More Radical Than They Knew

After the President’s address, a couple of items from Pete Hoekstra and John Shadegg’s piece in last week’s WSJ stand out.  Not least, will Pete agree?

Reform Insurance

The heart of their piece, the moment when they begin to actually talk about the real human need comes when they say

” no one should go bankrupt because of a chronic disease or pre-existing conditions like multiple sclerosis or breast cancer.”

This is real common ground, and a big applause line last night.  The need is absolutely critical.

And let’s be clear, the record is clear. The  August issue of the American Journal of Medicine reports 62% of all bankruptcies were due to medical costs, of those in bankruptcies, 75 percent already had medical insurance. The survey also found that 25 percent of companies terminate insurance immediately when an employee has a disabling illness. And yesterday’s Washington Post adds further fuel, noting that insurance companies have earned more than $300 million by selectively culling claims that filed – recission.

Bottom line: some sort of insurance reform is going to be required. Abusive contracts that place families at greater fiscal risk hardly deserve the name “insurance.”  And I’m with McJoan at dailyKos, I wouldn’t especially call such insurance execs “friends.”

Build in Standards.

A second issue raised by the Hoekstra/Shadegg proposal is near and dear to conservatives.  And like insurance, it carries the seed for something more radical.

” Our tax code incentivizes employer-provided health care, rewards health insurance companies by insulating them from accountability, and punishes those who lack employer-provided care.”

And later,

“We must stop punishing Americans who buy their own plan by forcing them to purchase their care with after-tax dollars, making it at least one-third more expensive than employer-provided care. Individuals should be able to take their employer’s plan, or turn it down and select insurance of their own choosing without any tax penalty.”

Talking point blather, perhaps? Then again, a study from Dean Baker’s CEPR brings up an interesting piece of information: the United States lags other developed nations in the proportion of its workforce in small, entrepreneurial businesses. The failure of affordable single payer insurance plays a part here stalls the economic engine.

But to make policies portable, to achieve the competitive ideal, they have to in one sense be comparable.  Call it product protection, if nothing else.  And the Elephants in fact are already looking at “exhange” – some marketplace of validated plans, plans that meet minimal standards of coverage, not least being free from the abusive contracts presently offered.

Insurance exchange.  Minimum standards.  There’s actually a phrase for it: Qualified Health Benefit Plans.

And Who’s in the Pool?

Hoekstra/Shadegg also revives a proposal from the Bush days (actually goes back further).

“State-based high-risk pools spread the cost of care for those with chronic diseases among all insurers in the market. The additional cost of their care is subsidized by the government.”

“Unfortunately, some states have not created high-risk pools, and some need to be restructured to ensure timely access to care. Republicans have proposed fixing this problem by expanding and strengthening this safety net, and by creating reinsurance or risk-adjustment pools so that Americans with chronic medical conditions can get the care they need at an affordable cost.”

Of course making subsidy of insurance rates the property of states would create a large set of unfunded mandates.  Only 35 states have programs at all, and these of varying costs.  The obvious problem is that states have differing levels of willingness or even ability to respond to these types of catastrophic needs.

The reality of varying state levels of support or ability to pay demonstrates why a national solution is to be preferred.  As President Obama said:

“In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.”

A John McCain idea.

In short the path to real reform is there, even in the Republican proposals.  Of course one would never know it for the hysterics.  Their failure is not in their plan.  As shown, many are substantive and worthy of consideration.  Rather the difficulty is a condition, a holdover from an earlier, less responsible era, where budgets and policy barely talked to one another.  Hoekstra and Shadegg conclude:

“If we give citizens the ability to control their own care, cover pre-existing conditions, and provide resources to the uninsured, we will have fixed health care in America. No bureaucrats. No new czars. No mandates. Just choice and coverage for every American.”

And I want a pony, too.

As the Congressman will tell us elsewhere, we can not simply wish away our problems.  Real problems require real lifting. It would be nice to have Hoekstra and Ehlers engage on this issue, but practical reality requires them to vote no, even when the ideas are theirs.

