Corruption: A Natural Outgrowth of the Unitary Executive Theory

With each and every week bringing to light new disclosures of apparent corruption and cronyism within the George W. Bush administration, I am reminded of the last president we had who brought into his administration individuals who put ideology above the common interest and were amply rewarded for doing so--Ronald Reagan. Both presidents were champions of a new elite--an elite comprising not those persons of superior intellect or ability but rather those of unquestioned loyalty to a particular point of view.

When coupled with the particular point of view of this administration--that is, belief in the almost unlimited power of the commander-in-chief in times of war (the Unitary Executive Theory) and the accumulation of vast personal wealth and power over all other considerations--our nation is confronted, as it is today, with a grave threat to its reputation around the world, its self-confidence at home, and its rule of law.

Corruption flows from such an environment as naturally as mountain streams from a glacier. When loyalty is the most important character trait from the top of an administration down to the lowly paper shufflers, unquestioning obedience trumps altruism every time. If you do what you are told, you know that you will be protected--from having to testify before Congress or appear before a grand jury to having a lucrative job when you leave. If you leak information or squeal on a fellow, you lose your entire social network overnight. No administration I can think of has mastered this system better than the present one.

Given this environment, it is only natural for people to think they can get away with anything. Just think of the stuff that this administration has done with complete impunity compared to the problems that the previous administration had over a perjury related to a purely private matter.

All this is made worse by the attitude of the neo-conservatives that they are on a mission to democratize the world and thus immortalize themselves as champions of all that is noble and good. In their minds, the ends justify the means, no matter who or what they have to stomp on to get there, including the US Constitution.

My hope is that the American people have learned a lesson from the past seven years. I hope that they recognize that the Republican Party of the past 30 years is not the Party they thought they knew (if they've been around that long). The Republican Party of today is not a "party" at all. A "party" is a gathering of disparate people under one banner for a particular purpose, whether that be having fun or running a country. The Republican Party, in its current manifestation, is more like a club--perhaps the world's largest country club. You must pay your dues to enter the Republican Party today; those dues include promising to vote with your peers on every issue, memorizing the Party talking points, and keeping your mouth shut about what goes on behind closed doors.

My Notes on a George Lakoff Lecture on His Latest Book

GEORGE LAKOFF LECTURE, JUNE 9, 2008, CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DENVER, CO, USA—

[George Lakoff teaches at the University of California at Berkeley in the field of Cognitive Science and Linguistics. His new book is titled, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century Politics with an 18th-Century Brain.]

Why do people vote against their self-interest? Why do Democrats cower before attacks from the other side?

Democrats operate from a philosophy that might be called the “Theory of Mind”, which says that all thought is reasoned, rational, and conscious. This philosophy contends that politics is disembodied and abstract, the purpose of which is to pursue self-interest.

BUT…

Now we know from recent research on the mind that ALL OF THESE BELIEFS ARE FALSE. We now know, for example, that 85% of all reasoning is UNCONSCIOUS. It is a PHYSICAL process over which we have little conscious control. The brain is structured to run a body via trillions of neurons. The brain can’t think just any way at all; it doesn’t always fit the world as it is. Furthermore, it can’t be rational without being emotional.

Stroke or injury can destroy our ability to feel emotion. How, then, would we know what to want? We wouldn’t. We MUST HAVE EMOTION IN ORDER TO REASON.

Cultural Narratives

[Ed.: Please excuse me if I take some undue liberty here in explaining complex processes in the brain about which I know very little. I’m interpreting my somewhat cryptic notes here and may not have this technically accurate, despite my attempts to sort some of it out using Wikipedia.]

There are two chemicals in the brain that regulate our emotions: dopamine and epinephrine (adrenaline). Dopamine is associated with reward-seeking behavior, such as the desire for food or other pleasant stimulation—what Lakoff calls “good emotions”. Epinephrine is associated with “fight or flight” responses and stress—what Lakoff calls “bad emotions”. When politicians’ words trigger the dopamine response, they are thought of as “good guys or gals” and they tend to win; when they trigger the epinephrine response, they are thought of as “bad guys or gals” and they tend to lose.

