March 25, 2013-- Shibboleths

I've spend considerable time during the past few years thinking about political shibboleths--specifically, why conservatives continue to believe in policies that have been proven time-after-time not to be true or that don't work.

Like cut taxes on the wealthy and watch how that creates jobs. (It doesn't.) Or invade places such as Iraq and democracy will spread throughout the region. (It didn't.) Or how Obamacare will lead to "death panels." (It doesn't.) Or how privatizing public schools and giving vouchers to parents to offset the cost of private education will lead to enhanced student outcomes. (They don't.)

You get the picture.

So while standing on my high-progressive-horse and pointing out these self-deceptions (or cynical panderings) I never felt the equivalent need to search to see if there are liberal versions.

Since liberals are objective minded, I have myself convinced, and take positions that are evidence-based, no need to do much more than refine what we already know to be the truth. And while doing that, stand back and enjoy watching how Republicans tie themselves up in absurdities or, at best, in belief-driven ideologies that can't stand up to close, empirical scrutiny.

While wondering out load about this--checking myself out to see if I have been guilty of embracing a few shibboleths of my own--Rona asked, "What about welfare reform?"

"That's worth thinking about," I acknowledged. "How we liberals said when Clinton agreed to go along with Republican efforts to end it 'as we know it,' it would turn out to be a disaster."

"That millions on welfare," Rona said, "would wind up living on the streets. And how . . ."

"That really didn't happen."

"And how research about its impact shows that welfare-to-work, though not perfect, works pretty well."

"That's a good example," I confessed. "How about Medicare reform? Is that another example of us believing in something that may turn out not to be true?"

"For instance?"

"For instance, when it was enacted by Congress in 1965, we already knew there was a huge Baby Boom population bulge so that beginning in about 2005 a great many Americans would be eligible for it. If the framers were paying attention, when thinking about the long-term costs, they could, should have taken that into consideration."

"And also that life expectancy would increase and that too would have significant costs associated with it."

"Right. So let's assume that the econometrics at the time took that into consideration--though I doubt that they ran the numbers sufficiently. But then between 1965 and now there have been all sorts of medical advances that were not anticipated and which are very expensive to administer."

"For example, I don't think MRIs and CAT scans were in widespread use then, maybe not yet even  invented."

"The MRI was invented in the early 50s, so that's a good example."

"We could make a long list of tests, surgeries, therapies, pharmaceuticals--all quiet expensive--that have come into existence during the nearly 50 years since Medicare was legislated."

"So combining longer lives and the many new and very costly things that can be done to and for you, there has not been a restructuring of the Medicare funding formulas. This is one reason why it alone will eventually bankrupt the country."

Rona said, "Maybe this is one of your liberal beliefs--to ignore the unanticipated costs of these demographic realities and advances in health care services while resisting any structural reexamination of the program itself and what it provides."

"That maybe because we prefer to ignore the evidence in order to continue to be able to believe what we want to believe, we are acting inconsistently, in ways similar to how we claim conservatives behave."

"Some,"Rona smiled, "would call it hypocrisy.