Six days have passed since filing opened in Missouri for candidates to enter congressional races.  And six days ago the Occasional Planet published Part I of “Thinking about running for Congress.”  No Democrat has filed for Missouri’s Second Congressional seat; two Republicans and one Libertarian have.

In the first article I indicated that I’ve been considering running, but am reluctant to do so because among other things it would mean giving up my day job working with a non-profit educational organization in St. Louis.  I suggested instead that the Democrats take a strategy of trying to find a candidate with high name recognition (probably not in politics) to consider running the type of campaign we described.  That campaign would not accept contributions and would be designed to elevate our public dialogue.

As of this posting (Monday, March 1), twenty-nine days remain for a Democratic candidate to file.  While I am not ruling out the possibility of running, it would be my preference for someone else who is a public figure to run.  Now some may say that the very act of becoming a public figure compromises one’s integrity; you have to be somewhat of a “people pleaser” and find yourself getting better and better at faking sincerity.  These forces exist, but in a society of over 300 million persons we obviously need public figures and have to learn a way for them to lead without compromising their identity or principles.

So let’s mine the field, looking for nuggets, keeping in mind that Missouri law is flexible in this regard; a Congressional candidate is not required to live in the district; only in the state.  While individuals with high name recognition bring a certain advantage to the race, we feel that the principles involved in an “elevate our political dialogue” campaign are such that anyone who feels he or she is capable of making the race should consider doing so.

Note: Feel free to share with us your suggestions for candidates by posting them as comments to this article (below) or e-mailing us at info@occasionalplanet.org.

Let’s look at the three most visible sectors of our community, athletes, the arts, and the media.  Many athletes are quite charitable (often times their agents school them well in enhancing their images), but since the Ted Simmons era of the 1970s I do not know of one who has articulated the difference between charity and justice.  This is important because the role of government is justice; to provide for all people what is justly theirs.

St. Louis has some fine artists, including film-makers.  Art frequently is defined by presenting a unique perspective on the human condition.  Artists also tend to be more compassionate than the general population (truly a credit since they work in such a competitive field).  Again, scanning the local scene, having been a contestant on American Idol does not qualify as having the gravitas to be a candidate.  Our best known actors and actresses such as Kevin Kline or Jenna Fisher have long since left our environs.

In all fairness, we must divide the media into two categories: news readers and journalists.  Those who read us the news seem to carry an unusual amount of baggage: (a) their jobs are part of the “dumbing down” process that the media likes; it keeps people glued to the tube.   Their audiences often prefer “if it bleeds let it lead” stories along with celebrity news.   The very term “news” is a giveaway; it’s what is considered to be new.  We have spoken elsewhere of the importance of looking at societal problems and solutions to them through a generational lens (at least thirty years forward).  Now there may be a “closet progressive” in commercial television or radio; if you’re there, please come out and identify yourself!

Journalists are more serious; they have to be because they’re accountable for the facts they report and must “vet” their opinions.  They generally studied English or journalism; not mass communications or public relations.  They generally work for the vanishing breed of print newspapers; some are fortunate enough to find gainful employment in the mass media with outlets such as PBS or NPR.  On-line newspapers such as the St. Louis Beacon are providing more opportunities for serious journalists, although not without serious financial challenges.

The Occasional Planet needs your help in identifying well-known individuals in our community who might be interested in running for Congress with a progressive agenda.  When it comes to sports (an area in which I have some degree of familiarity), I’m firing blanks; zilch; zippo.  Albert Pujols has a pretty good day job and while he’s exceptionally charitable we don’t know about any commitment he might have to social justice.  In the world of art (where my knowledge is very limited, but I have the good fortune of association with some of our community’s finest), I do not know of anyone who might be interested and qualified, but perhaps you do.

I can throw out a few names from the media, but the three variables are at play: (a) are they interested, (b) are they progressive (at the bottom of the article I’ll present a very simple and serviceable definition of progressive) and (3) would they be willing to run an intellectually stimulating campaign and forego contributions?