Framing

Shortly after beginning his lecture, a young man brought Dr. Lakoff a paper cup filled with what appeared to be a hot liquid. Upon receiving it, Dr. Lakoff quipped that, just as conservatives suspect of all liberals, he likes his latte. Later, he used the cup to illustrate what he means by “framing”. When a person hears the word “cup”, he or she makes an unconscious association through neurons in his or her brain. He or she forms a mental picture of what a cup looks like and its function—the very definition of a “cup”.

Sometimes, these neural pathways form associations that have moral connotations (metaphors). For example, the word “more” is associated with “up”, as in “fill it up”. The “less” is associated with “down”, as in “the stock market is down”. Affectionate people are thought of as “warm”; indifferent people are thought of as “cold”. These associations are physically activated in the brain instantaneously, without conscious thought. Each time the associations are made, the synapses—the physical connections between nerve endings in the brain—are strengthened (they spread and grow). Over time, they become very strong—second nature, so to speak.

In terms of politics, we as individuals are first “governed” by our nuclear families. In Lakoff’s view, there are TWO IDEALS OF THE FAMILY. If you’ve read either of Lakoff’s books on framing, Moral Politics or Don’t Think of an Elephant, you’re familiar with these.

The first he calls the “strict father” model. In this model, children are raised by a mother and father with clearly defined roles, with the father being dominant. Misbehavior must be punished, often physically, even at times painfully. The values behind this model are self-sufficiency, competency, and ambition. It is felt that these qualities will lead to success in life and, therefore, productive contribution to society. Possession of these qualities is deemed to be moral. Therefore, wealth is an indication that the person possesses these qualities in abundance and should be left alone by government. (Lakoff points out—notably--that many persons with this outlook on life had happy childhoods, despite having to submit to corporal punishment.) In these families, the parents believe that when the child reaches the age of 25 or so, they should be able to survive entirely on their own. Likewise, government should leave people alone to make their own decisions in most areas of life, including how they spend their money.

The second family model is what he calls “nurturing parent”. This value seeks to impart in its offspring the values of empathy, responsibility for others, and self-fulfillment. The duty of the family is to protect the child while she or he is vulnerable and empower the child to pursue happiness as s/he sees fit. Out of this view of the family grows the idea that government, too, should protect and empower the people. Empowerment is achieved via the courts and a regulated stock market and banking system.

Lakoff talked about “mirror neurons”. When you see or hear someone laugh, we tend to laugh with them. (Think of the laugh track on sitcoms.) The same neurons in our brains are activated when seeing someone else laugh as are activated when someone tells us a joke. This is the source of empathy.

Voting against self-interest

Voting against self-interest is NOT AN ACCIDENT. IT’S ALL ABOUT “COGNITIVE POLICY” OR FRAMES.

Conservatives have for forty years understood the connection between winning elections and framing. (Liberals have yet to get it.) If you can create in the minds of your listeners or seers a connection between an neutral political device, say, taxes, and “bad emotions”, you can change the way they think about your candidate. One way to do that is to ALWAYS associate two concepts together in a frame that gets the epinephrine flowing. (Remember that epinephrine is the chemical in the brain associated with “fight or flight”.) So, if we talk about “tax relief”, the brain AUTOMATICALLY AND UNCONSCIOUSLY associates “taxes” with “pain”. Combine that with the “strict father” notion of government as a body that neither empowers nor protects but merely gets in the way of “the market” and you have built a strong case for voting for the anti-tax candidate WITHOUT BOTHERING WITH A SINGLE FACT.

This is why it is so difficult to win political arguments. You cannot change someone’s mind without changing their brain. [This is why I have so little faith in bipartisanship in Congress. The only way to pass progressive legislation is to numerically overwhelm the opposition.—Ed.]

Democrats used to be champions of the working class (remember the New Deal?). Because of the Republicans’ effective use of frames, Dems are now looked upon by many as “liberal elitists”.

We all have BOTH parent models in our brains. A moderate has both models on political issues. But there is no such thing as a “moderate parenting model”. On some issues, one neuron pair can neutralize another neuron pair, making the individual “liberal” on some issues and “conservative” on others. Joe Lieberman is a “hawk” on the war and a “liberal” socially. Chuck Hagel is for peace in Iraq but conservative on other issues.

