MonteZuma Posted August 11, 2005 Report Posted August 11, 2005 This is an interesting take on why GWB's policy of 'pre-emption' sucks. Speakout: Pre-emptive politics ignore scienceRocky Mountain NewsAugust 18, 2003 Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could accurately predict the future and then take effective actions? This approach to policy making has been called "pre-emption" by the Bush administration and underlies the national security strategy that led to the war in Iraq and the recently canceled government program on betting on acts of terrorism. But pre-emption is exclusively neither a Republican approach to policy, nor confined to national security. For example, it is also the stance of choice for environmentalists who seek to pre-empt emerging environmental threats like global warming. Pre-emption makes a lot of sense when knowledge is certain and there is little political controversy. Examples of pre-emptive successes - among many - are vaccinations, earthquake engineering, and even Social Security, which "pre-empts" poverty among our seniors. Each of these policies is based on certain knowledge and an overwhelming political consensus, two conditions that make up a short recipe for pre-emptive success. By contrast, pre-emption has little hope for success when knowledge is uncertain and there is intense political conflict. In cases like Iraq or global warming, decisions must be made when the most honest statement about intelligence, scientific or otherwise, is simply, "We don't know for sure." When political conflict over what to do occurs under conditions of uncertainty, a pre-emptive stance creates powerful incentives to politicize information in favor of a predetermined answer. Starting with answers and then looking for supporting information may be an acceptable approach for students in Policy Studies 101, but it has serious consequences when it is the preferred approach of policy makers making consequential decisions. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., recently released a report suggesting that the Bush Administration has systematically shaped scientific information and expert panels in support of its political agenda. Yet the Bush administration is not alone. A conservative advocacy group in Washington has sued the government to suppress what it views aspolitically motivated reports on climate change originating in the Clinton administration. Asking political officials from either party to oversee scientific activities makes about as much sense as asking Donald Rumsfeld to edit CIA reports on weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. This all but guarantees the politicization of information. Politics is all about reducing choices to a single preferred course of action - war in Iraq, yes or no? Kyoto protocol, yes or no? But for choice to be reduced, there must first be alternatives. When politicized, a pre-emptive approach doesn't need alternatives; itmerely needs political victory on a single, predetermined option. And one way that political victory can be achieved is by leaving no room for doubt. The quest for certainty required by a commitment to pre-emption elevates the role of politics in policy and diminishes the role of information. In situations of profound uncertainty or irreconcilable differences in values, flexible policies that evolve based on public participation and the lessons of experience may make more sense than large scale commitments from which there is little chance to correct mistakes. The motivations of political advocates may help to explain the turn to pre-emption in situations of uncertainty andpolitical conflict. We risk bad policy when all choices before us are bad ones. For instance, the Kyoto protocol on climate change has its supporters and opponents, but very few are willing to admit that debate over itsimplementation has considerably more symbolic value than practical effect. The debate over the war on Iraq may have been similarly misguided as better policy options may have been ignored. In both cases, a commitment to pre-emption enables the politicization of intelligence, which then serves as a constraint on options that may be more effective but, for certain ideologues, politically less desirable. Pre-emption hurts the policy process when it results in a dearth of choice. Lack of choice also threatens democracy because it elevates politics above policy, and it subs!@#$%^&*utes consideration of creative policy alternatives with political battle over predetermined positions. Roger A. Pielke Jr. is director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Copyright 2003, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.
LearJett+ Posted August 11, 2005 Report Posted August 11, 2005 Hmm... I like GWB's approach with pre-emption, but I do admit - it leaves a lot of "what-if"s. Pre-emption makes a lot of sense when knowledge is certain and there is little political controversy. Examples of pre-emptive successes - among many - are vaccinations, earthquake engineering, and even Social Security, which "pre-empts" poverty among our seniors. Each of these policies is based on certain knowledge and an overwhelming political consensus, two conditions that make up a short recipe for pre-emptive success.Heh, on a side note I don't think some of us would consider Social Security a success for the future. Especially when we won't have it
AstroProdigy Posted August 15, 2005 Report Posted August 15, 2005 Lol. Just because GWB said that Social Security will be gone soon, that does not make it true. He is just trying to get Americans afraid of it so they would support his new Social Security plan so that he can cut Social Security for the profit of big corporations. That won't hurt the rich; it will hurt the poor. I'm scared by this link's information.
LearJett+ Posted August 15, 2005 Report Posted August 15, 2005 Astro, have you ever taken Economics? Social security is completely over drawn. It was a great idea during the Great Depression, but now it's just not.
MonteZuma Posted August 16, 2005 Author Report Posted August 16, 2005 According to some stats I've looked up, spending on social security in the US, as a %age of GDP, has remained steady for the last 25 years and is expected to remain steady for at least the next 5. I think the most pressure on government budgets in the developed world is from the rising ciost of health care. The emerging treatments are fantastic but very expensive.
