Oratorical Animal

Longing for Conservatism

This is not an alternative universe nor did you misread the title. I'm a bit behind on my magazines, but I recently finished David Goldhill's "How American Health Care Killed My Father" in the September issue of Atlantic Monthly. It's a wonderful essay--and I disagree with much of it.

Goldhill is a Democrat. I take him at his word, but this is an argument made by a businessman, by a grieving son, and by a man who would have been a Republican in 1977 or even 1987. It is precisely the sort of contribution conservatives should make to the health care debate. Why do I say that?

First, Goldhill's perspective reflects what I would regard as a truly conservative balance between individual responsibility and structural forces. On the one hand, people need to behave better and they need to engage in prevention. In many ways, they should carry responsibility for their health and for their health care in ways that they now do not do. On the other hand, Goldhill argues that the system offers perverse incentives; people are encouraged to behave badly and, given those incentives, they're likely to do so.

Second, Goldhill approaches this problem as a businessman. Rather than beginning with vacuous abstractions about family values, he turns to empirical fact (hospitals kill inordinate numbers of people) and best business practices (why has our health care system utterly "missed out on the revolution in quality control and customer service that has swept all other consumer-facing industries in the past two generations?"). 

This is an approach that reflects the case study method of the best business schools. How do we define the problem? What are best practices available? Why does this instance not use those practices and how might we go about encouraging said practices? This represents the empirical logic of a Hume or even a Burke--know what's going on and look for modest, existing, useful solutions.

Third, he believes deeply in the concept of "moral hazard"--that we will become less likely to do the right thing when someone else covers this cost or takes the consequences. Thus, government intervention in a general sense is highly problematic in a free market economy; if some have no "moral hazard" that deeply distorts the system of incentives that should produce good behavior.

There's much more that I could cite, but I think you can get the flavor of the essay from these three factors. This is a sophisticated, powerful argument that maintains an extension of the present system to more people, the incremental approach favored by President Obama, is highly flawed.

What might we do? Restore logic to the system through the rational subject. Goldhill assumes a rational agent, able to review health care possibilities and make the best choices. This information gathering, logical American would be subject to risk, but would also understand the choices available to mitigate it. This agent, then, would be able to make the "right" choices, thus bringing market forces to bear to discipline an industry that seems utterly to lack them.

I disagree strongly with this perspective for a couple of reasons, both of which Paul Krugman has articulated at one time or another.

First, if the entire market is distorted for whatever reason, such as the housing market prior to the Crash, then even a logical individual agent can do nothing; we'll do all the due diligence possible, but the bubble will continue and its explosion will cause terrible damage. My comparative shopping does no good when the whole market for housing is screwed up.

Second, people are not rational animals when it comes to health care. We may decide with some care that the heating system for the seats is not necessary for a car destined to live in Champaign/Urbana, Illinois, but our beloved is damn well going to get every ounce of health care available. Heck, our dogs are going to get every possible treatment. Death disrupts logic.

You'll note, dear reader, that Goldhill has an argument that I can and do engage. Even if I do not accept all of his points, I accept some (the quality control stuff is crucial) and I debate the rest. I can do so because Goldhill lives in the currently existing United States of America, understands the role of facts in public debate, and is interested in creating a health care system that does not kill more fathers.

This is the kind of contribution that key representatives of the Republican Party and the conservative leadership should be making. It is based on clearly conservative values and principles; it rests on a nice understanding of the market. Instead, we get Joe Wilson and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.  

I hope there will come a time when real conservatives decide to take back their party and movement. Until then, we are the worse for their absence.

Public Sentiment Is Everything

Those who have studied their Abraham Lincoln and their David Zarefsky will recognize this quotation. During the Lincoln/Douglas debates, the Republican Senate hopeful articulated his theory of political persuasion with these words: "In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible."

As Professor Zarefsky nicely argues (Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, 1994), Lincoln defined public sentiment as critical to the debate over slavery for practical and idealistic reasons. He sought to protect himself against charges of hypocrisy and indict Douglas with the same. Lincoln opposed slavery, but was not an abolitionist. Given that public sentiment was not ready for immediate abolition, he felt he must be satisfied with strictures against slavery's spread. Yet all was not hopeless because, he felt, public sentiment also put slavery on the road to extinction. We tolerated it, but expected it would end. He could encourage that sentiment. So, he both denounced slavery and yet tolerated it where it was. In his view, that was not hypocritical. He was doing what one could in that situation. 