Climate of disappointment

Perhaps Ezra Klein is right.  Congress is not yet ready to take up global warming.  Certainly the House vote on the Climate Change bill gives more than enough evidence,  with virtually the entire GOP in opposition, plus 44 Democrats.  So it wasn’t a surprise that our own Vern Ehlers would be in opposition.  A disappointment, yes, but no surprise.

Nonetheless, Ehler’s statement is filled with a regretful knowing.  This is a major issue, and yes, he  strongly supports efforts “to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, promote conservation of resources, and develop alternative and more efficient sources of energy.”   And certainly this is an issue that needs more research, but action?  Cap and trade? And couldn’t they have at least asked the Republicans (one is tempted to inquire who he has in mind, given the GOP record of skepticism if not outright denial on global climate change).  Sadly this is a good cause, but

I believe action is needed to minimize the impacts of climate change. However, this bill is the wrong way to do it, and it was rushed through the legislative process at the worst possible time for Michigan’s economy. Our state is hurting badly right now, and the policies in this bill will only make matters worse for Michigan families who are already struggling.

The turn to the economy is useful, but also something of  a mystery given the Congressman’s own (in)action.   As the economic storm strengthened in Fall 2008 and Michigan auto makers struggled to survive, political leaders from both parties took action.  Spoke out.  That honor roll includes Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Virg Benaro, mayor of Lansing; and our own City Commissioner, David LaGrand.  Plenty of folks got it.   Yet Ehlers own stance was largely on the sidelines — one mention in The Press, but no risk of political capital on his part.  And certainly no press release until after the vote.

But this time, he gets religion.  Michigan jobs are at stake.  Perhaps.  Others  would say that what he actually got were plenty of phone calls spurred by Rush Limbaugh. Still whether it’s jobs or simply political pressure, there is a strong whiff of disappointment to all this.

Game Changer

The Michigan GOP may finally have hit bottom  last week.  It wasn’t one last act of outrageousness, but a move of a different sort: Terri Lynn Land dropped out of the Governor race, and endorsed Mike Bouchard.

The move certainly shocked some observers throughout the State, but to those who have been following her press trail it was only a confirmation.  As an early front runner, there was surprisingly little in the way of commentary about the economic storm clouds heading Michigan’s way.  Where Peter Hoekstra tacked, and Mike Cox spoke forcefully about the auto crisis, she kept her peace.  And other observers have suggested that she didn’t seem to have the ideas and fire for a gubernatorial campaign.

No desire?  Or desiring something else?

There is other evidence however that she has a different office in sight.  Cranson and Golder at The Press suggest as much.  Could this be a play for the Lt. Governor’s spot, a quid pro quo?  A Bouchard-Land ticket would bring some definite strengths.  Of course, it may simply be that Bouchard’s east side connections are sufficiently deep enough that some third party will benefit, making the endorsement a sort of three-way play.

More intriguing has been the notion that she has her eye on the Third Congressional seat centered in Grand Rapids.  The endorsement of Bouchard puts her in contrast to the national partisan ways of Hoekstra, and on the side of pragmatic government – the very ideals the voting public associates with Rep. Vern Ehlers. And even in a redrawn map, this would be a highly winnable seat for a moderate Republican.  Of course, if the map gets sliced the way Peter Bratt intends, Land would have to move back to her native Grandville.

The gift.

Land’s endorsement of Bouchard’s candidacy lifts the Oakland County sheriff to the top tier of contenders.  Her moderate creds and lack of baggage elevates Bouchard’s standing in the GOP drop out contingent — those independents who fled the party in 08.  And just as important, she provides Bouchard with a campaign network centered in western and southern Kent County.

This network is certainly the significant resource.  As a practical matter, it means that Hoekstra will need to pay more attention to W. Michigan; and by expanding Bouchard’s reach beyond the east side, it forces Macomb resident Cox to devote more time and energy building his own team in the West. While the endorsement offers tactical advantages, its real impact is strategic.

Now They Tell Us

Grand Rapids Public Schools face enough stress as it is.  The loss of population, the fiscal crunch — let’s face it, these are trying times.  And then there’s the ongoing labor discussion, a battle where the teachers have repeatedly been outflanked.

