Maybe it’s the days of endless government shutdown. Maybe it’s the days of endless rain.

Writing about any of it comes hard to me. I am uncharacteristically quiet and reflective.

We live in a society built on competition. The economic system creates wealth and rations scarce resources through competition. Democracy is a competition for the support of voters. And, no society is more sports-minded than we are, with giant arenas and stadiums for a variety of sports, each with millions of followers.

However, all of this competition occurs in the context of a society. A society implies certain shared values, a modicum of cooperation, and concern for other members of the society, if not for their own sakes, then for the sake of the society.

Consequently, a competitive society is one with built-in contradictions. At the extreme, economic competition results in great wealth, poorly distributed, and concentrated in the hands of the few. At the extreme, political competition, like sports competition, requires that victory trumps all ethical considerations, including the needs of the society or sport.

On the other extreme, a completely cooperative society, devoid of competition, sharing things equally, is unlikely to thrive. As our conservative friends point out, the incentives for wealth creation and technological progress based on expenditure are likely to be lacking. In addition, there will be free riders, people who wish to partake without producing.

The political and social pendulum in the United States often swings between competition and cooperation, between liberty and equality. At this point in time, it seems to me that we have swung a bit too far toward competition. We have a Congress that cares more about the next election and scoring political points than public policy; we have a Speaker, who should know better, but is more concerned about the challenge to his leadership than the American economy.

Behind it all are two ideologies that seem singularly unconcerned about any impact, other than how a position is measured against the yardstick of a belief system, a non-religious libertarianism allied with a particularly narrow version of Christianity, aligned together in opposition to government initiatives, despite their obvious contradictions. It is a characteristic of ideology and utopia, as Karl Mannheim called the narrow beliefs of the present and the future, that purity of belief surpasses any human need.

Combining these strong ideological commitments with the political system results in the political impasse we are experiencing. Closed belief systems can rationalize economic collapse as a necessary, ultimate good, so compromise is not only unnecessary from that perspective, but traitorous. As Eric Hoffer put it,

It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence

So, the campaign against the program of our current President can pivot from health care to spending to entitlements, but is consistently against the President and his positions. When the economic consequences of the shutdown and the debt limit crisis are tallied, they will say, “See, we told you that the Affordable Care Act would destroy the economy.”

Politicians of all wings, parties and beliefs routinely employ spin–stretching the truth to make their points; however, at some point the distance from the truth is sufficient to call “spin” an outright falsehood. An example, in health care, was the charge that Obamacare mandated “death panels.” (Physicians routinely discuss end-of-life issues with their patients. The proposal was that they be reimbursed for the time so spent.)

As Mark Twain put it, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

When confronted with an obvious falsehood or exaggeration, the honest person faces a dilemma: does the speaker/writer truly believe what is written, or is that person cynically exploiting the ignorance of others?

Here are some of the arguments about the Affordable Care Act that have been dragged into debate about fiscal policy, the Federal budget, and the US statutory debt limit.

1. Congress has exempted itself from Obamacare.
   The fact is that Congressional employees will be shopping for health care on the exchanges rather than receiving employer-provided health care as would most businesses with a comparable number of employees. As employees, they will receive an employer contribution that reduces the monthly premium cost.
2. Large enterprises have been made exempt from the mandate to provide coverage so individuals should be exempt as well.
   Large enterprises are still required to provide health insurance coverage for their employees as scheduled; however the Justice Department will not be imposing penalties immediately. Furthermore, the individual mandate is an entirely separate issue–it is the linchpin of eliminating denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Without it, no one would buy health insurance until they needed it, with the assurance that their health condition could not be denied.
3. Health insurance premiums are going up because of Obamacare.
   With the exception of the past 3 years, health insurance premiums have been rising by double digit percentages each year. The rise slowed because of the deep recession we are emerging from. Health insurance premiums will continue to rise, largely driven by technology (MRIs are expensive), now that the recession is almost over. Furthermore, premiums may seem very high to individuals who have not been able to or been interested in purchasing insurance until now. Health insurance is expensive.
4. Companies are letting full-time workers go and hiring part-time workers in their place.
   1. Many individuals choose part-time employment over full-time employment. So, the only concern should be involuntary part-time employment rather than all part-timers.
   2. There has generally been a rise in part-time employment during economic recessions. The recent recession is no different.
   3. Many new jobs are coming into the economy to help with Obamacare, as well as new hires in the private sector to meet the needs of the health care law mandates for preventive care and individual coverage.

   [It should be noted that individuals concerned about employment issues would never close the Federal government or permit it to be closed, since the loss of spending by Federal workers ripples through the labor market as business owners determine whether to take on new hires, and the lack of Federal issuance of permits in several areas e.g. a Vermont micro-brewery, adversely impacts employment.]

   And as I was reflecting upon the original conundrum, how to reconcile cooperation and competition, liberty and equality, while retaining the best of both, I came across a quotation from Milan Kundera,

   

   “Too much faith is the worst ally. When you believe in something literally, through your faith you’ll turn it into something absurd. One who is a genuine adherent, if you like, of some political outlook, never takes its sophistries seriously, but only its practical aims, which are concealed beneath these sophistries. Political rhetoric and sophistries do not exist, after all, in order that they be believed; rather, they have to serve as a common and agreed upon alibi. Foolish people who take them in earnest sooner or later discover inconsistencies in them, begin to protest, and finish finally and infamously as heretics and apostates. No, too much faith never brings anything good…”

   The Roman playwright Terence wrote “Ne quid nimis,” alternatively translated as “Nothing in excess,” or “All things in moderation.”
   

   Moderation isn’t sexy or attractive. It doesn’t cause the adrenaline rush of ideological combat. But, I think it is the medicine we need now.

   Moderation in politics, moderation in spending, moderation in punditry. Here’s to moderation!!