People vote against their own economic interests because of what Lakoff calls “conservative populism”. (Lakoff pointed out that neither Thomas Frank, author of What’s the Matter with Kansas, nor Al Gore, author of The Assault on Reason, seems to grasp this concept.) Conservatives who love the outdoors, while they might oppose smart growth legislation, may team up with environmentalists to stop development that would diminish fishing or hunting opportunities. Some self-described “conservative” entrepreneurs are quite liberal in their business practices. Pro-labor “liberals” may be rabidly anti-immigrant.

There is hope for dialogue between liberals and conservatives. But, first, we must get past the argument over specific policies and “the facts” and get to the question, “What do you care about?”. Get your “opponent” to talk about what’s in their hearts. Perhaps you’ll find something in common that you both value—caring, empathy, freedom, or fairness.

Bipartisanship

There are two means of achieving bipartisanship. For Sen. Clinton, bipartisanship means that the progressives move to the right, meeting the opposition half-way. For Sen. Obama, bipartisanship means finding the conservatives who have liberal values on a particular issue, such as John McCain on campaign finance reform or Church Hagel on setting a timetable to withdraw from Iraq.

[This was the end of his talk. He then took Q&A from the audience. Most of the questions were about how to frame the case for selling ballot initiatives or legislation. The following are my notes from that back-and-forth…]

On the Peter Barnes’ Carbon-Cap-and-Dividend bill before Congress:

Speaker on the philosophy behind the bill: We all own the air. Polluters should pay for polluting. If you want to impose a fee for the extraction of polluting fuels, do so at the source. Ratchet down the cap on CO2 emissions by 2% per year, meaning that the cost of polluting will go up. Make the oil and gas companies bid against each other for the right to pollute by auctioning off pollution credits. The money raised—estimated to be about $1000 per person for 150 million taxpayers—would be distributed equally to each citizen.

Lakoff on oil and gas severance taxes: Don’t call anything a “severance tax”. This is bad framing. “Oil depletion fee” would be good.

Lakoff on other questions: Liberals must take back the good words that we have forfeited: freedom and liberty (others?). “Single-payer health care”—bad framing. “Doctor-patient-run health care” is better. (HB676—good). Say what you really mean. Say what values are behind your idea. Then, say why it isn’t crazy. [Show how your values are served by your policy proposal.—Ed.]

The Case against Moderation, Part I

Everywhere I go for political wisdom these days, I'm hearing stuff like, "The way to victory is for the progressives to move toward the middle, the center of American political thought. That's where the votes are--the independents and the undecideds that can be the key to victory. Change will come but we must be patient, finding middle ground where we can and waiting for calmer waters when we can't."

Well, no doubt, patience is a virtue--when virtue is plentiful. The problem is that that's no longer the case. Ultra-rightist thinking has dominated our national policy for the past seven years now--soon to be eight. As a result, we are in such a pickle that, in order to restore balance, the pendulum will have to swing just as far to the left, though without the name-calling and obstreperousness.

[Queer question (question you are not likely to hear while listening to NPR or PBS): Why is it that it is the liberals who are always advocating for caution, measured steps, moderation, and compromise? Hasn't it been the liberals who have been the ones to move the country forward toward real progress (as opposed to conquest)? Haven't we been the ones who have woven the safety net, balanced the budget, created sustained stock market growth, and brought justice and freedom to more people? Why should we feel that it is US who must compromise our principles in order to achieve anything?]

I'll tell you why. It's because we know that the other side is fundamentally incapable of moderation. This didn't used to be true of Republicans but it certainly is now. These ideologues, with few exceptions, only understand one thing and that is power. We on the left must realize that we will only save the planet and nation by going over them, not around or alongside them. They are only concerned about preserving their power. We are the only ones concerned about the common good, solving more problems than we create, and passing on to future generations an American Dream worthy of the name. Centrism, as George Lakoff claims, is not a political philosophy at all but rather a strategy. Unfortunately, it is too little, too late to make a real difference. This I firmly believe. It is why I believe that, ultimately, the Clinton administration was a failed one. He sold the heart of the Democratic Party for political expediency. He, more than any other man, made the word "liberal" anathema.

