Unintended Consequences and Political Decision-Making: Think Like an Eagle
Louise Annarino
April 23, 2012
When I was 5 years old I dug a hole over my head in our backyard to get to China, which I had been told was on the opposite side of the earth.Being so deep, with the hole’s rim above my head, I could not see any part of our yard; so, I was unaware of her presence until my Mother hauled me out, covered in dirt. She was not happy.
While growing up in the post-war building boom, contractors would build plywood fences around construction sites to keep people out. They drilled large holes at various heights allowing the public to peer through and satisfy their curiosity about the on-going progress. I could not pass without looking into the hole. It seemed as if I were viewing the entire area through that small hole. It was not until the fence was removed the first time, and the project unveiled that I could see it in its unsuspected entirety. It amazed me how much had been hidden from view. After the first such unveiling, looking through small holes became very frustrating rather than illuminating. I was dissatisfied and often complained to the construction bosses to lower the fence so we could see over. They were not happy with me.
English Literature anthologies serve a purpose. They contain a selection of a variety of types of work from various writers. Longer works are not printed in their entirety. Just when I start enjoying a longer piece, it is “cut off”. Just when I began to appreciate a particular writer, it is off to another. I want to read a writer’s entire body of work, to know him well enough to discern his untitled voice. In high school, I spent hours on my own reading beyond class assignments. The insights I gained did not always serve me well. When tested on a particular writer my expanded knowledge often put my responses at odds with those sought by my instructor. Some instructors considered me a “thorn” in their sides.
As a young lawyer I soon learned that not every case should be appealed. One of the first female lawyers in Columbus told a story about appealing a murder conviction in which her client was given a life sentence. On appeal, he was given the death penalty. When deciding whether or not to appeal a case, many things are considered: possibility of success, impact upon client, unintended consequences, etc. Every lawyer knows that a “bad” case can make “bad” law.
Lawyers learn to appeal only “good” cases. As a poverty lawyer in the 70’s I learned patience; the ability to wait for a specific case with a “good” set of facts to bring a class-action on a food-stamps,unemployment compensation,or AFDC issue to reduce the chance that the appellate decision would have negative unintended consequences for all benefit recipients. As an Assistant Attorney General at a state university in the 1980-90’s, I learned that an appeal on behalf of one state agency could have negative unintended consequences on another state agency. Taking legal action requires an attorney to anticipate and prepare for such unintended consequences. A good lawyer looks at the entire picture, not through a single peephole. A good lawyer recognizes he is often working down in a hole. A good lawyer also knows how to focus on details, and appreciate the tedious nature of research. A good lawyer, and a good president, must be able to focus on tedious details and be able see the larger picture in order to avoid unintended consequences.
What are unintended consequences? Those things we cannot anticipate if we are down in a hole, unable to perceive the surrounding circumstances, as I was while digging to China. What we cannot anticipate when we view something through a small peephole, one piece at a time, rather than viewing it as a whole, as if looking through a plywood fence with built-in peepholes. Thinking we understand something even though we have only studied and learned a few things about it, a small portion of its reality, as when reading a compilation of literary selections. Reducing the chance an unintended consequence will have a negative impact requires breadth and depth analytical thinking, a process which takes time, patience, and humility.
Today’s multi-media, instant-communication, 24-7 feed, tweeting, social media, etc. are windows on the world; but, the windows are mere peep-holes. We dig holes for ourselves using apps, and spend so much time digging around we delude ourselves that we are accomplishing something. We can explore anything, and do. We feel enlightened, and we are. We gain confidence in our place in the world, and we should. But what we see and what we know is very limited, offering short-term insight which encourages short-term responses. Perhaps most importantly, we must understand that we do not have access to all we need to know, despite increased transparency. We are still operating in a hole, not a whole, learning only bits and pieces, looking though small openings onto the world around us.
Yet, we readily assess our president’s performance, and his administration’s policies as if we knew what he knows. As if we know all there is to know. As if we can see what he sees up ahead. We ignore the fact that the president of a nation has a bigger picture of what the world really looks like, than any perception available to us. It is time to step back and admit we on the ground are ill prepared to substitute our judgment for his. Instead, we must work together, sharing with him what we know as he attempts to do so with us.
President Obama won in 2008 with the widest margin of any Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson was elected. Such a large majority elected him not simply because of his message of hope to so many who had lost hope during 8 years of the Bush administration, but because he is able to see what so many of us cannot, beautifully articulated in his soaring speeches. He can see the forest for the trees.
We use words to describe President Obama such as “lofty” (Republican version:elitist), “soaring”(Republican version:pompous), “confident” (Republican version:cocky) to illustrate through our speech that he is somehow above us, able to see a broader and longer view than we can imagine from our limited range of vision. This does not mean we feel inferior. Rather, we feel elevated by our shared vision. We feel, finally, part of the whole in a way we had not before. He continually calls us to “join him”, “share with him”. He recognizes and reminds us we are a family, we are the “United” States of America; and, we are in this together (Republican version: he’s “not one of us”). Republican descriptions of President Obama could not be more wrong. Their insistence that President Obama is a divider is a symptom of their own failed vision of America, and of America’s future.
