In their book, Ethical Realism: A Vision for America's Role in the World, Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman describe the tenets of a leadership philosophy that guided U.S. international policy through the Cold War years. In the process, they give us lessons to guide--and to evaluate the effectiveness of--our leaders as the U.S. deals with the longstanding crisis over the federal budget.
They note that leadership in an ethical realist spirit "requires leaders with a combination of open minds, profound moral convictions, and strong nerves. Moral convictions along, not combined with open minds, lead to fanatical rigidity. Open minds without a moral foundation can lead to cynical and shortsighted opportunism. And even a combination of an open mind and a moral foundation will not be enough if the leader concerned does not have the moral courage to make clear and tough decisions" (pp. 57-58). This is powerful guidance for today's political leaders.
Lieven and Hulsman go on to describe several factors that embody the tenets of ethical realism. One that seems to be especially important to our current economic policy debate is an " . . . ethic of responsibility as opposed to the ethic of conviction; or between a morality of results and a morality of intentions" (p. 77). They add that, "having good intentions is not remotely adequate. One must weigh the likely consequences and, perhaps most important, judge what actions are truly necessary to achieve essential goals" (ibid.).
Herein lies the problem facing us today. Over the past decade or so, voters and moneyed interest groups have squeezed out of elected office the traditional centrists--the moderate Republicans and Democrats--who once guided American policy. In its place are ideologues. They exist in both parties but are especially visible in the ranks of "Tea Party" Republicans and political opportunists who pander to the likes of Grover Norquist and corporate funders rather than represent the interests of their constituents.
Clearly, what we need in the days to come is for our elected representatives in Congress and the President to live out the "ethic of responsibility." We need open minds who can focus on solving problems rather than being ideologically correct. The solution to the fiscal cliff lies in a middle path approach that looks both at taxes and cost reductions. There is plenty of room to find middle path solutions.
Some possibilities:
1. Taxes: It is clear that we need to protect lower tax rates for those Americans who need them in order to maintain a decent quality of life. It is also clear that wealthy Americans can easily absorb a return to Clinton-era tax rates. The question is simply: Do we set the cutoff at $250K, $400K, or $1M or somewhere in between. We need to set a revenue goal and then set the cutoff at a place where we can achieve the goal.
2. Entitlements: We need to remind ourselves that Social Security was not designed as an IRA individuals, but as a safety net. We can reduce the cost of Social Security and related services by (1) imposing a means test, so that one's ability to receive Social Security benefits is tied to how much the individual makes through pensions and other sources, (2) for those who have other sources of income, extending the age at which these citizens can receive full benefit, and (3) increasing the cut-off point for contributions to Social Security.
Like Social Security, Medicare eligibility should include a means test. Beyond that, however, the primary way to control cost is to eliminate fraud and mis-use of Medicare-funded services by hospitals.
3. Debt Reduction: The other major area for debt reduction should be the Defense Department. It is time for us to reduce the American military presence in Europe and Asia. At the same time as we reduce force to a smaller standing army, we could re-instate the draft as a "year of service" for high school leavers, requiring that all high school leavers (graduates and drop-outs combined) participate in a year of public service, working state and federal services, during which they would also receive some basic military training in case they were needed to defend the country.
Beyond that, all federal agencies and projects should be asked to take a small reduction in budget or to justify their continued level of funding in terms of impact on the health and welfare of our citizens.
Let's set a goal and then look for the proper mix of revenue and savings to get us to the goal, not allowing any one thing to be held sacrosanct. This will require, as Lieven and Hulsman noted, a true commitment to ethical realism: moral convictions, open minds, and courage.
No comments:
Post a Comment