How Does NOW Know?

Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

October 6, 2009

Recent developments in the David Letterman extortion controversy have raised serious issues about the abuse of power leading to an inappropriate, if not hostile, workplace environment for women and employees. In the case of Letterman, he is a multi-million dollar host of one of the most popular late-night shows; in that role, he wields the ultimate authority as to who gets hired, who gets fired, who gets raises, who advances, and who does entry-level tasks among the Late Show employees. As "the boss," he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace -- and he did that with sex. In any work environment, this places all employees -- including employees who happen to be women -- in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation.

* * *

The National Organization for Women calls on CBS to recognize that Letterman's behavior creates a toxic environment and to take action immediately to rectify this situation.

http://www.now.org/press/10-09/10-06.html

NOW certainly would be correct in saying that when a boss asks a subordinate for a date, there's usually an unequal power relationship that prevents the subordinate from feeling completely free to say "no." They'd be just as correct if they said that it's generally not great for office morale to have employees thinking that a hookup with the boss was the surest way to success. And of course, they'd be right on target if they pointed out that, as a rule, such relationships are best avoided, because the fallout from the breakups is dangerous to both parties, especially the lower-ranking one.

But "usually," "generally," and "as a rule" are not the same as "always." And so far, we don't know that anybody on the Late Show set felt a "toxic environment." The women who were involved with Letterman haven't complained about their relationships with him. The staffers who weren't involved with him haven't publicly griped that they couldn't get ahead without getting with him.

So, on the facts we know at this point . . .

. . . it seems possible that the ladies who dallied with Dave did so because they wanted to;

. . . it seems possible that their freedom to say "no" was never in question because they had hoped they'd be asked, and were planning to say "yes;"

. . . it seems possible that they saw more to gain than to fear from an up-close embrace with the boss's power;

. . . it seems possible that the relationships got started because Letterman and the ladies liked each other for reasons above and beyond mere objectification;

. . . it seems possible that they are fine with the way the relationships went;

. . . and it seems possible that nobody else on Letterman's staff felt unfairly excluded from any of the possible benefits of working on the show.

NOW does itself no favors by ignoring those possibilities. By presuming a crime before any victim can be identified, it reduces itself to a parody. No advocacy group is credible when it's safely presumed that they'll see offensive behavior even before they've bothered to look.

Where Have You Gone, Everett Dirksen?

As historians often remind us, American political discourse has always had its nasty elements. Early pamphlets and newspapers were more openly partisan than Fox. Founding Father Thomas Jefferson helped fund one publisher, James Callender, who wrote that Jefferson's antagonist, John Adams, was "mentally deranged," and a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

So those who claim that today's nastiness is business as usual are probably pretty accurate, when they're talking about the fringe extremes. But what those claims miss is the fact that a whole category of politician has disappeared: the partisan who is also a centrist and moderate. Job one for today's minority party leader is to hasten the success of his allies, which in today's hyper-competitive America, means making governance difficult for those on the other side of the aisle. In a zero-sum world, me winning means you losing, and I've got to do what I can to achieve those goals twenty four-seven. Everybody on my side has to be on board.

It wasn't always that way. Minority party leaders were once able to cooperate with their opposites in the majority. Proof of that fact is no farther away than the public comments of Senator Everett M. Dirksen, the Illinois Republican who happened to be Senate Minority Leader from 1959 to 1969. Could Mitch McConnell make himself say these words about any Democratic president?

• July 3, 1966
  

Q: Is Lyndon Baines Johnson a good President? How do you evaluate him?

A: Well, he is a skilled president. He is a president who is founded in history. And when he was a majority leader and we were opposite numbers, we went on a theory that this was a two-way street and government had to be made to work, and he still undertakes that, and his door is open any time I want to see him. My door is open any time he wants to see me. My telephone line is open any time he wants to call. And so from the standpoint of a cooperative endeavor between that part of the legislative branch that I have the privilege to represent, and the executive branch, I must say he has done quite well.

• February 7, 1965

. . . it is quite a compliment, I think, when the President who bears another party label from mine calls me to ask how he gets out of a difficulty and extricates himself from a real problem in the Senate. My duty as an American, of course, with an allegiance and fidelity to my country requires than I help him. I would be a poor citizen indeed if I didn't do the same for any President regardless of his politics where the country's interest is at stake.

• March 5, 1961

Q: Senator, a recent Gallup poll after President Kennedy's first month in office asked the people whether they approved of the way he was handling his job. . . .

How would you have voted, sir, if the Gallup poll had asked you?

A: Well, I haven't the slightest idea how I would have voted. I think from the standpoint of diligence and devotion and timing, he has done a very good job.

