6A
OPINION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2015 | WEST HAWAII TODAY
W
ASHINGTON
— Following the
mass shooting
at Umpqua Community
College, a “smoldering”
(as one commentator
put it) President Barack
Obama gave a revealing
speech — a clarification, a
culmination, of much that
had come before. “What has
become routine,” he said,
“of course, is the response
of those who oppose any
kind of commonsense gun
legislation. Right now,
I can imagine the press
releases being cranked
out. ‘We need more guns,’
they’ll argue. … Does
anybody believe that?”
“This is a political choice
we make,” he claimed, “to
allow this to happen every
few months in America.”
The president’s
frustration, after
delivering a sad series
of similar speeches,
is understandable.
But his argument is
still indefensible.
Even if you support
“commonsense gun
legislation” (as I do), there
was nothing in Obama’s
speech that effectively
argued for it. No policy
proposals or serious
justifications. No one
listening to the speech
would be persuaded to take
a position he or she did
not already hold. Obama
was saying, in essence,
that it is obvious what
we should do about mass
gun violence, that evil
people are blocking it, and
that they have innocent
blood on their hands.
This is apparently what
some liberal people think
when anger releases them
from civility and rationality.
Obama speaks as if the
gun laws he wants passed
would put an end to these
killings — a position
for which there is no
evidence. I believe that
more thorough background
checks and further
restrictions on the type
and firepower of weapons,
along with improved
health services for the
severely mentally ill, would
be good for our society,
apart from mass killings.
I hope that, in the long
term, this system might,
just might, intervene
before a prospective
mass killer strikes
(though such causality
would be very hard to
demonstrate). But I have
no basis for the calumny
that people who disagree
with me are choosing to
allow mass murder.
This is the politics of
moral posturing, not
an argument rooted
in social science. With
his last election behind
him, Obama is free to be
Obama. And it appears
that he is, deep down, a
liberal commentator of the
MSNBC variety — perhaps
providing a preview of his
post-presidency. The only
apparent purpose of his
gun speech was to incite
the faithful by expressing
a seething arrogance.
Obama would surely
blame the other side for the
sorry state of our politics.
Didn’t Mitch McConnell
have it out for him from the
beginning? Hasn’t every
attempted compromise
been slapped away?
But it matters when
the president of the
United States decides that
democratic persuasion is a
fool’s game. It encourages
the kind of will-to-power
politics we see on the left
and right. In this view,
opponents are evil —
entirely beyond the normal
instruments of reason and
good faith. So the only
option is the collection
and exercise of power.
When the main players
in our politics give up on
deliberative democracy, it
feels like some Rubicon is
being crossed. Our system
is designed for leaders
who make arguments
for their views, seek
compromise and try
different policy angles to
break logjams. And when
they lose, their proper
recourse is … to make
more arguments, seek
other compromises and
try different policy angles.
At this time, gun control
legislation would probably
not pass. Because such
a law would not directly
prevent mass murders
(even if the law had useful
purposes). Because Obama
doesn’t know how to work
with Congress. Because the
National Rifle Association
would oppose it. Because
the political environment
is not right. But someone
who supports gun control
should still argue for it,
because that is what we
do in a democracy.
The spirit of our
democracy is very much at
issue. Donald Trump says
we have a corrupt system
run by stupid people.
Obama says we have a
corrupt system run by evil
people. Both of them are
part of the same problem.
I really don’t give a damn if
they are disillusioned and
fed up with democratic
processes or not. If they
are tired of the game, they
should stop playing it,
not engage in ideological
commentary or entertain
fantasies of personal rule.
The best way to restore
faith in our democratic
structures is to spend
a lifetime trying to
make them work, like
Hubert Humphrey did,
or Jack Kemp did, or
Henry Jackson did, or
Ronald Reagan did, or
Ted Kennedy did. But
it is easier, and surely
satisfying in its own way,
to throw a tantrum when
democracy disappoints you.
Michael Gerson’s email address is
.
A
t 10 a.m. on March 24 of this
year, the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee,
chaired by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah,
began a hearing into allegations of
misbehavior by Secret Service agents. At
10:18, Chaffetz’s name was entered into
a database at the agency’s headquarters
and the search turned up the confidential
information that the congressman had
applied for a position with the Secret
Service in 2003 but hadn’t been hired.
