http://www.globalhealth2009.org/globalhealth2009_fulltext2.html

What I like about his recommendations is that money is only part of the issue, but money alone will do nothing to help. His plan is holistic and includes eliminating poverty, hunger; providing primary education; promoting gender equality and empowering women; reducing child mortality; improving maternal health; combating diseases; and ensuring environmental sustainability (giving access to clean water and sanitation). He fights the root causes of poor health while giving aid to those currently affected.

His last point concerns the need to address the least developed countries’ special needs. I know we are talking about the U.S. in this discussion, but this point reminds me that it is pretty darned silly to fight over whether or not a person on welfare and medicaid should have the same insurance as a congressman, when Haitians travel for 2 days by donkey for antibiotics for TB (and often die enroute). Before Dr. Farmer, even that was impossible.

I think if I had to add to this, I’d say it is important to get a good perspective on the real issue and not be so intent on choosing “a side”.

There is a problem with communications that focuses on fervent opponents – it under-values communication with supporters and those who are lukewarm/undecided.

This is one of the things that is frustrating Obama supporters – we feel he gives more credence to his opponents than to his supporters, even though he has a majority. It is one thing to be empathetic to opponents to win them over. It is another to focus attention on the minority of opponents who seek to derail discussion.

We need a combination of communication to those who are not strongly persuaded (for example Paul Schreiber’s wonderful videos); working with strong advocates to pressure congress and help with person to person outreach; and having a really strong message in the media.

Shouting back also puts too much focus on the rabid opponents.

Great and deep questions! Man…I’ll give them a whirl:

1) Do you maintain an absolute(s)? If so, what in our assessment, without qualification, is the ‘highest’ human value?

I endeavour to not think in absolutes, but I do personally value human life and equality at a very high level. Have you seen Jonathan Haidt’s TED talk?

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
and here is the paper it’s based off of:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php

I definitely fit into the liberal camp of emphasizing: harm/care and fairness/reciprocity.

2) What do you recognize as the chief authority in your/of your life?

My chief authority? Egad. I don’t know. I’m influenced by so many thought leaders, but I go with ‘my gut’. Does that make sense? I think this is where I fall outside of the authority/respect camp on the morality issue. And I may, at times, have too much faith in human nature.

3) Do you maintain individual sovereignty? If so, what is the basis of your individual sovereignty (where does it come from)?

I try to maintain individual sovereignty. I think it comes from a deep-seeded belief in reciprocity as being a strong part of my moral compass. Again, I refer to my gut, but my gut is guided by my experience with communities of people.

4) Do you identify and recognize the United States as a democratic Republic?

This one I can kind of answer. I don’t think so. Or if it is, it’s not a workable democracy. It’s too tied up in individualism and riddled with the lack of good information (or moreso, an abundance of confusing information). I believe democracy relies on an informed/educated public and a sense of community. But that POV is totally clouded by my being raised in Canada.

5) Generally speaking, each of you are in business in some capacity. As business professionals, do you regularly pay for your competitors’ and peers’ bad decisions?

Absolutely. I watch people exploit the tools we use daily for personal benefit and it makes it tougher for those of us who are trying to be ‘good neighbours’ to forage ahead. After a while, I end up being a bad neighbour just to get ahead in the game. Sort of like the Tragedy of the Commons. Actually, a lot like the Tragedy of the Commons. I’m a total idealist, though. I keep thinking that people will figure out that we can all get ahead together if we don’t abuse our community goodwill. Is that what you were asking?

Thanks for these!

I know it’s tough and the blows have turned into actual effects (ie. Van Jones), but I’ve seen a disturbing trend occur when we try to shout back: an escalation of anger that leads nowhere. I am tempted to shout back constantly…and I have! But it hasn’t led anywhere but to me feeling awful and nothing being resolved. I suppose that’s what I’m getting at. Escalation seems fruitless. I’m not talking about backing down, just opening our minds and approaching discourse from a really ‘we want positive change’ perspective. I’m actually quite frightened at the ‘death panel’ hyperbole and where that could lead.

As suggested, I’m assuming nothing. After reading each of you on the interwebs over the last couple of months, a coupla questions on the Health Care Reform discourse, specifically, and ‘moral’ discourse, generally:

1) Do you maintain an absolute(s)? If so, what in our assessment, without qualification, is the ‘highest’ human value?

2) What do you recognize as the chief authority in your/of your life?

3) Do you maintain individual sovereignty? If so, what is the basis of your individual sovereignty (where does it come from)?

4) Do you identify and recognize the United States as a democratic Republic?

5) Generally speaking, each of you are in business in some capacity. As business professionals, do you regularly pay for your competitors’ and peers’ bad decisions?

Looking forward to your responses, assuming you respond of course.

Towards creative fidelity,
Jason

Having political discussions online is always challenging though… I saw it happen on Facebook last week with the health care reform. People were sharing their stories in respectful ways but then there was that one person who jumped in with some insults. Learning to handle that one person is my challenge. I agree addressing their underlying emotion and acknowledging it is probably going to go a lot farther than attacking their point of view.

Thank you.

There has been aggressive right wing opposition to health care reform, promoting distortions such as “death panels.” Those opposed to health care reform have been louder in their opposition than supporters, even though there are more supporters. The opposition gets more media coverage for the distorted message. The result is that supporters are discouraged, and people who are undecided wind up hearing the views of those opposed to reform.

At the start of the healthcare debate, the vast majority of Americans were in favor of reform. This is an even more positive situation than, say, gay marriage where there are still large numbers opposed. But with healthcare, opponents seem to have been louder and better organized.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has neutralized his liberal supporters, see: http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/06/van-jones-a-moment-of-truth-for-liberal-institutions-in-the-veal-pen/ for an explanation.

It is not enough to simply be reasonable and polite while the opposition is shouting you down. That is a recipe for losing to bullies. The solution needs to involve aggressive, creative organizing, and humorous but pointed self-defense, as we’ve seen with Barney Frank and Al Franken.

Yes, we need patient listening for long-term change. But listening and compromise is not the tactic for dealing with shouters. That just leads to slow retreat. That’s what brought the norms of US society further to the right for years.

BTW #10 is dead-on and ideally would be the focus of such discussions. Both sides have good intentions and good ideas. Would be great if we could focus on how to make those good intentions and ideas work together, but with so much passion involved, finger-pointing happens far too often and completely undermines the effort.

Some people thrive off these discussions and it energizes them. Seeing how people react and treat others just totally saps my energy and spirit. A big reason why I avoid political discussions. But I do wish more people had your attitude toward them, the discussions would be much more beneficial.