Avoiding Unforeseen Consequences

The most dreaded word for a patient facing surgery is perhaps “Oops!”  It could signal something terribly unforeseen by the surgeon, from slicing an artery to discovering he had just removed the wrong kidney.  Fortunately, that is why surgeons spend hours rehearsing procedures in advance and studying just what to do in the event of an oops! situation, so bad consequences are rare.  We know the charm of the oops stage of a toddler’s development, but the charm comes with careful supervision by parents, so it, too, doesn’t usually turn out bad.

Unfortunately, public policy, domestic and foreign, is loaded with oops situations, and they often produce really rotten results.  And there are no watching parents to prevent the pain.  Take for example the current scene in Ukraine, where an almost done agreement with the EU was aborted in favor of a $15 billion offer from Russia to become cozier with them.  That is a major setback in the EU’s long-term foreign policy of creating a bigger buffer against incursion by Russia into EU affairs, a geopolitical goal obviously not considered by the framers of austerity policy.  For that foreign policy blunder can be seen, with hindsight, as a direct result of the EU domestic austerity policy, which also produced at the other end of Europe the rise of neo-Nazi groups in Greece.  The policy confined itself only to the needs of the bankers and the markets, and even there, did not do a decent job.  The less robust the EU economy, the more tempting became Russian offers, and the more likely the rise of rabid extremists in Greece.  And that less-robust-than-need-be EU economy undoubtedly affects the closeted negotiations going on between the EU and America over a cross-Atlantic trade treaty.  The economists who sought to nurse the EU through a bad stretch on a diet of gruel and cold water had forgotten, or never realized that foreign and domestic policy are inextricably mingled these days.  The old days when one could argue whether Metternich even had a domestic policy other than keeping the masses at home quiet while he maneuvered abroad are long gone; as are the times when China’s foreign policy was nonexistent in its quest to keep its internal affairs stable.

Closer to home, the Washington Post today reports the growing restiveness of the contracting community and the displeasure of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a major business lobbying force, that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is making only small partial payments to Indian tribes of reimbursements owed them for schools and social services. The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the reimbursements are legitimate and should be paid.  The BIA says it lacks the funding to do so because of the sequester, Congress’s austerity policy, and is paying all it can with the funds allocated to it.  But the tribal obligations are not just grants that can be changed at a Congressional whim.  The tribes have the status of nations, with whom there are treaty obligations, and they are not buying the BIA argument.  The business community is concerned that the BIA argument, if replicated elsewhere in government, could have serious ramifications for doing business throughout the government.  Once again, Oops!

The EU bankers and economists who framed the European austerity policy seem never to have considered seriously that markets operate within a framework of geopolitical considerations, and the American Congress seems never to have thought about it at all.  One problem is that economics does not operate in a vacuum; it is embedded always in a society that has far more to consider than just clearing a market.  Ignoring those external considerations is a hazard which produces “unforeseen” consequences.  They were not unforeseeable if thought had been applied.  The European problem comes about from “trained incompetence”, otherwise known as “if your only tool is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.”  It is a failure occasioned by reliance on outdated economic theory and curable by bringing European bankers into a 21^st century world.

The American problem runs deeper.  To become a professional diplomat requires passing one of the most difficult exams in the world, the Foreign Service Entrance Exam, just as becoming a surgeon requires years of medical school and advanced training.  Both sets of requirements are appropriate, for the actions and decisions undertaken when entering those fields are dangerous and have serious consequences.  Yet an American could be elected to Congress while not even qualified to graduate from high school.  Age and citizenship are the only requirements.  A member of Congress can make assertions about the Constitution without ever having read it and vote on budgets which seriously affect the lives of millions without ever having read them.  He or she can cast votes drastically affecting American foreign policy without half the understanding of the issue possessed by a Foreign Service intern.  That is a relic of bygone days when decisions had nowhere near the complexity they do now.  It has always been an American maxim that “experts should be on tap, not on top.”  But at least enough expertise to recognize the seriousness of the issues voted on enough to explore them with experts before voting is desperately needed.  One of the characteristics of the “Tea Party” mentality has been its contempt for the “inside-the-beltway gobbledygook” of knowledgeable experts, and its effects show more and more each day.  A big reason for that are the gerrymandered districts which produce candidates qualified only by how loud they shout the part line.

We make oops moments in surgery relatively rare by demanding the surgeons be properly trained and follow exacting procedures in preparation.  Not to do so would constitute malpractice.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could rely on the professionalism of our congressmen the way we rely on our surgeons?  In the American system, the only way to do that is at the ballot box.