Douglas, on the other hand, claimed not to care about the outcome of the issue because, he felt, the people should decide, but, in his show of indifference, he coarsened public sentiment and coaxed slavery from its deathbed. That was hypocritical. Lincoln recognized not only the practical implications of the issue, but also its morality. Slavery was evil. Public leaders had a felt duty to shape the public sentiment such that it might eventually be outlawed. Douglas would not do that. Despite his protestations, his stance was effectively proslavery.

President Obama, by his testimony, has spent considerable time studying the works of President Lincoln. He needs to think of Lincoln again. As has lately been the case with several presidencies (I think of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II), the political battles have come to a head in the fall of the president's first year. In this instance, health care reform, cap and trade environmental legislation, budget issues, charges of racism, incivility, and violence are filling the airwaves. As a result, the stakes are higher than any particular reform.

I am not at all sure that the American people have mastered the intricacies of the trigger for the public option within new health insurance exchanges nor have they explored auction rights for carbon credits in cap and trade proposals. Realize, however, that he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.

The president, I suspect, needs to use his ubiquity this weekend (5 Sunday shows and a Monday appearance on Daaaaaa-vid Letterman) to frame the need for audacious political action, to borrow a phrase from my friend at Puget Sound. Obama needs to make the larger case for change, to simplify yet more, to portray this as a fight between past and present. He needs to craft public sentiment.

There are, on the one hand, those who see a small America, a narrow cramped place of the past, who worry about what we can't do, where we're unable to go, what we can't afford. They think about those we should send away, those we should exclude, those who should not matter. They're so busy making America pure that they forget to make it big. They want only to keep what they have. They whine, and cry, and complain. They fear the future.

That's not the nation the president knows, those aren't the people who fought an empire, freed the slaves, won women the vote, and saved the world from the Nazi scourge. This is a big nation, with a soul to match. We lift up our neighbors and make neighbors of all. We work the problem and make it work. There's no crying and whining and wailing here. We welcome the future. That's our time. That's when we make it happen.

Public sentiment, Mr. President, is everything.

Romantic Rhetorical Polling

During the 2008 campaign, Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com became the go-to source on polls for the liberal blogosphere and a respectable one even for some conservatives. When he considered the effect of the president's health care address, people listened. Ezra Klein, for instance, asked "Do speeches work?" and concluded that the historical "data" shows they probably don't, although Nate makes a case for this one and elite opinion may respond more readily to presidential persuasion.

Which begs the question: If speeches don't matter, why did Lincoln bother? In other words, if speeches don't matter, why have so many smart people, from Pericles to Obama, given them? What do Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, and many political scientists know that Webster and Wilson, Reagan and Roosevelt did not?

Most critics of public address make such confident assertions because they begin with the wrong model. It may seem strange to attribute Romanticism to political scientists or statistical geeks or political pundits, but they almost always begin with the most Romantic model of rhetoric possible. A great (generally white, generally male) leader speaks. The nation cocks an ear. The public opinion polls show little movement over time. The great leader has failed to leap a tall building in a single bound. Rhetoric is useless. To say the least, there are some stress points in this model.

First, the nation may or may not cock an ear. Most public address scholars assume that some people listen, some people don't, and some people cock a snook rather than an ear. The arguments in speeches, such as the health care speech, resemble water. They dribble, they flow, they seek weak spots, they carve a path, they work their way into people's attention and do their work over time.

Second, orators don't necessarily seek to persuade or to change minds. They may inspire followers to work harder, neutralize opponents, inflame some, ashame others, whatever. There are a variety of reactions polls cannot capture. More important, as I think this speech did, they work to reframe the issue; they change the way other advocates talk, they alter the public vocabulary, they make it good or bad, useful or not useful to talk in particular ways. They give us practical ways of talking that, repeated over time, come to solve social problems and define the world of choices open to us.

For instance, when John Kennedy spoke in favor of civil rights in 1963, he did not immediately persuade southerners. They did not say, "Wow, what a speech, we were so wrong about segregation, what in the world were we thinking? Our bad. Sorry, MLK dude." Rather, he threw the moral weight of the presidency behind civil rights and made of that cause a test of American character (Character? Where have I heard that word lately? Hmmmm). Presumption shifted. 

Over time, as a result of that speech and "I Have A Dream," and protests and other rhetorical acts, it became un-American to segregate. You couldn't treat certain people as less than human. You couldn't call them certain epithets in public or polite company, you couldn't assume about them, and them became us. It's easier to legislate on behalf of an "us" than on behalf of "them." Neither John Kennedy nor Barack Obama expect[ed] audiences to swoon when the speech ended. I'm not sure why political scientists do.  

