Nearly a century after Otto von Bismarck famously said that politics is the art of the possible, economist John Kenneth Galbraith contradicted Bismarck in a letter to President Kennedy, advising that, "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." This is a worthy companion to Churchill's quote about democracy being the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. These celebrations of the least bad option should be taken as signposts that might guide us back onto the path to sanity. We have become deluded by ridiculous expectations of all imaginable rewards without a trace of sacrifice or cost, and we need to abandon childish fantasy and face reality.
When all of our options are fraught with shortcomings, we have to choose the best of the flawed bunch and ignore the hysteria that will accompany endorsing something that isn't godlike in its perfection. Let's take the example of health care reform. For generations we've identified problems in our health care system, yet we've been unable to solve them, try as we might. Based on our impressive history of innovation, we can rule out the possibility that we are simply ineffective problem solvers, and conclude instead that we have failed to fix the system because there simply is no good solution that will satisfy everyone and we're hesitant to pick among the conspicuously flawed choices. We faced the following problem: Millions of people were uninsured because they either couldn't afford health insurance or couldn't obtain it from the market because of an existing health problem. More to the point, some of these people will need life saving medical treatment, so what do we do?
After being put through the legislative sausage grinder of compromise and special interest appeasement, we ultimately decided on a package that would, among other things, force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, in exchange for which we would require people to carry heath insurance so they couldn't cheat the actuarial tables by waiting until they needed care before buying insurance. Americans by nature despise having the government tell them what to do, but what was our better option? We could have maintained the status quo where the uninsured receive needed care despite their inability to pay. The costs are then paid by everyone else. Alternatively, we could deny care to those we believe will stiff us on the bill, but is that really a world in which anyone wants to live? Should we tell someone in desperate need of medical attention I'm sorry, but you have to go across the street and stand behind the L.D. (line of death) right behind the hysterical woman holding the convulsing child and screaming "Oh God Oh God! Won't someone please help my baby?!"
I'm fascinated and amused by those who are enraged because this insurance provision represents communism, socialism, etc. Let me see if I have this straight: The current situation in which the cost of the medical care for the uninsured is absorbed by others who can pay (to each according to his need, from each according to his ability) is NOT considered communism, but having people pay their own way by padding the bloated coffers of giant profit-making private insurance companies IS communism? What?!
Finally, we can't discuss the ranting about communism/socialism/fascism without talking about the bailouts and other actions taken to rescue the economy. By all accounts, the economy was facing imminent collapse if we didn't act quickly and decisively. The bailouts are perfect examples of the unpalatable being preferable to the disastrous. Some may rail against the extraordinary efforts to rescue our economy from utter devastation, but if they could peer into the world in which we would be living had we listened to them and kept the government out of it, they would sit down and shut and shut up in a hurry.
