Oregon faces a staggering budget shortfall, and all publicly-funded services are facing service cuts, and some programs may be eliminated altogether (which translates into more people without jobs). No one likes the options in front of them; the complexity and the interconnectedness of the problems we face are just too daunting.
In response, we move into campaign mode. I am getting emails about the local school bond measure; supporting the rights of public workers and their unions, saving services for seniors and people with disabilities; avoiding cuts to public safety, housing, mental health services, libraries and more. I support public education, public employees, the Oregon Health Plan, services for kids, public safety, mental health and addiction services, housing, transportation, libraries and more. I believe in our responsibility to each other in a civil society. Yet, I also know that things are broken and can’t continue the way they are. So what do we do?
In a recent editorial, David Brooks commented on Irving Kristo’s 1974 essay “Republican Virtue vs. Servile Institutions:”
As Kristol points out in the essay, the meaning of the phrase “public spiritedness” has flipped since the 18th century. Now we think a public-spirited person is somebody with passionate opinions about public matters, one who signs petitions and becomes an activist for a cause.
In its original sense, it meant the opposite. As Kristol wrote, it meant “curbing one’s passions and moderating one’s opinions in order to achieve a large consensus that will ensure domestic tranquility.” Instead of self-expression, it meant self-restraint.
When the economy goes south, people lose jobs, risk losing their homes, are more at risk for bankruptcy, illness, and they (we) turn to public programs to get through those tough times. So we face a dilemma – increased demand on public programs at the same time that there are fewer funds to pay for public programs. It seems that we cycle around a difficult question:
When money is scarce, how do Oregonians want to prioritize the use of public dollars? (And that begs the question, “Do Oregonians even know what our tax dollars support?”)
Oregonians expect services from cities, counties and the state. The infrastructure (things we all use and we all pay for) is literally all around us – from the roads we drive on, the street lights we stop at, the libraries, police stations, court houses, and parks, and the water coming through our faucets.
I want to believe that bridges are checked and monitored for safety; that my kids can still get a good education in public schools; that when I call 911, someone will send help; and that if my neighbor needs care after a broken hip, there are services to help her in stay in her home. There are some things we should be able to depend on and pay for in common, and others that we can make individual decisions about.
How much is too much or too little for us to support in common? Is Oregon still a place where we can talk about this, or are we dependent on political sound bites to answer every question? What would we propose to do differently? And can we make those proposals from a thoughtful, informed and civic perspective? It won’t be a poll, or anything else with a near-instantaneous answer, but we will at least identify what we value in common. It’s time. It’s our responsibility to do better.
I know I am in the minority on these issues but I believe we have carried the we-can-do-it-for-you mode to an extreme. I am a senior, living in a senior community, and I see people unwilling to do anything for their health unless it is paid for under their health insurance plan or by a government agency. As a group we seem to have abdicated responsibility for the state of our own health. How did we get here and how do we turn it around? Liz, I sure wish I had an answer for “us as a group” but I don’t. I can only say that I am doing the best I know how to build strength and stamina in what I admit is a body slowed down by age BUT I also must state that I am aware that if I had a private health insurance plan, under today’s rates I could not afford to eat and live in a way that promotes strength and stamina. There must be a clue there somewhere.
Wanda, you bring up a very intriguing phenomena that I have also noticed – that we somehow think that something is better if it is “covered” and will default to do nothing if someone recommends an action that isn’t covered. It has become one of the blinders through which we measure what is appropriate or worth our time/energy to partake in. I don’t know if this change has happened over time – we’ve had more than 60 years of private insurance as the backdrop (even with Medicare – as third party administrators, and supplemental plans) so maybe we’ve incorporated a belief that if it is the right thing to do it would be covered.
Perhaps part of the answer will come when we change the question. Instead of asking how do we get everything covered, we should be asking what do we think is needed to move to a healthier community. Surprisingly, medical care is not the first thing that gets brought up. It is certainly among the top five, but people also talk about safe walking paths, affordable (good) food and a sense of community, whether that community is an apartment complex, assisted living facility, or a farming/rural community. I wish I had the answer too, but maybe our discomfort with current focus will be enough to shift the debate.
Liz,
Very good essay. I just put it on my FB page and agree that the debate as to what constitutes public spirit is an important one that the me-driven, selfishness as virtue (sic) and greed is good crowd will ultimately lose. Give my best to Gov/Doc and keep up the good work. It is almost time to roll up our sleeves for 2012. See you in the trenches.