Third, polls cannot capture a lot. They are brief snapshops that depend almost completely on the questions being asked and, as Mike Hogan has repeatedly argued, mislead as much as inform. To use them as the measure of the success of a rhetorical campaign is problematic.Silver himself has noted that "public option" polling requires one heckuva lot more sophistication that most pollsters ever achieve. And, believe it or not, pollsters (and political scientists) are people (well, most political scientists). They have opinions, biases, prejudices, loves, hates, hopes, and hoop dreams that slide through their work.

Including the most Romantic notion of rhetoric possible. No tall building. No "my bad." Just hard work. That's public address. Lots of perspiration for rare moments of inspiration that inspire more perspiration. And change.

What Do Editors Do Now?

I do not mean this question in a snarky fashion, not least because I don't want to go out for dinner on Christmas Eve. But I am curious and two recent examples have led me to this point.

One is local. Several weeks ago, our local paper ran a syndicated column by Nat Hentoff. He's a so-called civil libertarian, but frankly he's generally not quite all there upstairs, which makes him quite compatible with the News-Gazoo's editorial page. In this instance, he wrote a column on health care that contained demonstrable lies. It was generally a right wing grab bag, but they were not true. There is no provision for death panels or coverage for illegal aliens or abortion coverage. These were untrue assertions. So, I wrote the editor and asked him the paper's policy. And I was nice. Do they fact check syndicated columns? Do they choose not to run them if they are untrue? I never heard back.

One is national. Today, Texas Senator and gubernatorial candidate Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote a column for the Washington Post. She critiqued the Obama Administration's use of "czars" for policy purposes and asserted as two fundamental premises: "A few of them have formal titles, but most are simply known as czars. They hold unknown levels of power over broad swaths of policy." Both claims are untrue.

As Matt Yglesias and Amanda Terkel point out, all of the "czars" have official titles. The "drug czar," for instance, is the Director of National Drug Control Policy. Czar is a term that dates back at least to FDR's administration and Richard Nixon began its contemporary career when William Simon was appointed energy czar. So, in short, all czars have official titles, all have job descriptions that set the range of their responsibilities, and many are confirmed by the Senate. Hutchison is either a complete ignoramus or a complete liar. Heck, she voted to create the position of "intelligence czar," otherwise known as the Director of National Intelligence.

Hutchison is writing this drivel because she wants to be governor of Texas. But why is the paper publishing it? These two claims are not true.

Usually, papers claim that op-eds are not news and that independent columnists are outside their purview. But the News-Gazoo presumably pays for Hentoff and the Gone Postal published Hutchison. Again, do they fact check and if not, why not?

For instance, neither would publish an op-ed that urged an end to government purchases of GPS devices since they are inaccurate because the earth is flat. Neither would publish, I'm betting, an op-ed urging subscribers to join the Ku Klux Klan. So, I'd like to know.

Where's the line?

Dear Governor Pawlenty,

I understand that you've become quite the constitutional expert. State sovereignty? You think you can nullify health care reform through state sovereignty? I'm guessing I know why the governor of Minnesota has decided to adopt the doctrine of John C. Calhoun and the Confederacy as his own, but I think you need to grow up. And maybe read the history of your own state.

There once was a man--a man--named William Colvill. He had the honor to command the First Minnesota Volunteer Infantry. They didn't think much of John C. Calhoun, interposition, nullification, or secession. The inscription on their monument at Gettysburg reads:

"On the afternoon of July 2, 1863, Sickles' Third Corps, having advanced from this line to the Emmitsburg Road, eight companies of the First Minnesota Regiment, numbering 262 men were sent to this place to support a battery upon Sickles repulse.

As his men were passing here in confused retreat, two Confederate brigades in pursuit were crossing the swale. To gain time to bring up the reserves & save this position, Gen Hancock in person ordered the eight companies to charge the rapidly advancing enemy.

The order was instantly repeated by Col Wm Colvill. And the charge as instantly made down the slope at full speed through the concentrated fire of the two brigades breaking with the bayonet the enemy's front line as it was crossing the small brook in the low ground there the remnant of the eight companies, nearly surrounded by the enemy held its entire force at bay for a considerable time & till it retired on the approach of the reserve the charge successfully accomplished its object. It saved this position & probably the battlefield. The loss of the eight companies in the charge was 215 killed & wounded. More than 83% percent. 47 men were still in line & no man missing. In self sacrificing desperate valor this charge has no parallel in any war. Among the severely wounded were Col Wm Colvill, Lt Col Chas P Adams & Maj Mark W. Downie. Among the killed Capt Joseph Periam, Capt Louis Muller & Lt Waldo Farrar. The next day the regiment participated in repelling Pickett's charge losing 17 more men killed & wounded."