AstroProdigy Posted August 16, 2005 Report Posted August 16, 2005 Only problem is, the Bush administration forced Congress (by making them stay in session and revote until they passed it) to p!@#$%^&* a bill that made it illegal to get perscription drugs from Canada. Senior citizens have to pay a lot more on perscription drugs simply because the drug companies have loads of lobbyists in Washington. It's really sad how the little guy is getting stepped on and doesn't even know it.
LearJett+ Posted August 16, 2005 Report Posted August 16, 2005 Bush doesn't have the authority to keep Congress in session. Are you a fan of outsourcing, then? It's the same idea
AstroProdigy Posted August 16, 2005 Report Posted August 16, 2005 Well now I am not saying it was only Bush. There were other Republicans in Congress that would not allow the session to end until they voted for the bill. Yes, I know about outsourcing. Letting American drug companies, which have quite of bit of influence over the government to monopolize and sell us drugs for insane prices sounds a lot worse than outsourcing. Calling it outsourcing is just an excuse. It seems the drug companies had more influence than the American public in that case; and don't say the American people supported this. There's no way to sell an idea like this that you may just force many Americans not to buy the drugs they need because they can't afford it for the benefit of big business. Trying to explain the outsourcing idea won't help either because they won't care if big business loses money rather than them losing money. This is neither a Republican nor a Democratic philosophy.
MonteZuma Posted August 17, 2005 Author Report Posted August 17, 2005 The thing about health care is that there should be equal access for all regardless of wealth. If people want to pay extra and get choice of doctor, choice of hospital, private room, entertainment systems and better meals...then that is fine. But when it comes to treatments that make the difference between life and death or the difference between pain and relief, we should all have equal access, at least within our national borders.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 17, 2005 Report Posted August 17, 2005 Only problem is, the Bush administration forced Congress (by making them stay in session and revote until they passed it) to p!@#$%^&* a bill that made it illegal to get perscription drugs from Canada.Well now I am not saying it was only Bush. Oh really? It seems the drug companies had more influence than the American public in that case; and don't say the American people supported this. There's no way to sell an idea like this that you may just force many Americans not to buy the drugs they need because they can't afford it for the benefit of big business.Companies in general have more influence in Washington than the American Public. Corporate Welfare is the worst thing that could ever happen to a democracy. If we truely want our government to represent us, we need to push to get corporate lobbysts thrown the !@#$%^&* out of Washington. They have no business there. Lol. Just because GWB said that Social Security will be gone soon, that does not make it true. He is just trying to get Americans afraid of it so they would support his new Social Security plan so that he can cut Social Security for the profit of big corporations. That won't hurt the rich; it will hurt the poor.I'm scared by this link's information. Lol. Just because your nifty little link filled with neat little cartoons and propogandistic BS says otherwise doesn't mean it isn't true. I haven't done alot of research on Social Security, to be honest about it, so I have no comment. Personally, I would enjoy the option to invest my money how I see fit, but if the government wants to do that for me then right on, IMO. A long, long time from now whenever I'm ready to start drawing social security, however, it better !@#$%^&*ing be there for me.
candygirl Posted August 17, 2005 Report Posted August 17, 2005 Dr.Worthless,Aug 16 2005, 11:31 PMlong time from now whenever I'm ready to start drawing social security, however, it better !@#$%^&*ing be there for me.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> You think it will? I don't think so. I have a long way to go before i drawing it and i know its not going to be there.
MonteZuma Posted August 17, 2005 Author Report Posted August 17, 2005 I reckon it will. Standards of living and wealth will probably continue to climb. Starving senior citizens make politicians look bad at election time. And in 20+ years time, senior citizens will comprise a larger proportion of the voting population.
AstroProdigy Posted August 18, 2005 Report Posted August 18, 2005 Yeah we should throw the all the corporate lobbyists out of Washington. As for Social Security, it is very hard to really know exactly how it is. You would have to research a lot of things like economic growth statistics and population changes to see where Social Security is going; and then you can take whatever numbers you want as long as its in each range for these factors and try to sway people to your opinion. The factors used to determine the future of Social Security are general and taking the highs and lows of them give you two completely different scenarios.
MonteZuma Posted August 18, 2005 Author Report Posted August 18, 2005 The thing is, right now we are already experiencing the first of the post-war baby-boomer retirements and nobody is forecasting any serious, immediate consequences. Energy prices are a bigger economic threat. There will be more pressure on the system when the kids of the baby-boomers retire (about 30 years from now I guess), because then we'll have to pay the doctor's bills for the post-war baby-boomers and the social security of their kids, but I suspect at that time we'll be more worried about global warming or .... energy prices ... or whatever else......
Recommended Posts