In today’s Press the tables turn slightly.  As Dave Murray reports  it turns out that the administration’s figures for failing Alternative Education were three years old.  The horror stories (e.g. two percent graduation in Job Corps) were not true; the teachers have been delivering.   Yet, based on the presentation of the data, the Board voted to ax  ninety-five positions and revamp the programs.

Was this an act of dishonesty?  Manipulation?  How could suspicions no arise: as Murray reported, some of the programs axed actually seem to be delivering the promised results.  At the very least, it’s a clear case of  bad data driving decision making.  Only one board member, Tony Baker asked for more data.  Information is not our enemy, but the safeguard against foolishness and futility.

But what of the Board?  The obvious fact is that they  believed the picture as presented.  The data in this case only confirmed what was already in their mind: these are incorrigible kids.  The teachers aren’t doing the job.   This picture can seem so plausible, especially if you’re of a different color and certainly if you’re from a different class.

And if you’re locked in a  long-standing labor dispute, the call is that much easier.

Now we can’t take our class or social position out of decision making (see Judge Sotamayor’s apt words), but like the Judge we can take them into account.  Here, Baker gets it right again: good decisions need good data.

That old gang of mine

Vice President Cheney’s address the other day must be a mixed blessing to the local GOP folks.  On one hand, there was the old fashioned religion, delivered straight.  “You’re going to eat your carrots, and you’re going to like it!”  In a time of uncertainty about their own future, not to mention that of the nation, such blunt talk can seem like a sure foundation.  This goes right to the desire both to be right and also privileged about the world.  For all the seeming plain-speaking it is a sort of gnostic rhetoric: the world is nothing like you imagine (so you have to be tough).

And if you’re Peter Hoekstra, especially, this can seem very affirming.  The past week he’s been hitting the talk shows and newspapers attacking Sen. Pelosi.  And as Jeff Cranson in today’s Press notes, Hoekstra has also been getting noticed.  In the school of “I don’t care what you say as long as you spell my name right,” the congressman leads in Indignity Index in the current issue of Newsweek.  Not that  it fazes him.

All this  certainly matches his style: bold, out front, and an insider.   Just what Michigan needs.  As he explained to The Washington Times,

Republicans aren’t ready to take bold stands, and it is costing them politically among voters eager for reform.

Yet there’s a trap here.  The more the Vice President goes on the more, he reminds the public what it was exactly that troubled them about the Bush era.  This is the  attitutde that believes itself right, independent of the actual information — there’s a secret set of information that explains all, our gnosticism.  Naturally, this ends up in a sort of self-righteousness.

There’s no question that this red meat approach plays well with the base, especially the social conservatives.  They have not only been the true believers of the Bush era, but the entire Cheney-esque rhetoric resonates with their own theological understanding.  He’s plain spoken, long a mark of sincerity in the evangelical community; he sees things clearly as a choice, again finding its echo in the evanglical theology of decision, and to a lesser extent the Reformed mode of antithesis.  In his approach they  can trace their own viewpoint.  Cheney (and Hoekstra) reinforce their political consciousness.

But  as noted, this is a trap.

The Cheney-Hoekstra bring the internal motivation.  Hoekstra’s strong internal showing is proof of this.  But rumblings are underway.  Mike Cox’s focus on economics, on being the tax-cutter supreme is an appeal to the same populist segment.  Of course, his proposals are no more realistic than the Hoekstra-Cheney defense of the Iraq War c. 2003.  A party dominated by this sort of macho-political posturing will not be a party that inspires the broader trust of a struggling state (however much it reflects the real rage about us), let alone begin to think how we move forward.  The posturing is a failure of hope.

And in 2010, the one item Michigan voters will be looking for is this hope.

Update

Looking over the responses to Cox’s announcement this morning only confirms the Social Conservative love of Hoekstra’s national security creds.  This short note captures the sentiment well:

CHRISTIANS support torture because it keeps AMERICANS safe and alive and not dead and there was just a poll on it and everyone agreed to support it but i dont think that waterboarding is torture and thats what hoekstra says and thinks and speaks and remeber thay nailed jesus to the cross which was torture back then

I only want to believe this is an outlier.