Really, Governor. Some things mean more than political popularity. William Colvill knew that.

Quick Thoughts After the Big Speech

*I'm more impressed than ever by the policy aspects of Obama's speech last night. "Impressed," to be clear, meaning "I can teach this sucker." Truly. If one wants to teach the stock issues of policy--harm, scope, inherency, alternative, practical, beneficial--there's not a better text for it in recent American politics.

*For those who have dropped pseudo-defenses of Joe Wilson into the public arena, stop. He's wrong on the issue; the plan does not provide coverage for illegal aliens. He's wrong on decorum; he's the first person since Woodrow Wilson revived presidential speeches before joint sessions in 1913 to heckle the president. There is no equivalent here to shouts of "liar" at Bush political rallies. You don't do this on the floor of the House of Representatives. No one has ever done it in the modern era. He is unique.

*As Steve Benen notes, primaries work wonders. Before Joe Sestak challenged Arlen Specter, the Republican turned Democrat opposed the public option and voted with the Administration 69% of the time. After Sestak announced, that number jumped to 97% of the time and Arlen just loooooves the public option. Can we create a primary for Kent Conrad?

*At several points last night, the president explicitly or implicitly offered to negotiate with the Republicans. I'm still trying to understand that process. Presumably, as with any negotiation, each side gives something so that both can come to an agreement. For example, President Obama could offer to ditch the public option and enact a limit on medical malpractice damages in return for Republican votes for the rest of the package. One can debate the utility of that deal, but it's a deal.

Yet I've never seen, read, or heard of a single Republican willing to vote for the package. With whom can Obama make a deal if no one is willing to deal? The Republicans say they wish the president to deal, but none ever says, "Look if x or something like x happens, I'd probably vote for it." To paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt, "They are unanimous in their hatred for this bill." Only Olympia Snowe of Maine has even put a toe in the water and I suspect Obama's nervous about including long term care packages for lobsters.

A negotiation requires two sides. We have one. If Obama continues along this path, it would be like Tom Hicks of the Texas Rangers constantly raising his offer to A-Rod back in the day when no one else was negotiating with A-Rod. The Rangers outbid themselves. The Administration may face the same problem.

*I'm really sad I blogged rather than watching Glee last night.

*Hillary Clinton looked more comfortable in her own skin last night than I have ever seen her. Oh, she wasn't fashionable or anything. She just appeared strong, confident, clear in her own role and in her own head--greeting people, exchanging whispered asides and belly-laughs, encouraging the president right before he spoke. I would have liked to have seen her face when he came out for mandates; that was the only real point of contention between the two of them on health care last spring--and she won. Eventually. Huzzah for Hillary.

*The first weekend of fantasy football and already my fragile quarterback is wobbly. Stay on your feet, Matt Schaub. Upright is good.

*I'm trying to give some thought to the Republicans, believe it or not. In my spare time or while I run. I don't understand it. No and always no is a decent short term and a lousy long term strategy. Like Putin's Russia, the Republicans also face a demographic cliff; their strongest support comes from the older Americans--aging Reagan Republicans like John McCain.

And I see no attractive leaders that seem plausible nominees or candidates. In 1980, it wasn't just the emergence of Reagan. At the debates that year, the Republicans showed off Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, John Connally, Howard Baker, John Anderson, and Bob Dole. I'm probably forgetting someone, but that was an extraordinary, talented, rhetorically skilled lineup. No one from the contemporary Republican leadership could appear onstage with those folks--Sarah Palin? John Boehner? Mitt Romney? Rudy Guiliani? Really?

Finally, I'm seeing little sign of serious thought and retrenchment. In the mid to late 80s, a variety of left and center Democratic think tanks and groups, from the Democratic Leadership Council to the American Prospect, from the Rainbow Coalition to the PPI, formed up, had conferences, and granted visibility to new leadership in the wake of electoral defeat. I'm seeing no sign of that now from the Republicans. And the Democrats were far worse off then. Maybe that's the problem.

*Why is it, when I think of Rahm Emanuel discussing Joe Wilson, I keep hearing Al Capone (Robert DeNiro) "discussing" Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) during the famous banquet scene in The Untouchables? 