There are 3 types of thinkers: 1)Detailers who focus on the problem immediately before them in great detail, experts in their field. Detailers focus on the immediate concern, looking for near-term solutions. 2)Expansionists who see a problem as part of a larger whole. Expansionists focus on the broad implications of the immediate problem, looking for long-term solutions. 3)Eagles who are capable of seeing the whole picture as their minds soar long and broad across the horizon, and are able to dive down into the canopy of detail, even set down upon the earth.Eagles are the exceptional few who combine the thinking styles of both 1 and 2. President Obama is an eagle.
For example, in September 2011, President Obama was highly criticized for opposing a proposed EPA rule reducing smog causing chemicals. NYT.com/2011/09/03. The president rejected the proposed rule saying that it would impose too severe a burden on industry and local governments at a time of economic distress.
Such an attack,based on a peep-hole viewpoint, was premature.Shortly thereafter,in November, 2011 President Obama, who obviously knew in September that the November proposals were forthcoming, was praised for his “proposed fuel efficiency and global warming pollution standards for new cars and light trucks in model years 2017-25…(supported by)13 major automakers and the United Autoworkers…” http://ecowatch.org/2012/ fighting-for-air-groups-launch-campaign-to-support-u-s-epas-life-saving-standards.
Not long after this change, on April 18, 2012 the EPA “finalized the first-ever national standards to reduce mercury and other toxic air emissions – like arsenic, acid gas, and cyanide – from power plants, which are the largest sources of this pollution in the United States…This crucial step forward will bring enormous public health benefits. By substantially reducing emissions of toxic pollutants that lead to neurological damage, cancer, respiratory illnesses, and other serious health issues, these standards will benefit millions of people across the country, but especially children, older Americans, and other vulnerable populations. Cumulatively, the total health and economic benefits to society could reach $90 billion each year….The first comprehensive update in decades of regulations governing the oil and gas operations, the new rules require the drilling industry to capture air pollutants from well-completion work, including hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” pipelines, storage tanks and compressor stations.
“U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said the regulation is “an important step toward tapping future energy supplies without exposing American families and children to dangerous health threats in the air they breathe…In conjunction with the release of the rule, President Obama also issued a Presidential Memorandum which underscores the health benefits of the rule and directs EPA Administrator Jackson to use flexibilities built into the Clean Air Act where needed, and to work proactively with states, industry and other entities in a transparent manner to implement the rule in way that delivers the health benefits of the rule while addressing reliability concerns.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/21/protecting-american-families-and-environment-mercury-pollution
This example of how President Obama implemented his promised environmental policy is but one example of how a type 3 thinker strategizes long-term change while managing short-term problems.
It has been too easy to attack President Obama. Both the right and left continue to do so. Every interest group does so. Are we eager for immigration reform? Of course. Are we impatient for more and better jobs? Who would not be impatient?
But, we must realize that President Obama enacted these environmental protections, and each policy success, despite every possible obstruction by Republicans in Congress. Are our peepholes too small to see this? Are we busy standing in holes of our own making? Let’s look at the whole picture.
Republicans block every forward looking effort President Obama makes. Democratic bills seldom if ever make it out of Republican-controlled House committees. Senate Republicans use the filibuster to keep Democratic bills from even reaching the Senate floor for discussion. Republicans stress short-term solutions because it plays best upon our fears, and too few of us can see beyond the daily struggles of caring for ourselves and our families to pay attention to long-term solutions. They have tried to make life difficult for the middle class and the poor in order to reign in our hopes for the future, to limit our long-term American dreams, to convince us President Obama is a failure. They plant short-term thinking into talking points so we will analyze President Obama in short-term gains. They want President Obama to be a short-term president. They don’t want him to achieve long-term gains. They fear his depth and his breadth.Yet, none of their candidates is so capable as is President Obama.
Republican’s depiction of Mitt Romney as a businessman capable of changing America for the better is a farce. Mitt Romney’s record at Bain of eliminating workers benefits, shutting out workers’ business participation(eliminating unions), and eliminating jobs may offer a short-term solution for a few companies’ survival. But, Romney can’t see beyond his own very narrow, short-term interest. He has no foreign affairs experience,education,nor training.The reason he appears stiff and phony when stating he “understands” us or is “one of us” is because he does not and is not one of us. He is living the American Dream, but at our expense. He does not want to give up his dream to share ours. He even keeps his wealth off-shore!
The choice is clear to me in this election: vote for Romney’s short-sighted and ineffectual return to old failed policies; or vote for Obama’s far-sighted expansion of America’s future progress. It is critical that we pay close attention to the House and Senate races at the state and national level as well. We must elect Democratic candidates who will support President Obama’s policies, not those who prevent any discussion and deny Congress a vote on them.
And to those who continue to make short-sighted comments attacking President Obama I warn you to beware of unintended consequences. You could end up with the wrong man leading this country and find the dream of a broader and more forward thinking America is no longer an option.
annarino writes 
MARRY UP GIRLS!
MARRY UP GIRLS!