So here are a few names (in alphabetical order).  Three of the four have connections with the Channel 9 program “Donnybrook”:

• Ray Hartmann, publisher of St. Louis Magazine; founder and former editor of the Riverfront Times; one-time president of the board of the Eastern Missouri chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
• Deanne Lane, while most recently a news reader she has spent plenty of time covering hard news including politics.  She was smart enough to stand up for principle and not accept a disingenuous contract offer from KSDK-TV.
• Bill McClellan, columnist for the Post-Dispatch who often writes as the voice for the disenfranchised.  His political views seem to vary issue to issue; this probably indicates introspection and reflection, two good qualities for a leader.
• Alvin Reid, former city editor of the St. Louis American, now with the on-line Globe-Democrat.   Like Bill McClellan, he seems to be difficult to peg politically, but he seems to bring to the table a very analytical mind with empathy towards the least fortunate among us.

Again, this is a list, perhaps serious; perhaps whimsical.  But to quote Jon Stewart, right now “we’ve got nothing;” no imposter has even entered the race as a Democrat.

So please share with us your suggestions by posting them as comments to this article (below) or e-mailing us at info@occasionalplanet.org.  Remember, the person you recommend need not be a “high profile” person, but there are obvious advantages if he or she is.

Note: one perspective on what progressive is: (a) supporting open and wide-ranging exchanges of ideas on public issues, and (b) caring about the less fortunate among us and feeling that the federal government is the best means to address their needs until some better provider can be identified.

I am not running because:

1. People whom I respect have said that my heart really wasn’t in it.
2. Any groundswell of interest in my candidacy has been minimal (I do appreciate those who expressed support).
3. Even though I designed the campaign to minimize doing things I didn’t want to do (asking for money; campaigning for more than six weeks), I know better now that the process involves constantly talking with people who want to advance their agendas to you.  That probably is a good idea in a democracy (so long as there is no exchange of money for influence), but as somewhat of a “people pleaser” it would be very exhausting and uncomfortable for me.
4. I’ve already been quite critical (hopefully constructively) of Democrats in this blog; it would be somewhat duplicitous to run on their ticket while reaming them.
5. There would have to be a very strong “firewall” between my campaign and the work that I do as director of a non-profit organization.  Either my life would be very fragmented, something I’ve always tried to avoid, or I would have to leave the non-profit.  Neither of these options would be attractive to me.

The fact that I’m not running is no surprise.  The fact that no other Democrat has filed is baffling.  I want to reiterate a point that I previously made: a potential candidate can run a low-budget campaign and make his or her lack of connection to moneyed interests a main component of the campaign.

The fact that I choose not to run in no way negates the points that I previously made about a different kind of campaign.  Those points include:

1. Practicing the process; trying to act in a way that is consistent with the policies one advocates.
2. Not accepting contributions.
3. Treating voters as intelligent; recognizing that this is true for only a minority of voters now, but we need a campaign that provides us with a ‘base point’ for what running for office would look like if our populace was curious and knowledgeable.
4. Respecting voters’ privacy; no bothersome phone calls to them or knocking on their doors.
5. The campaign would be short; eight weeks or less.
6. Initially reaching voters through a minimally invasive mailer with about 1,000 words of explanation about the campaign and a link to the web site “where the action would be.”
7. Base the campaign on the use of a robust web site that focuses on issues and interests; not self-promotion or asking for donations.  It would include a strong blog associated with the web site to foster dialogue.
8. Volunteers would only be used for activities that further engage them in the researching and communicating about issues that would be part of the platform.  This means that they would blog and communicate in other venues; exchanging ideas with voters.

I wish that there were not so many reasons that would make a run for office difficult on my part.  More so, I wish that there were others who could comfortably enter the political arena and run a campaign incorporating most or all of the eight strategic tenets that I have stated above.

There is a symbiotic relationship between our political process and the level of knowledge and engagement of the body politic.  We need to move toward campaigns that focus on the issues that are important to our enlightened citizenry, and we have to make dramatic changes in our educational system to give more young people the opportunities to develop the skills of well-informed and engaged citizens.

In future postings, I will write about steps that citizens can take now to put pressure on both our political and educational systems to elevate the conversation.  But there’s no need to wait for me to say another word; you’re free to take steps that you think will bring the system more integrity and focus on issues.  Let’s see what, collaboratively, we can devise.