Where have YOU Been?

There was the Barack Obama I remember from the campaign--strong, confident, reasoned, and tough. As anyone who read my previous posts could guess, I liked this speech.

The opening and the close raised the stakes for members of Congress. The introduction made of this reform effort a grand historical enterprise, a century in the making. The close made of this issue a character test. Are we still worthy of our "fathers," of FDR, LBJ, and, yes, Edward Kennedy? Of those Democrats and Republicans in Congresses past? In essence, he's asking, "Are you made of that same stuff?" A grand narrative frames the issue.

The peroration--the next to the close--raised the moral stakes higher. He described American big-heartedness and told of the individuals who were denied coverage (note he didn't name them; you could put yourself in their shoes) and suffered as a result. This was the moral case for health care reform.

The first section identified common ground and clearly explained his proposals. "Three" elements clarified a previously confusing world; assertions that all agreed with much of this were met with applause; careful explanation dominated. The speech in general and this section in particular fulfilled the classic burdens of a policy address: He showed a harm, described its scope, and indicated that it had gone 100 years without solution. He then described his alternative and explained why it would be practical--he can pay for it--and beneficial--safety and security for those who have coverage, help for those who don't.

The second section refuted lies and questioned the motives of those who did lie. Since the Republican response immediately began spinning those tales of government takeover (Is Louisiana the only state with a Republican Party? First Bobby the Page and now this guy?), it was quite useful to do so. Obama's arguments and the actions of Republicans listening rather convincingly demonstrated their bad character to mainstream America. 

A third section--I think--from my notes--offered compromise and established his centrist credentials. In essence, he played bad cop and good cop--I will not let you lie and distort this issue. My door is always open. If nothing else, this section can convince the American people that the president is willing to listen to reason but, sadly, the other side is not.

So, a quick reaction. Excellent speech. It did what it needed to do--it framed the debate in the president's terms, changing the tenor, I suspect, of the arguments to follow and providing his supporters with arguments to make. He now needs to follow this campaign with a strong public effort, a convincing demonstration of support for this plan.  

D'Oh, It's Congress!

No matter what one thinks of President Obama, I think it's safe to say that few Americans believe Congress has covered itself with glory of late. This morning, when I listened to a routine NPR report noting that, "Congress needs clear direction from the president," I yelled, "Lyndon Johnson didn't need no stinkin president to tell him what to do." Yes, I do this. More evidence that my sweetie is remarkably tolerant. So, why is Congress worse? I have no evidence, but that's never stopped me before. A few thoughts.

Congress is more partisan and less productive because the country is more partisan and less productive. We're in one of those high partisan periods in American history and Congress simply reflects the feelings and norms of the nation.

The partisanship is emphasized by the technical ability to fold, spindle, and mutilate congressional districts to within an inch of their lives. There are so many "safe" seats created by redistricting that the biggest threat to a House member is often a primary; thus, the dynamic is clear. Members are driven to ideological extremes because they might face a credible primary threat to the left or right, but never a moderate general election challenge.

Redistricting is obviously not an issue in the Senate, but as the states have become clearer and more partisan, so, too, have the Senators. Take a look at the 1988 electoral map. On one level, it's absolute proof of Republican stupidity over the past twenty years; H.W. won Illinois, Michigan, and California. On another level, it reveals that many states used to be swing states. Four years later, Bill Clinton won. Senators couldn't afford to be as nuts as many are now.

Given the number of safe seats, it's also true that members of the House and Senate never quite develop the negotiating skills of past incumbents. Think about it. When Illinois was a bellwether state, as it was for much of the 20th century, its Senators constantly had to balance Chicago and downstate, urban and rural, machine and reform. No more.

Congress has also gotten less productive as travel has grown easier. Seriously. Now that members can go home every week, we insist that they do go home every week. In times past, they stayed together in boarding houses, commiserated over distance, went to the same brothels, got drunk, rode home, went to church, whatever. They knew each other. Now, they probably can barely recognize one another on the streets of the city. They don't feel the commitment to negotiate with a stranger.

So, we're more partisan; they're more partisan. We make them go home. We insist on congressional districts that represent our interests; we want members to be a mirror of us. We track them, we watch them, we are, in fact, helicopter constituents. The fault, dear Brutus....

The Next Exciting Episode: Obama on Health Care

President Obama's health care address to a joint session of Congress has drawn more than the ordinary level of attention. Many pundits, such as Paul Krugman, have said what they want to hear. This guy has been mouthing off around his university; anybody, it seems, can give rhetorical advice. So, here's the oratorical animal's thoughts, old and new, on the upcoming speech. I expect/hope for six elements.