I still say that we need another FDR. Sure, he campaigned as a centrist. But when he was in office, he governed as a liberal and he saved the nation from its greatest crises of the 20th Century (and I'm not forgetting the Cold War here). He was not afraid of the backlash. In fact, he said that he "welcomed" the hatred of the elite who called him a traitor to his class. His courage and wisdom won him reelection twice. THAT is the lesson that I hope Barack Obama learns when he is in office.

Rove Redux?

Here's how "Sebastian", writing live from the Network of Rectal Aspirators (NRA) "Celebration of American Values" event yesterday for his blog, Snowflakes from Hell, characterized John McCain's comment on Barack Obama's willingness to talk to Iran's leaders: "McCain takes Obama to task for wanting to talk to our enemies instead of just kicking their asses." (You gotta love the NRA-types' grasp of diplomacy.)

Here are McCain's actual words:

Senator Obama would meet unconditionally with some of the world's worst dictators and state sponsors of terrorists. I would not add to the prestige of those who support violent extremists or seek to destroy our allies....Senator Obama has said, if elected, he will withdraw Americans from Iraq quickly no matter what the situation on the ground is and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. But if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will view it as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly.

So now we have the outline of the Republican spin on one of the key issues in this fall's campaign: it's a choice between kiss ass or kick ass. This, from a crowd of neocons who let Darth Vader escape so they could go after the Ewoks and managed to f*** up even that! They unwittingly lured al Qaeda into Iraq by bringing down one of the few secular dictatorships in the Middle East and disbanding the Iraqi army and the mostly Baathist police--leading to anarchy and an opening for al Qaeda--and now claim that we must stay there indefinitely to restore order, despite spending billions of dollars to train hundreds of thousands of new Iraqi troops and police for that very purpose. The only sane reaction would be to tar-and-feather the entire bunch and carry them out of town tied to a rail. At the very least, we must hope that the American voters will turn a deaf ear to such complete and utter drivel. Else, we may find Karl Rove back in the White House in 2009.

Awk, Barack!

In today's New York Times, in a story headlined, "Republican election losses stir fall fears", appears the following quote:

"Woody Jenkins, a Louisiana Republican who lost in a special House election this month, said in an interview that the high African-American turnout in his district was 'probably the decisive factor' in his loss.

"The election results also raised questions about what had been a main Republican strategy for the fall, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination: to link Democrats in conservative districts to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama, campaigning in Sterling Heights, Mich., said the outcome in the Mississippi contest, to fill a 'hard-core Republican seat,' proved that the strategy would not work.

“'They lost it by eight points, and they did everything they could,' Mr. Obama said. 'They ran ads with my face on it, and they said, "Oh, you look at this, a former liberal, and his former pastor’s said offensive things." They were trying to do everything in the book to try to scare folks in Mississippi, and it didn’t work.'” [Emphasis mine.]

Now, if I were a Republican muckraker from Louisiana, would I run an ad--in any medium--that described Barack Obama as a "former liberal"? Hell, no, I wouldn't. I would describe him as a dyed-in-the-wool, lifetime-card-carrying, unrepentant, blue-blooded liberal. Would I describe the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his "former pastor"? I don't think so. I would say that Rev. Wright has been Obama's pastor for twenty years (which is true).

Something is fishy here. Why would Barack Obama misquote an ad that the other side has run about him? Well, he might want to make them look more disingenuous that they really were, for one. But that's not the case here. If anything, Obama softened the language to make him seem less out of step with the typical Louisiana voter. (Let's be clear about this: we're talking white voters here, as well.) Since the election is over, why would he do that? Only one reason that I would judge worthy of expending energy trying to explicate: Not only does Barack want to distance himself from his trusted spiritual adviser of two decades but also the political philosophy known proudly for 3/4 of a century as "liberalism". It would seem that Sen. Obama is as anxious to leave that piece of baggage to circulate forever on the carousel of discarded descriptors as he is to break free of the Wright curse.

Why would ANY candidate for president be ashamed of the label of liberal? Is it because George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale lost so badly to their conservative rivals, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan? Did Nixon prove McGovern wrong on the Vietnam War? How many lives--American and foreign--would have been saved had McGovern been president from early 1972 through 1976? Would Watergate have happened? If Carter had been reelected, would there still be solar panels on the roof of the White House? Would the US have done something about global warming twenty years ago? Would the US hostages being held by Iranian militants have been released sooner had there been no hope that Carter would lose? Would we have been well on the way to a treatment for AIDS before Reagan could even bring himself to say the word? Would we have invaded Grenada? Would we have suffered through the loss of many billions of dollars in the savings and loan debacle?