In ensuing days, dozens of Secret
Service employees gleefully accessed the
information about Chaffetz. Like teenagers
texting their friends, the agents spread
the message far and wide. According to a
recent report by Department of Homeland
Security Inspector General John Roth, “One
agent reported that by the end of the second
day, he was sent on a protection assignment
in New York City for the visit of the
president of Afghanistan, and many of the
approximately 70 agents at the protection
briefing were talking about the issue.”
One official thought it would be a good
idea if the information had even wider
circulation. According to the inspector
general’s report, Assistant Director Ed
Lowery emailed a colleague: “Some
information that (Chaffetz) might find
embarrassing needs to get out. Just
to be fair.” Lowery denied directing
anyone to release the information, and
Roth said he had no information to the
contrary. But somehow the information
got out. On April 2, The Daily Beast
posted a story with the headline:
“Congressman Who Oversees Secret
Service Was Rejected by Secret Service.”
The misuse of Chaffetz’s confidential
file was not only unprofessional but
possibly illegal. Roth notes that “Chaffetz’s
application was protected by the Privacy
Act, and each disclosure of information …
to an individual without a need to know
it … constituted a violation” of that law.
Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy,
who was apparently kept in the dark about
the improper access of Chaffetz’s file,
said last week that he would ensure that
“appropriate disciplinary actions are taken”
and that he would “demand the highest
level of integrity of all our employees.” As
for Lowery, it’s impossible to see how he
could credibly continue in his position now
that it’s known that he broached the idea
of retaliating against a congressional critic
by divulging confidential information.
Using the machinery of government to
invade the privacy of political opponents
is outrageous whether the intended
target is a private citizen or a member of
Congress, but there is something especially
chilling about the idea of a government
agency targeting an elected official who
is charged with overseeing it. An apology
isn’t enough. The Secret Service needs to
ensure that this doesn’t happen again.
Privacy vs.
the Secret
Service
Presidential tantrums
won’t end gun violence
MICHAEL GERSON |
THE WASHINGTON POST
EDITORIAL
LOS ANGELES TIMES (TNS)
High prices fuel
health care costs
Recently, I had to go
to the hospital to get
an imaging test. I have
insurance so my usual
procedure is to pay the
small deductible and
ignore the actual cost of
the test. This time the
actual cost of the imaging
test caught my eye as it
seemed very high for the
15 minutes the test took.
I researched this imaging
test on the Internet and
found the Healthcare Blue
Book website. This site lists
the costs of almost every
medical procedure or test.
It shows you from the low
range to the highest range
of prices then shows you a
“fair price” based on your
ZIP code and a fair profit
for the provider. To my
shock, the amount I was
charged for my imaging
test was almost three times
the “fair price” shown.
If you are wondering
why your health care
and insurance costs are
skyrocketing it is because
of predatory profiteering by
those who do these types
of tests and procedures. In
Hawaii, we are a captive
audience since we can’t
shop around for a better/
fair price. We are forced to
pay what they say or die.
The insurance company
doesn’t care about cost
either. It just raises
premiums and co-pays
and it still makes out like a
bandit. Win, win lose. With
the loser being the patient.
The next time you need
to get a test or procedure
done at your local hospital,
check the actual cost,
not your co-pay, and
research the “fair price”
on the Healthcare Blue
Book website. You will be
shocked and it will clarify
what is wrong with the
“business” of health care
in the United States.
Joseph Appleton
Waimea
Tell us about it
Do you have a story idea or news tip?
Is there a community problem that has not
been addressed?
Do you know someone unique, whose story
should be shared and enjoyed with the rest of
the community?
We want to know.
Call the West Hawaii Today newsroom at 329-
9311 or email
and
share the information with our readers.
It’s our community — and we care.
Letters policy
Letters to the editor should be 300 words or
less and will be edited for style and grammar.
Longer viewpoint guest columns may not exceed
800 words. Email or address letters to:
EDITOR
WEST HAWAII TODAY
PO BOX 789
KAILUA-KONA HI 96745
EMAIL:
LETTERS
| YOUR VOICE
