-owned, for-profit entities exist to make money for their shareholders and equity owners, not to provide its services to as many people as possible. As Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, said in 2003, “We are the only nation in the world with a health care system based on dodging sick people.”

Our nation has always been too afraid and paranoid to enact a national health plan. We pride ourselves on individualism and resist community-based, government-led efforts to provide for all. The Affordable Care Act does not change these basic values. It is a private-based-insurance-company-led law that merely expands coverage to a portion of citizens previously uncovered. Politics is the art of the possible, and perhaps this was the best that could be accomplished in today’s political environment. There is simply too much money at stake, too many lobbyists representing powerful industries, too much media hype and misunderstanding to address the needs of the least powerful members of society. Someday, I hope, we will expand coverage further and enact truly universal, national health insurance, so that none of us will be at the mercy of an insurance company for our life and death needs. For now, I am grateful that we have moved one step closer to a more socially just health care system.