The Shape of Things to Come

As sure as robin in spring, the hiring of Census workers can only mean one thing: time to again contemplate carving up the political landscape.  And really, nothing is quite so delicious.  Especially in Michigan with likely loss of at least one congressional seat.  A whole new set of winners and losers is ready to be created.

And of the first maps out, is that from Menhen, at Swing State Project. There’s plenty of discussion on the proposal on state-wide aspects, here.  For those on the west side of the state, things get especially interesting.  The second district (Hoekstra) becomes the Ehlers seat, with urbanized Kent County (Grand Rapids, Wyoming, Kentwood, East Grand Rapids) replacing Ottawa County.  Meanwhile, the Third now becomes the “Hoekstra” home, packing together Ottawa, Allegan, Van Buren and about 40 percent of Kent).

Even were the arrangement not prove workable, it nonetheless can be considered as very useful  sort of thought experiment.

Here is how the district gets drawn:

If the map looks familiar, it should: this is essentially the same redistricting solution used for assigning  State Senate seats in he county.  So the 29th (Bill Hardiman, R-Kentwood) includes Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Cascade and some exurb/rural townships to the east.  The rest of Kent County becomes the 28th (Mark Jansen, R-Gaines) surrounding the 29th  like a “C.”  Same topology here in the congressional redesign.

As a Kent County partisan this division can look problematic, especially as the region wrestles with issues of development and of educational equality.  These are contentious enough as it is; this political division could serve to increase the distances between cities and suburbs in ways that work against its best interest.  Indeed, practically speaking, this may be the real point of difficulty for any such plan: both parties maintain real interest in controlling their own destiny, as they have to date.  Thus, the pressure will be to vote for a unified Kent County.

Muskegon and Grand Rapids go together

This is perhaps the most obvious direction that redistricting will take if the Democratic party can control the process.  A District with both Muskegon and Grand Rapids in it would raise the core urban issues with much greater force.   Minorities gain voice.  The experience of representation in Grand Rapids demonstrates how urban issues can sway even otherwise conservative representatives.  That these two cities are also two bastions of Democratic strength in the region makes this a natural combination for Democrats.

Strength in numbers for Kent County

At first,  the division of Kent County looks counter-intuitive to the region’s interest.  Yet, as in the State Senate such an arrangement can potentially  serve to expand and extend the region’s clout.  This will be its great appeal to those engaged in regional planning.  The  risk is no less obvious: potentially the County could not be represented at all, and civic leadership would then have to depend on outsiders, an awkward situation if for no other reason than pride.

A look at raw numbers suggests that this worst case scenario may not be as likely as some fear.

In a Grand Rapids – Muskegon district, Kent County would continue to provide something close to two-thirds of the total vote, thereby making the region a natural home base.  For the new 3rd, things are a little more dicey.  Suburban/exurban Kent County would contribute approximately 40% of the base to the new district, and more importantly be home to some of the deepest Party pockets.   The centripetal pull of fundraising will keep any candidate close to the heart of Kent County.  And likely as not, also be a resident , as well.

likely provide a candidate for the seat.  The result for regional planning would be two members of congress tightly identified with the interests of Kent County.  This would be an improvement from the present situation.

In terms of selling redistricting plan such as this, the potential doubled representation from Kent County will rank high.

The 86th lives

On the Republican side, the plan would mirror the present division in the Kent County party, between the social conservatives  on the west — the party of the Lands, Voorhees, and generally Ottawa County; and the economic, leaning to libertarian conservatives of the east — this is the party of Ada and Amway, and also of Justin Amash.   As in te Democratic Party, the division between east and west is present and active, here best thought of as that of Ada and Grandville.

The present weakened state of the Kent County party not only has left a number of local Republican party members shaking their heads, but has been increasing the rumblings below deck.  As the national party tilts toward and ideological purity, the battle will almost certainly intensify between the economic and the social conservatives.  This division is already present in State House 86, encompassing the social conservatism of Walker and the economic leadership of  Ada Township.  The redistricted 3rd invites a similar sort of battle line.  A civil war among the GOP is not necessarily in the Democrats best interest; such a civil war is as likely to result in the ideological pure winning.  A region where the pure win promises less in terms of the deelopment the region requires for its long-term growth.