Louise Annarino
April 15, 2012
In high school, every girl knew where to hang out to attract boys. Parents like mine made certain I was not among those girls. Such was the protective net flung over my head. It was a comfort. It allowed me time to seriously assess what my role in life would be without a man to influence my decisions; and what role men would have in that life. My focus was on education, career and independence. Motherhood and marriage seemed a given, and to be delayed until I could be self-sufficient. Only then, could I make the future secure for myself and some future family.
I deliberately wrote motherhood before marriage in the above sentence. Too many of those young women allowed to hang out with boys, became mothers first and married in haste after. A total loss of freedom and self-sufficiency, only one piece of the price they paid. The cost seemed too high then, and life has shown me it still is thus.
I had imagined university to be different. I expected it to be a community of scholars, where men and women were equals. It was not. Despite living in a coed dorm, rules differed for men and women. Women, but not men, were restricted to their floors after midnight, and had to be in dorm by that time. No late-night runs for pizza. Not even a chance to meet the pizza guy in the lobby to accept delivery. If a women left the dormitory in the evening, she had to write where she was going, with whom, a contact phone number, and expected time of return. The men were treated as adults; women were not.
I wrote a Declaration of Independence for the Women of Lincoln Tower. A group of us detached the sign-out books from the lobby counter, carried them outside and burned them in a bonfire for freedom. Today, we would be arrested. In the 60’s, we had a stern dressing-down from the Dean of Women and the Dean of Men.
It was unlikely that the books could be reordered and delivered before the year was out, so the sign-out system was suspended for the remainder of the year, and never reinstated. While all women students cheered this stand for our freedom, it did not truly reflect the underlying motivation of each woman.Too many were at university simply to find a well-educated husband who could support them. Too many had no interest in maintaining freedom through self-sufficiency. Too many were willing to sublimate their own identity as free women for the ease of being cared for by another.
As graduation approached these women panicked. “The best opportunity to find a rich husband is now! What will I do if I leave here and I am not engaged?” was an increasingly desperate question for them, and for their mothers, whose phone calls became more frequent. This was a new phenomenon to me. My Mother’s instructions were to get as much education as I could so I would never need to depend upon anyone; theirs was to find a rich husband so they would always have someone else to depend upon. This differing world view may explain a current quandary of mine.
That quandary is why any woman would vote for a Republican. But, I think I see how they could. They are the women I knew at university who believe a man will take care of them. Democratic women are those, like myself, who stand independently on their own feet, believe self-reliance brings true freedom, and form relationships with the men in their lives which are free and among equals. Perhaps, I cannot really know, Republican women are simply those women satisfied to be taken care of by a man. To each her own.
It is a free woman who decries anyone’s efforts to replace her decision-making with their own, be they a husband, bishop or a politician. It is a free woman who insists on joint discussion and decision making with her spouse, be their agreement or disagreement. Only when women are free to be themselves, are they free to love and free to share their lives with another. And all women Democratic or Republican seek freedom, even those who avoid expressing it in their relationships with the men in their lives. Even those who listened to their mothers and married up for financial security.
It is ironic that the very women willing to rely on men to take care of them, vote for men who say government has no, or very limited, role in taking care of the poor, the elderly, our health, our job security, our environment. Those men they trust to care for them, cannot be trusted to care for us. They promise to end ObamaCare.They promise to close the Departments of Education, Environment, Labor, Health and Human Services. They get very confused over which agencies exist and whether they should be closed, but they know they must be gone! They oppose Affirmative Action, an effort to assure African-Americans, and all people of color can stand on their own, and be independent of white largesse oblige.
And these are good men. These are men who take care of their women and children, and believe they deserve respect and loyalty for so doing, for their largesse oblige. They fail to see what is right before their eyes: women and children and people of color who are their equals. By caring for them they deserve no special rank, nor praise. We are all equals, we men and women and children of every color and nationality. We are in this together. We care for one another. We are our government. Our government is us. That is what it means to live in a democratic republic. Of course government will care for us, since we care for one another as equals entitled to the same opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When we Democratic women challenge Republican men, Republican women will of course defend them upon whom the fortunes of their families rely. But, even Republican women now understand that such a paternalistic relationship can go and has gone, too far. Olympia Snowe(R) ME and Susan Collins (R)ME have supported President Obama’s efforts to assure insurance carriers provide women contraception coverage. “The women,” says Maria Cantwell, “are mad.” … you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”1 And Republican women are also speaking out, asking for support for their own contraceptive needs.2 We may be Democratic women. We may be Republican women. We are all sisters. It is time for women to take a second look at the men who would rule our lives. Ask Michelle Obama. She who is an equal among equals, one of us.
1. www.oregonlive.com › David Sarasohn › Columns
Apr 7, 2012 – “The women,” says Maria Cantwell, “are mad.” … you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”
2. http://julietjeske.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/on-birth-control-a-plea-to-republican-women/
Leave a comment
Filed under COMMENTARY, POLITICS
Tagged as college, contraception, Democratic women, Democrats, feminism, health cae, Maria Cantwell, Michelle Obama, obama, Obamacare, Olympia Snowe, politics, Republican women, Republicans, Susan Collins, university, women's health care