Could a modern Republican repeatedly sound such conciliatory notes toward Democrats and maintain a leadership position within the party? Arlen Specter would probably say not. Today, a partisan must oppose. That includes everything from withholding votes to shouting "You lie!"

Henry Clay, Senator, Speaker of the House, and Secretary of State, was known as The Great Compromiser. In 19th-century America, that label was an accolade. Today, it would be a snide insult.

The Unused Script

"The presidents of the other three finalists went to Copenhagen.

Why couldn't Obama?

You think the IOC didn't notice that he was the only head of state who didn't come to show his support in person?

We're not just talking about his country, we're talking about his home town. The mayor and everybody else thought the Olympics would promote development, help boost the local economy, and speed the area's recovery. All they were asking him to do was take a quick plane trip and make a little speech to show the IOC that the President is a supporter of the bid.

He couldn't string together a few paragraphs of good things to say about his city and his country?

That shows how much he really hates America!"

Taking One (Or More) For The Team

Then Rickey, a devout Methodist who wouldn't attend ballgames on Sunday and prohibited his players from using profanity, role-played a succession of foul-mouthed bigots of the type he knew would try to provoke Robinson, including a spectator, headwaiter, hotel manager, sportswriter, and a succession of players who would try to spike him with their cleats or bean him with a ball or umpires who would make biased calls. Finally, Jackie demanded, "Mr. Rickey, do you want a ballplayer who's afraid to fight back?" Rickey shot back, "I want a ballplayer with guts enough not to fight back. You symbolize a crucial cause. One incident, just one incident, can set it back 20 years."

Gordon Edes. "Opening a New Wide World: Robinson's Impact Felt Well Beyond the Chalk
Line," The Boston Globe, 28 March 1997; quoted at http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/pdf/hs_in_robinson_rickey.pdf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's spokesman publicly disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday over Carter's contention that some conservative opposition to Obama is based on race.

"The president does not think it is based on the color of his skin," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Save Us From "Government-Run" Health Care!

You can't blame the health insurance companies if they fight the health care "public option" as if their corporate lives depended on it.

Their lives do depend on it, and they know it.

Health Care Service Corporation, the parent company of several Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurers, is honest about it:

"It is estimated by the Lewin Group that a government-run health plan based on Medicare payment rates to physicians and hospitals would be offered with premiums 30-40 percent lower than private insurance. This would drive more than 100 million people into the public plan in the first year. In a very short timeframe, this mass migration would result in a collapse of many aspects of private health insurance and our current health care system. If a government-run health plan were initially required to offer negotiated payment rates to health care providers, it is widely believed that over time those rates would be ratcheted down and set by government, resulting in the same scenario described above."

That doesn't require much translation. A public option would offer such dramatic premium savings that private health insurers wouldn't be able to compete, and they'd soon go the way of the dinosaur.

Government-sponsored competition doesn't always eliminate private players. The existence of public housing doesn't drive the private housing market out of existence. Public universities didn't make Harvard go away. If the private sector is offering something better, it won't be eliminated by the creation of a cut-rate version funded by tax dollars.

But the private sector can't really do health insurance better, can it? If a corporation collects $1000 in premiums, it can only build snazzy headquarters, pay employees, and give dividends to shareholders by paying out less than $1000 for medical expense reimbursement. A for-profit corporation can only do what a corporation is supposed to do -- improve its bottom line -- by funding less health care, which is exactly the opposite of what society is clamoring for. Sure, a private insurer can try harder to encourage its customers to be healthier. It can try to recruit more young customers who don't need much care. But it will eventually need to try to turn away and dump the bad financial risks: the folks who will need more health care than they can pay for. When it's that clear that private industry needs to do the opposite of what society needs it to do, it's time for society to take up the job.

That doesn't mean that the the insurers' concerns are irrelevant. The current administration decided to throw billions of dollars of life preserver at General Motors only after calculating that letting the company lie in the bed it made would result in a meltdown that would cost more to clean up than to prevent. It may well be that too many lives are wrapped up in the insurers to let us obsolete them. That's a fair topic for discussion.

But that's a different discussion than the one we're currently having. It's high time that we entertain the insurers' true position -- that they desperately need the government to protect them -- instead of the one they're trying to push -- that the public option would inflict un-American terror on the nation.

What's Wrong/Discussion Reset: Big Government

Popular Fallacy: "Welfare" is somehow un-American.

Reset: "Welfare" is one of the reasons the founding fathers formed a government in the first place. As the preamble to the Constitution tells us: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That's "promote the general welfare." Not "clear a space for efficient markets." And it's a purpose mentioned even before securing the blessings of liberty.

Popular Fallacy: "Big government" is inherently bad.

Reset: Eliminating the armed forces and the Department of Defense would cut the size of the federal government and its budget a whole bunch. Add Medicare, Social Security, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to the trash pile, and you're left with a government that's less than half its current size.