I agreed that the obstacles were there, but I have also seen surprising results in congressional races when individuals with name recognition challenge incumbents.  What if former Cardinal All-Star catcher Ted Simmons (one of the few athletes in the Vietnam era to oppose the war) or St. Louis icon Ozzie Smith were to run?  I honestly don’t know much about their current political views or of any interest they might have in leaving rewarding positions in Major League baseball.  But that wasn’t the point; there are decent people with name recognition who could challenge Todd Akin in a way that he has never experienced nor could imagine.

Well, it didn’t happen.  I saw the 2010 vacuum in the Democratic party as an opportunity to make lemonade out of a lemon; if the seat was not going to be seriously contested and it was a foregone conclusion that Todd Akin would be re-elected, why shouldn’t I take the leap and test some novel ideas that I have been developing about both campaigns and public policy.

With a background in education, my primary goal would be to try to elevate the level of our political dialogue.  Politics continues to be dumbed down; even the best candidates resort to catchy slogans and conventional advertising techniques.  Money’s a big problem; both the way in which it’s raised and how it is spent.

I have some savings and I was willing to spend $30,000 – $60,000 on a campaign (I know this is not a model that everyone can follow; I’m lucky in this regard).  This amount could be a model for how a campaign could be run on a low budget, thus limiting the cost of the desired goal that many of us have: publicly financed campaigns.  For reference, the average cost of a winning congressional race in 2008 was $1.1 million.

How would my campaign have been different?

1. I would try to “practice the process;” whatever I suggested as policy I would try to live by both professionally and personally.
2. I would not seek nor accept any contributions. This is fairly self-explanatory; we all know how money corrupts politics.  I have a friend who compares a political donation to the manager of a baseball team giving $1,000 to the umpire when exchanging line-ups prior to the game.  What would you call that?  He says ‘a bribe,’ and I agree.  Political contributions smell a lot like that.
3. I’d treat voters as if they were intelligent. Don’t confuse this as me saying that I believe that voters are as intelligent and educated as they should be for a vibrant democracy to work.  The point is that since this campaign would in many ways be “beta” or experimental; I could help us establish a model for what the political dialogue would look like if 18-year olds graduated from high school with both a basic knowledge of current societal issues and a passion to try to participate in finding the solutions to our problems.
4. I would respect voters’ privacy. If you received a phone call from me, it would be a fraud; I would in no way engage in nor authorize others to interrupt your dinner, your nap, your engagement in a book or even television show.  No calls from me, any supporters of mine, or even lovable robots.
5. The active campaign would be short: eight weeks or less. This practice is the norm in many other countries including the United Kingdom (where under certain conditions the maximum length of campaigns is seventeen working days). Here are a few reasons why I would want such a short campaign: (a) The constant barrage of political noise literally for years prior to an election comes to sound like elevator music; annoying and irrelevant.  The length of our campaigns plays a role in keeping our voters less engaged and informed. (b) The “numbing of the candidate.”  Even Barack Obama has acknowledged this.  I don’t know about you, but I want my leaders spend time studying issues and talking in “non-vote-soliciting venues” with people about the issues most important to them. (c) It’s interesting now to see how high the ratings are for the Winter Olympics; perhaps higher than they deserve with the preponderance of commercials.  But if campaigning through the mass media was like a special event, or at least a seasonal sport, it could be unique and be deserving of our attention.  Seeing Apolo Ohno circling the ice is engaging for a couple of weeks, after that it can become hypnotic and eventually mind-numbing.  I think this is what happens with our long campaigns.  Finally (d), I enjoy my day job; it’s intellectually stimulating and I don’t want to give it up to repeat the same mishmash before glazed over groups.
6. How I would reach voters in a different fashion: First would be through 8 ½” x 11” flat piece of direct mail.  The benefits of this method are (a) you can include a reasonable amount of information on them (about 1,000 words as opposed to three or four on a bumper sticker, button, or yard sign). (b) They minimize the invasion of voters’ privacy.  You can read it if you choose or glance at it and say to yourself ‘not interested’ and deep-six it with your other junk mail.  It’s not like waiting for a commercial, phone call, or door knocker’s appeal to end.
7. Primary presentation and dialogue through a robust web site. First, imagine a web site where you don’t have to shade your eyes for fear of once again running across the word “DONATE” – always in bold letters.  Second, think of a site in which you make distinctions about the issues on which you have firm and well-developed positions from those where you are not certain and say so directly rather than through platitudinous code language.  Consider a web site where a candidate simply says that he or she does not have enough information about a particular issue and solicits input; possibly even a gathering of interested citizens (as opposed to lobbyists or political operatives).  Finally, think of a site in which every reasonable comment or question receives an individual response which includes an invitation to continue the dialogue as opposed to the typical form responses of “Thank you for your ideas; we will deeply consider them. DONATE.”
8. Use of volunteers. There are many citizens who would be very comfortable with this kind of campaign.  So how could they help if they can’t dial for dollars or votes, put up yard signs or knocking on doors?  Here’s how: the entire campaign would be directed towards elevating the political dialogue.  That means everyone; the candidate, the staff; the volunteers, and most importantly, the voters need to (a) acknowledge the significance of the issues as opposed to the slogans, and (b) accept that none of us has a corner on wisdom and we need to collaboratively engage in learning more and broadening our horizons.  So volunteers would be at the core of Item 7 above; working on the web site / blog exchanging ideas with voters, researching both constituent and general societal needs, and if necessary or desirable, meeting person-to-person with voters who have concerns or ideas that can make the candidate better informed and more qualified to assume the role of a member of Congress.