Notes on Weaknesses

Such a plan as this is bold,  but some obvious drawbacks do need to be mentioned.

1. A district that cuts out the money powers from downtown is going to have some difficulty getting through.  Perhaps the region is at the cusp of really going metropolitan, but for many there still remains the hegemonic ideal: a unified political-social-philanthropic culture. This sense of the region as a region extends across party lines. It is not at all obvious that even a Democrat in the 29th State Senate seat would go along with a plan that fractures the congressional seat.
2. Redistricting plans are better when they follow existing patterns of political or socio-economic organization.  What ever the virtues the partisan gains from a redistrciting plan such as this, it remains far more useful to have the congressional district and the metrolpolitan area(s) correspond with one another.  The questions of recovery and development that are likely to be ours in West Michigan ask for pragmatic leadership.

   Thus, while a Muskegon-Grand Rapids axis makes sense, being part of the same SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area).  The northern lakeshore counties share a different set of problems.  Representation that follows basic economic interests is simply going to be more efficient in helping those interests and communities deal with Washington.

3. Lastly, on practical terms, a revised Muskegon-Grand Rapids district ought to naturally incude Newaygo. Newaygo has become part of the west Michigan metro area.  For the same reason, Ionia ought also to be part of a west Michigan congressional district.

The plan from Swing State Project is not the first to imagine the shape of things to come, but it does begin a useful conversation on how we can better structure our communities for better representation, and continued economic development.

The way things were

David Brooks’  essay this morning at The New York Times brings to mind a lost world of a generation ago.  For him the Republican party has lost its way, has failed to learn the right lessons from the Western movie myth: it wasn’t the lone ranger that saves the day, but the community.  Here is the vision of what party once was and could be, a vision  of the party as one of civic order.

For those in the land of the Windmill, this sounds familiar — it’s another way of saying common grace.  Indeed, there is something rather familiar in how Brooks expresses it:

Today, if Republicans had learned the right lessons from the Westerns, or at least John Ford Westerns, they would not be the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice. They would once again be the party of community and civic order.

They would begin every day by reminding themselves of the concrete ways people build orderly neighborhoods, and how those neighborhoods bind a nation. They would ask: What threatens Americans’ efforts to build orderly places to raise their kids? The answers would produce an agenda: the disruption caused by a boom and bust economy; the fragility of the American family; the explosion of public and private debt; the wild swings in energy costs; the fraying of the health care system; the segmentation of society and the way the ladders of social mobility seem to be dissolving.

This ethos was certainly the sort that motivated the older politics at its best.  The Common Grace:Common Good equation is one of the core ideasof the Kuperian social vision and its interweaving of school, church, business, politics and neighborhoods.  So what happened?  How did this community come to disregard this birthright?  Why did it purchase a mess of pottage?

Brooks suggests one vision, the triumph of an individualist ethic and especially tax-cut libertarian economics.   And certainly one doesn’t have to go far to see Republicans of this ilk: the daily genuflecting of Rep. Peter Hoekstra before this altar seems proof enough.  Yet, is the contrast so easy?  How could it make this exchange, this surrending of its covenantal self-identity?

Here, a second article brings some darker insight.  At The Democractic Strategist, James Vega explores and explains the levels of right wing extremism, and its source in the rise of war rhetoric to dominate our politics, from Nixon’s enemies list to the Ollie North testifying in uniform, to the casual encourgement of violence by an Ann Coulter or a Glen Beck.  It was the culture war that fueled this militant turn.