And yet nobody suggests those moves. Because everybody understands that if we want government to do something, and it needs to get bigger to do it, we're all in favor.

So when speakers calling themselves "conservative" gripe about a government program and suggest that they've identified an objective evil when they label it "big government," it's worth remembering that they have done no such thing, and that "big government" is objectively neutral. What they've actually done is stated a subjective preference, and that preference is usually that they not be taxed to have government perform that function.

Popular Fallacy: Government can't be trusted to do anything right; to get it done well, the private sector has to do it.

Reset: Some tasks are too big for private enterprise. Others aren't sure enough money-makers to attract private investors. If society needs those things done anyway, there's only one recourse.

Which is why government does the most important job a society can assign: defending its existence.

It is also why you can count on street lights to manage traffic at busy urban intersections and have a reasonable expectation that the driver approaching the intersection from your right has been taught to interpret red and green lights the same way you do.

A corporation couldn't afford to develop and build state-of-the-art defense systems if it had to count on discretionary private funds to pay for them. And society couldn't afford having the rules of the road known only by those who were willing and able to buy the education.

It's not like private enterprise is the most effective way of getting things done, either. The corporation's reason for being is to make maximum profit for its shareholders. If it can do that by building a better mousetrap, defense system, or driver education program, so be it. But if it can make more cash by providing substandard product while driving away the competition or winning the advertising battle, that'll be the chosen route. And if it can't make a profit on mousetraps, weapons, or drivers' ed, they won't get done at all.

The bottom line is that profit-driven corporations are all about promoting their own specific welfare. If they do anything for the general welfare, that's just a happy coincidence.

Popular Fallacy: Social welfare programs are nothing more than attempts to appease the over-stimulated do-gooder impulses of bleeding-heart liberals.

Reset: Social welfare programs are capitalism's best and most practical hope for self-preservation.

The McCarthyism of the 1950s uncovered communist flirtations started in the 1930s, and communism was popular in the 1930s because of depression-era poverty. When enough people start thinking that the current system is only offering them a life that's miserable, they start imagining ways to do away with the current system. World history shows what happens when the powers that be try to squash those imaginings: sooner or later, the little people employed to do the squashing realize that people they'll never be like are demanding that they lock up or shoot little people just like themselves. Before you know it, the powers that be have gone the way of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, and your country is being run by somebody with a military title.

Fortunately, America didn't handle its potential unrest that way.

New Deal social programs, whether effective or not, offered at least the promise that the lifestyle the average American could expect if he hit rock bottom wouldn't be so bad. The extra promise offered by the GI Bill and the boom that followed the Second World War made it easy for millions of working-class men to believe that hard work could give them middle class education, income, lifestyles, and respectability.

By the 1950s, the soldier or cop from next door didn't need to resent the fact that he had to defend some muckety-muck from the kid on the corner; he, too, could be that muckety-muck in a matter of a few years, so he could understand the need to keep that corner kid in check. When society keeps him thinking that he has a vested interest in the status quo, and that he isn't just some chump defending the interests of a few rich guys, society is doing itself a big favor.

Modern Kids Go Back To The Modern School

For a delusional moment, The Dad congratulated himself on his family's good fortune.

Both daughters were happy to see the start of the new school year. At their ages, The Dad dreaded the end of summer and hated having to go back to the classroom. His daughters, through good fortune, and maybe (not to brag or anything) good parenting, had no such attitude. They were raring to go back. Who knew what advantages that enthusiasm for education would bring them over time?

Then the Second Grader brought home a page describing the homework rewards program for her class. Complete your assignments, and you get sweets, treats, toys and accolades. The page brought The Dad back to reality. And provoked a few recent memories.

Both daughters had been in classrooms where the students got prizes for going several days without discipline trouble. Every child's birthday earned recognition. Some rooms named a star of the week, every week, not as reward for extraordinary behavior, but just to make sure every kid got a turn to be a big shot. Add to that the daily recesses, the regular dispensing of goodies, and the dramatic praise for every positive behavior, and it was no wonder that the daughters wanted to get back to school.

What kid wouldn't? The modern classroom is a full time joyride. The Dad realized that, as special as his daughters are, their enjoyment of school probably isn't all that remarkable. He decided he'd take the opportunity to offer a little perspective.

The Dad: You know what the prize was for doing all your homework when I was a kid?

Second Grader: Candy.

The Dad: No.

Second Grader: Cookies.

The Dad: Nope.

Second Grader: Toys.

The Dad: Unh-unh.

Second Grader: Money?

The Dad: [shakes head]

Second Grader: I'm all out of guesses. What was the prize?

The Dad: No beating.

The Second Grader thought that was laughable.