Well, this article is being posted on Wednesday, February 24, 2010; one day after filing for congressional seats begins in Missouri.  As of this posting, I have not filed (for reasons that I will describe in Part 2 of this article), but what if no one else files or no one who will support a progressive agenda and practice the process of a progressive?  We’ll discuss that in the next few days.

Lieber: I ran a clean campaign, I got my butt kicked, but all is not lost

I believe that there was a lot positive about my campaign for Congress, but bottom line is that I got my butt kicked with only 29% of the vote.  I want to emphasize that because acceptance is the fifth and final step of grief.  The first step is denial and over the past few months Democrats have littered the political road with clear denials of the truth.  False claims of optimism don’t work; Democrats need to accept that our party is in trouble.  Acceptance can lead to liberation; we are free to move forward with new and hopefully better plans.

Two other points in retrospect:

1. I said in the beginning that my campaign was a step of a process that would take at least a generation.  Cleaning up our political system and better educating voters will take at least that long, so let’s focus on long-term solutions as well as short-term remedies.
2. I think that four segments of the system have to improve: (a) the quality of those who run for office, (b) the way all forms of the media cover the political landscape, (c) our educational system which can take no pride in how ill-informed the American public is, and (d) the American public itself which is incredibly naïve and gullible as witnessed by the success of so many negative and deceitful ads.

I appreciate all that so many did for my campaign; it was very heartening to have supporters; more heartened to have supporters who embrace a commitment to the fundamental changes I think that we need.  Every supporter kept me on my toes and I hope that you continue to do so.

In all likelihood I’ll write a book about this experience, but I still want to be active in advancing clean politics and a progressive agenda.  Both of those items seem far from possible today, but if we accept that reality of where we are in 2010, bring more young people into the movement, and recognize that sustained change will require at least a generation to achieve, we may see Nov. 2, 2010 as an important wake-up call.  Congrats to all the fine Democrats who did win!

Finally, I opened with saying that “I got my butt kicked.”  But there’s much to learn from elections beyond instant analysis.  I’ll be combing through the returns looking for areas of optimism for me and other Democrats.  I think that I’ll find some.

It has been said that litigation is one of America’s greatest pastimes.  As more people realize the money that they can make in lawsuits – whether frivolous or not – the number of court proceedings and the number of tort lawyers has increased exponentially.

Torts certainly serve their purpose in society by helping separate the chaff from the wheat – taking the negative parts of society out, and allowing what is good to remain.  However, it is clear that the tort business has gone too far, particularly in the realm of medical malpractice.  While the majority of doctors have never experienced the frustration of taking part in such affairs, for those who have, such suits often represent an aggravating period where they lose a great deal of work and money in order to prove their innocence in relation to a tort lawyer who may specialize in bringing doctors, both good and bad, into the courtroom.