First, Obama needs to be coherent. He needs to shape a clear, intelligible world in his text. Health care is a confusing issue and a variety of notions, right and wrong, are floating around out there. The president needs a structured address that resolves this confusion and restores clarity to the political scene. This April 14, 2009 speech on the economy at Georgetown University illustrates those qualities. It's too long for primetime, but the strength of the president's presentation that day rested in his ability to take the bits and pieces of an economic plan and explain how all of the parts pull together for a single end. He needs to do the same on Wednesday night.

The speech he gave yesterday to a union picnic in Cincinnati foreshadowed some of this. In particular, Obama coined a slogan you'll hear again: "security and stability for those who have health insurance; help for those who don't." Pretty nice bumper sticker that appeals to most Americans. 

So, the first key strategy: an organized speech, one that might even display numbered points, parallel structure (consistent wording across sections, as in "I Have a dream..."), repetition, and other word choices aimed at making a coherent world out of a confusing one. 

Second, he needs refutation. Obama will need to take the more "plausible" claims of the opposition--you'll lose your employer insurance, Medicare will be harmed, etc.--and explain why they are not true. He'll then need to debunk and disdain the crazier claims--death panels--as evidence for the ill will and corruption of those who want no change at all. In this way, he can get at the cultural history of the issue--the debate that has gone on.

Third, however, I expect that strategy to accompany consilience, a term coined by argumentation theorists Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca and used by David Frank to describe Obama's discourse. It means, roughly, to weave together disparate audiences and account for their alternative, even opposing, positions and motivations. As Frank argues, it's a useful way to see Obama's famous "More Perfect Union" address and his 2004 DNC speech. He's very good at this; he'll understand and interpret the motives of those who are "afraid" or "concerned" and he'll orchestrate those seeming obstacles with the need for change.

Fourth, there are opponents he cannot reconcile, much like the racist sheriffs and white ministers Martin Luther King, Jr. faced. There are many who have argued that Obama should flail the evil ones, drive the moneychangers from the temple in the style on FDR's 1936 campaign. I'm not sure that's in him and I'm not sure an African American man, even one who is president, can get away with that. Rather, the sad outrage, the lamentations, King often expressed, the disbelieving wonder that people can behave like this, what is wrong with them, Lord why must I say this again and AGAIN? That's the sort of thing Obama can do, I think, with Newt Gingrich starring as the racist sheriff and Max Baucus/Kent Conrad as the white "moderates." I doubt Obama can name them, but there are ways around that.

Fifth, he needs to remind us, again, of the problem--of the terrible difficulties of the present system. Unlike Krugman, I don't think heartwrenching anecdotes will work. We've heard a lot of them. Rather, I'd steal a page from W's rhetorical playbook. In his post 9/11 discourse, he liked to describe people, even real people, without naming them, allowing us to project ourselves into the roles. In this case, the single mother struggling to....the 50 year old who's lost his job...And be concrete where I put ellipses--specifically describe the troubles they face.

Finally, he needs a moral narrative, an effort to nest this effort in American history, to shame those recalcitrant legislators not only with the specific troubles they're perpetuating, but to threaten to cast them as the villains, as the awful people who let this go on and on. Threaten them, in a sense, with the rhetorical fate of George Wallace and Bull Connor--those who were on the wrong side of history. No legislator in that audience or person in the country wants to be forever known as the person on the wrong side of history, the obstacle to a full life for millions of Americans, the negative example in the history books, the Chief Justice Taney or the Jefferson Davis of our time.

So, establish the problem. Coherently describe the solution. Orchestrate the beliefs of the audiences. Refute those who disagree. Disdain those who disdain. Ennoble the American people and even those legislators as holding the fate of America in their hands--the last best hope of all humanity. Lift this American people into an eternal American people, answering the call of history.

That's all. Not so tough. Right?

Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money--Um, not so much on the lawyers

This article is one of many I've read in the last year or so: The United States has way too many lawyers. And it's getting worse. I notice these reports because I have spent a lot of time counseling very smart students and far too many of them end up going to law school. It is the default option; I'm not at all sure many of them think hard about it. They should.

For one thing, there are other kinds of careers for smart people. Really. For another, the price of law school is all out of proportion to what most actually earn. The debt will kill you.

I have the deepest respect for all of the smart lawyers I know. But there are a lot of you.