It wasn’t that the Windmill liked the individualists (in fact, it rejected Reagan for Bush the elder in the primary of 1980), it became a participant in the culture war.  The bright line that separated the immigrant culture from the majority — the antithesis — now fueled an engagement on social issues, most notably those surrounding women: feminism, women’s rights in the church, and abortion. This was seen as a social engagement that extended its social ethic, and confronted the godlessness of the culture, as one favorite (adopted) son said

” We are involved in a “cultural war” for the very soul of America… [We are] recruiting “soldiers in the army of Christ… [There are] “five key fronts in the modern-day culture war.” (D James Kennedy)

And the battle rent the community itself: the fight over the women in the pulpit broke created two barely speaking-to-each-other denominations, with all the attendant pain, and lost social influence.  The promise of righteous conflict betrayed them.

It’s that way with the larger GOP, as well.  The conflict — here symbolized ingloriously by Sara Palin — has defined them.  Brooks vision, healthy as it would be for the party and the nation, will not take root as long as conservative wing  clings to its  pennants of the culture war.  The path out is of course, for them to die.  And that’s Scripture: unless a seed dies…

What are they thinking?

The Grand Rapids Education Association is in danger of letting itself being defined by what it is against.  If  the recent ad is any indication, they’re doing a good job of self-destructive behavior.

We may think of their problem in perhaps three or four acts, a drama that ultimately leaves GREA weaker, not stronger

With five people running and the GREA  highlighting  two to vote against, this creates an odd dynamic, that the GRPS is best served by the other three, that the weakest of the three is better than the stronger of the two.  This may be a mistaking of the short term political for the long term strategic interests of the community — this is often the result of negative campaigns.  The danger for the GREA is that it loses trust with those who look for stronger civic leadership for the schools.  GREA is not served by appearing to seek less than the best for the schools.

The second difficulty that emerges is simply that most likely one of the  two attacked candidates will have a seat on the School Board.  The aggressive campaign has then created an enemy on the board, some one less inclined to listen.  Strategically, the union would be far better positioned were it to think of what happens after elections.

However, where the union goes fundamentally off track is its tone deaf approach to the subject of race.  Both Smithalexander and Lenear are African American; the schools of the  Southeast side  are strongly minority; and yet we have the union objecting with a most peculiar image: the angry white guy.  This attack is made all the more acute by the inability of the GREA to find a minority candidate to support.  Between the all-white slate and the insensitivity of the ad, we have a perceptual gap that betrays the work of teachers in the system.  In dealing with the administration, such an approach simply gives another reason for the Superintendent to marginalize the concerns of the teachers: their concerns will be discounted as the product of racial bias.

But race does not exhaust the difficulties.

The great difficulty with the GREA’s campaign has been their trafficking in the short term tactic of alienation.  This politics of populist resentment has dogged Grand Rapids schools for a generation.   In the present economic crisis, this turn to alienation has deeper consequences.  The prosperity of the region will depend on its ability to support strong schools.  The luxury of saying no (and expecting no consequences) has disappeared.

Finally, there is a second alienation that is also present in this election and generally with the relations between the GREA and GRPS.  Urban school districts have been fighting over reformers — generally those seeking more accountability — and those seeking to upgrade teaching as the path to excellence.  Both paths are necessary, but as was seen at last year’s Democratic Convention, it can lead to confrontation.  Some part of the battle in Grand Rapids can be seen as the alliance of minority community and the school administration against more traditional teacher-centric interests.  Again, success for our schools will depend on aligning the interests of parents, the administration, the teachers, and the community stakeholders.

The days are past when the school concerns can be easily separated from the broader issues of community economic health.

Fleeing Michigan

The impact of the collapse of Michigan’s auto-driven economy keeps rolling in.  As Ron French reports in The Detroit News, our state suffered a net loss of 109,000 last year, and many (most) of them were the college-educated we need.  Half of all  graduates from Michigan’s public universities leave the state within a year after graduation.

Obviously, sending away your college educated is sending away your future. But it also changes the chemistry of our public life.  Fewer college graduates means fewer champions for arts or for schools.  The skepticism to education first borne from the auto era when low skilled paid big wages — this skepticism dogs our efforts to find the will to raise money for education.  And of course, as attitudes resistant to the arts, resistant to education take hold, these same values only push more graduates to leave.

This changed chemistry can already be seen in the Governor’s proposal to cut funding for the arts in our State.  This is rather like the absentee homeowner who decides not to rake the leaves or cut the grass.  The action is itself a small testimony of despair, a dullness to the future.

