The National People's Congress is set to approve a five-year plan next week that will serve as China's new economic roadmap, while our House of Representatives can't even agree on which utensils to use in its own cafeterias. It seems that the environmentally friendly cutlery that the Democrats willed in the last Congress isn't cutting it with the new House Republican leadership - and you know how they like to cut.
The Supreme Court ruled this week that Constitutional protections to free speech extends to hurtful public debate, so I guess we'll have to wait until someone brings a second amendment lawsuit to settle this. Does the right to bear arms extend to environmentally unfriendly silverware?
There must be better ways to create dialog and deliberation. Take, for instance, Larry Susskind's consensus-building tools that he built for more democratic decision-making, or Fisher and Ury's "Getting to Yes" published nearly 30 years ago. The idea they share is that negotiation isn't "giving in" if all the parties win an acceptable alternative to their initial desired position. In the context of democracy, public problems are solved by generating collective policies and programs that stem from such deliberation and acceptance.
There's an old saying that the person who asks the question controls the answer. Governor Walker, no doubt falling on his environmentally inappropriate sword, proposes placing the brunt of deficit reductions on his state. Some ideologue conservatives are joining the argument by saying that it is unfair that teachers are making more than the average American worker. In what I call the immoral hazard, they are also using the same argument to call for decreased funding for all social safety net programs.
Rather than addressing the inequality of wealth, corporate tax dodgers, or the exploitation of tax giveaways and government subsidies, these ideologues would rather ignore the cost-effective benefits of taking on tax cheats, making productive federal investments in education and the public infrastructure, and supporting essential programs - all in the name of reducing the deficit.
Not for one minute do they consider that a better solution would be to raise the minimum wage and benefits for the American worker rather than lowering them for teachers. The thought of too much money resting in the hands of too few people does not alarm them. The fact that Americans were forced to borrow more and save less, with many losing their homes in the process, is deemed neither a threat nor a failure.
It's one thing to suggest that America cannot afford these programs. It is another to argue that they are not in the best interests of the people they serve. Unfortunately, the anger of working people and the threatened middle class has led them to ignore this distinction and vote against their own self-interests in recent elections. This administration must focus on reclaiming the right to ask these hard questions and frame compelling answers to these concerns of the electorate.
It is no longer, if it ever was, about high speed rail or jobs, or even the deficit. It is about showing the average American that the aftershock of our economic turmoil is not an endless age of austerity. It is about fairness, and dialogue, and reaching consensus. It is about Americans working together to build our economy rather than reducing it to a zero-sum game.
I bet that China would accept a higher U.S. debt ceiling, unequal balance of trade, or stronger dollar if we could reach such an agreement. They may even be willing to write us into their five year plan.