What part of the progress of the 20th Century would be left if liberalism had not been invented? Certainly, the Cold War would have been carefully preserved, along with McCarthyism, the Arms Race, the CIA-financed coups against Allende, Mossadegh, and a half-dozen others. The disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion would have surely have been employed, in all its ineptness. But what of the Civilization Conservation Corps, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Housing Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority? What of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communication Commission, the Department of Labor, the GI Bill, food stamps, the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Peace Corps?

Here's the only non-tax-related program of Ronald Reagan's that turns up in the Wikipedia article on Ronald Reagan's presidency: the sales of arms to Iran in exchange for cash to assist the anti-Communist Contra rebels in Nicaragua, in subversion of a democratically-elected government. So, we see that, during the period of classic liberalism of the 20th Century, conservatism has a legacy of corruption, if they can be said to have a legacy at all.

So, what is Barack running from anyway? I think I've asked this question before (I can't check from this screen). He should stop cowering before the bigots and know-nothings and reclaim his religious and political heritage before it's too late.

[Readers, please indulge me in a little fantasy. Pretend that I am a Unitarian Universalist candidate for the presidency of these United States, speaking on the subject of health care. Note: I actually did give this speech during both Sunday services on May 11, 2008, at First Unitarian Denver.]

It’s hard to imagine someone like myself—a gay, atheistic, unreformed, unabashed, and unrepentant 1960’s-era liberal—running for any public office today. Most likely, I could get every member of my political “base” to the polls in a Volvo station wagon, a Toyota Prius, and Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

However, never one to concede “family values” to the likes of James Dobson and Pastor John Hagee, I will take these few minutes to explain how, for me, Unitarian Universalism informs my opinions on health care.

Because I subscribe to the proposition that every human being has inherent worth and dignity, I believe that a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care system is the ONLY moral solution to the mess that American medical practice is in today.

Many decry such a plan as “socialized medicine”. My response is, “Why shouldn’t the treatment of disease be socialized? Public health is the most socialized science known to the human race.”

For those of you who saw the recent HBO miniseries, John Adams, you will likely recall the scene early on when Abigail Adams, left alone to raise their four children and terrified at the prospect of the entire family coming down with smallpox, makes the incredibly courageous decision to have the family inoculated against that horrific disease. The doctor makes a house call with a horse-drawn cart containing the pox-ravaged body of a teenaged boy. Using a crude instrument, the doctor scrapes some of the erupted goo from a pustule on the boy’s body, which he then rubs into a small cut on an arm of each member of the family. The only daughter, Nabby, develops a mild form of the disease but survives.

Every new drug, surgical procedure, or therapy for a medical condition devised by the minds of men and women depends for its efficacy on clinical trials. Human bodies are the laboratories for medical breakthroughs. These people volunteer to subject themselves to some degree of risk for the sake of medical science. Since almost half of the American population either has no health insurance or say they’ve had trouble getting the health care they need despite having insurance, we must ask the value-driven question, “What in the Sam Hill is going on here?”

As Bill Moyers reported on his Journal on PBS this past Friday, if an ordinary citizen has had four major heart attacks, a quadruple bypass, an implantable defibrillator in his chest, atrial fibrillation, cardio vertigo, and a heart rhythm that goes out of whack, he would likely be uninsurable for having a preexisting condition. Vice President Dick Cheney fits this exact description and yet cannot be denied insurance at the public expense because he is an employee of the federal government, no matter how serious his heart condition.

We are the wealthiest nation on earth—for now—whose citizens experience disease, injury, and disability as capriciously as the citizens of any other country, yet for whom the ability to receive the care that would mitigate or cure these conditions is parceled out via an immoral and undemocratic merit system based upon ability to pay. Under such a system, there is nothing inherent about the worth and dignity of anyone. Your worth and dignity are measures of what’s in your bank account. My religious tradition finds this notion to be repugnant.

Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations is another tenet of my faith. Yet, within the health industry, justice, equity, and compassion is meted out based not upon need or professional opinion but often upon the career prospects of an insurance company employee whose bonus is based upon the number and size of the claims that he or she denies. My religious faith finds this notion to be odious.

My faith also values the free and responsible search for truth and meaning. To me, this means that when truth is established, the responsible thing to do is to make reality conform to that truth--even if it means brushing aside reactionary attempts to impugn, deny, or obfuscate the truth; even if it means confronting a very powerful lobby or forcing the privileged to face up to the injustice of their circumstance and put their lot in with “common folk”; even if it means admitting that we CAN learn from other nation’s experience, keeping the good and discarding the bad.

My faith also believes in respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. In this spirit, I would like to offer a truly radical notion that would make power brokers of both political parties and the Kings of K Street alike cringe: No one, no matter how wealthy or powerful, should have access to health care that is not available to everyone.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

A for-profit health care system is a roadblock against Jefferson’s idea of the human birthright. If you believe as I do, I ask for your vote as the future President of these United States of America. Together, we can restore Life where today there is Death and Disease, Liberty where there is Financial Obligation, and Happiness where there is Misery.

Thank you.

Health care is an unalienable right

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Never before in the history of the world had such a bold statement of the inherent worth and dignity of every man, woman, and child been conceptualized, let alone set down as the challenge for a new form of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. With these words, Thomas Jefferson conceived and the assembled representatives of the original thirteen American colonies affirmed that when “Governments, instituted among men and deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, become destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and institute a new Government so as to most likely effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is the DUTY of government to effect the safety and happiness of the people. It is a duty so sacrosanct that the people have the right, if not the obligation, to change the government should it fail to do so. This is the most important principle responsible for the birth of this, the greatest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

Yet, today, nearly one of every six Americans is vulnerable to bankruptcy, misery, and even an early death because they do not have the financial means to pay their medical bills. Why? Because Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness has been turned into just another commodity to be bought and sold on the open market, like butter, guns, and video games. If you can pay for it, you get it. If not, well, too bad. You can always go to the emergency room, if you can get there, where you will be humiliated and treated as a charity case.

For me, the most unforgettable scene in the recent HBO miniseries, John Adams, occurs early on, when Abigail Adams, left alone to raise their four children and terrified at the prospect of the entire family coming down with smallpox, makes the incredibly courageous decision to have the family inoculated against that horrific disease. The doctor—was he a specialist?—arrives with a horse-drawn cart containing the ravaged body of a teenaged boy with an advanced case of the pox. Using a crude instrument, the doctor scrapes some of the erupted goo from a pustule on the boy’s body, which he then rubs into a small cut on an arm of each member of the family. The only daughter develops a mild form of the disease but survives.

I don’t know if Massachusetts Mutual existed in 1776. If they did, they probably would have denied a medical claim for such treatment as “experimental”, which it surely was. Perhaps the doctor didn’t charge for his services; he may well have thought that that sick boy in the wooden cart paid more than a fair price for the services rendered.

What a powerful metaphor for the reality that, as human beings, we are all both the victims and the hope of each other when it comes to the security of our health. We have all felt threatened at some time or another by a person behind us sneezing on a bus or coughing on an elevator. We have known what it is to become ill following an airplane ride or worry when a coworker comes to work sick. None of us is truly healthy until all are healthy or, at least, receiving the quality health care we all deserve.

Maintaining a quality system of comprehensive health care, accessible to everyone equally, is as sacred a trust among the free peoples of a democracy as the assurance that we will not deliberately physically harm each other. If it is a crime to willfully do injury to another person, why is it not a crime to deny that victim the dignity not to have to "beg" for the treatment that will restore her to wholeness? A civilized society takes upon itself certain obligations, including the responsibility to not only do no harm but also to do good—to see that we all—men, women, children—never suffer from lack of the best health care we as a nation can afford.

Let us take up this cause—both today and for as long as accident, disease, mental illness, and visual or hearing infirmity afflict our fellow citizens. Let us make Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness more than a promise but a hallmark of our democracy and the fulfillment of our Founding Fathers’ dream of so long ago. Let us resolve today to make comprehensive, universal, not-for-profit health care the American standard and the freshest and brightest new promise to our children and our children’s children.