But if the state does not have the resources for culture, who does?

Here, we come back to the Windmill.  The struggle for Michigan’s future will fall on the shoulders of the civic stakeholders — the key foundations, the chambers, the civic leadership — and on the colleges.  These latter are the custodians of our cultural life and increasingly the building blocks for regional prosperity.  The reality is that Dutch and the Christian Reformed in particular have had an ambiguous attitude to this civic leadership role.  The path previously had been to adopt the practice of verzuiling or pillarization — the formation of separate, parallel institutions to those of the general society, most notably in their schools, but to a lesser extent in labor, business, and often in politics (aka the “windmill”).

Some steps forward have already been taken, specifically in the development of the Avenue of the Arts — largely the vision of Dwelling Place Inc., the move downtown of Calvin’s Art Department, and the college’s acquisition of the Ladies Literary Club.  In this same regard, the expanding footprint of Grand Valley downtown also contributes to a growing arts community.  Yet more can, indeed ought to be done.  To date, the Festival of Writing and the Festival of Music have largely taken place to national acclaim within the college; leveraging these events regionally offers other opportunities.  These are some of the steps that can make the region “sticky” for the young professionals it needs to thrive.

As Phil Powers recently wrote,

But at the end of the day, Michigan’s attractiveness to young people will define the number of college grads who stay. This has as much to do with the quality – and affordability – of life here in Michigan. So our woods and waters, our arts and culture, our cities and our universities are all vital in the competition for brains.

You Think So?

You could call it collateral damage.  The paper the other day had the story of a Romanian immigrant’s impending deportation,  along with his naturalized wife and native-born son.

(Kevan) Chapman, of Ehlers’ office, agrees: “It’s important for people to know that (some immigrants) are being deported on a daily basis and are not criminals.”

Cases like Tiberiu’s, he added, are “just heartbreakingly common.”

Chapman’s right, the problem is all too common.  And Tom Rademacher did a service to put a human face to the problems that come in the immigration debate.   But there is also a whiff of sentimentality here, the sort of emotion that hides as much as it reveals.

Let’s start with the obvious: why do we hear about this family and not say some one else?  Does it make a difference that this takes place in Grand Rapids Township, rather than say in Burton Heights?  The reality, of course, is that when the person in harm’s way looks like us we care more than when they do not.

And of course, this instance is common: each day thousands of families suffer, even if they never make into our view.  But knowing the policy, why do we then tolerate such harms?   I suspect we tolerate it for two reasons, first we have  a war-metaphor in the back o our mind: as in military combat, so here in the “war” on terrorism, there exists collateral damage.  The innocent suffer as a necessary aspect of doing our duty.

Second, there would seem to be a more utilitarian dimension: the innocent suffer as a lesson to others.  This is a darker sort of reasoning, a belief in the efficacy of power, or better, force. We do, because we can.  In the words of a recent vice president, it is better to be feared.  As we have no intention of deporting all 11 million, the act of force is meant to be theatrical, it is something that reduces the immigrant family into a stage prop, a thing.  They are now defined as law breakers and so aliens; they are the other and no longer us.

In short, we tolerate the action of deportation because we think injustice the price of our freedom.

Yet can this tolerated harm, this realpolitik of suffering, excuse our inaction?

For our political class, we tolerate injustice because the alternative is considered too (politically) painful.  So our legislators side step.  We pretend the elephant is really not in the room, even it is eleven million strong.  Some will suffer, yes, but there is little consensus for a remedy.  But if we this lack of consensus is the reason, it only hands over power to the most recalcitrant in our political class.

Sadly, this same reluctance dogs other issues.

We can see the same shying when it comes to education or our State’s budget.

The most negative get the most power, and so those who actually face the reality of injustice, this “all too commonplace” world are left exposed.  The terrifying truth is that we simply tolerate the injustice because of a desire not to change. Faced with injustice we walk on the other side of the road, waiting for some other good Samaritan to come and do the rescue.

At the end, our politics will reveal our heart.