Nearly all doctors are forced to purchase malpractice insurance to prevent against these blows to their ability to do their job.  Increasingly, this insurance has become so high that it has run doctors out of their profession as they find themselves no longer able to afford the increasingly high premiums.  Many have wondered why there was little discussion of tort reform in the Obama administration’s health care plan.  Increasing litigation is one of the greatest costs doctors face, and possibly the main reason they end up leaving the field of medicine.  This should not be the case.   There needs to be comprehensive reform of the tort system by state so that doctors will no longer have to live in fear of colossal malpractice costs just for doing their job.

The health care reform bill passed recently by the Obama administration is arguably the biggest change to happen ever with regards to healthcare in this country.  But does it really do enough to change the system?  Though it is fantastic that millions more people will receive health care coverage, Obama’s idea of healthcare still relies on insurance plans; thus in reality, very little will change within the healthcare system.

Health insurance companies are nothing but middlemen who reap profits from the relationship between the doctor and his or her patients.  In fact, in an ideal world, there would be little to no health insurance at all.  This may seem preposterous, but in reality, it would be much better for the patient.  If there were to be no health insurance, patients would know the costs of each health care procedure, and they would think twice about unnecessary procedures that drive up insurance premiums.  In addition, because patients would know the prices of treatments, they would “shop around” until they found a cheap treatment.  This would lower prices on health care overall, as medical centers who charged too much for certain procedures would not make any money, since nobody would go to them since their rates were too expensive.  Take, for instance, Lasik eye surgery, a procedure rarely covered by insurance.

The average cost of a full surgery is $2000, which is comparatively low to many surgeries covered by insurance.  In addition, Lasik centers are known for being inviting places with knowledgeable doctors, who realize that if they do not keep up appearances while keeping costs low they will be out of business.  Wouldn’t it be nice if this were true for all types of healthcare?

So while the Obama administration’s healthcare reform so far has been great, there is still more he can do.  We need to lessen the role and influence of insurance companies in the market, who are clearly more interested in making a profit than helping out the sick people of this country.

Two candidates, one empty seat—and yard signs—at upcoming 2^nd Congressional District Forum, 10/22/2010

At the League of Women Voters’ Candidate Forum this Friday evening [October 22, 2010, 7:00 – 9:00 pm, College Center Rotunda at St. Charles Community College, 4601 Mid Rivers Mall Dr., Cottleville MO 63376 (map)], only two of the three invited Congressional candidates will be in attendance. Democrat Arthur Lieber and Libertarian Steve Mosbacher accepted the League of Women Voters invitation. Republican incumbent Congressman Todd Akin declined.  While the League is leaving the door open for Akin to arrive at the last moment, he has given no indication that he intends to participate.

But even without the incumbent, the forum promises a lively and unique give-and-take. Lieber and Mosbacher have been in contact with each other and have agreed to discuss issues openly, acknowledge when the other makes a good point, and admit when they don’t know the answer to a question.

“It’s going to be a candidate forum with no dynasties, no big bucks, no mud and, apparently, no incumbent,” says Lieber. “2^nd district voters will have a unique opportunity ask questions and to hear thoughtful dialogue on issues that are important to them. I think voters will get an in-depth view of the ideas in play and a close-up interaction with candidates who really care about solutions to today’s problems.”

At the conclusion of the forum [9:00 – 9:30 pm], supporters will be able to obtain yard signs in the College Center parking lot. The campaign has a very limited supply of yard signs. Please take only as many as you know, with certainty, that you can place.  Priority will be given to highly visible locations.   For more information on yard signs, e-mail info@lieberforcongress.com.

By Tessa Baizer; Washington University

Since 9/11, children have grown up in fear of the Arab-Muslim “Other,” a shadowy group living on the other side of the planet that many believe is hell-bent on destroying Western freedoms.  Though it is true that some in the Middle East are radical fundamentalists, the majority are just people who are quite similar to the “average” American.

Most Americans do not understand this fact and thus seek to portray Muslims worldwide as evil incarnates of the Devil, even those who are American citizens.  This was most clearly seen with the uproar over the “Ground Zero Mosque” last summer, when a national uproar was created over an Islamic cultural center several blocks away from the site of the former Twin Towers.  Obviously, today’s children need to understand respect and tolerance for other international cultures and religion.  The best way to do this is a comparative religion course.

Historically, much of the conflict in the world has centered on East vs. West; recently, this has come to mean Islam vs. Christianity.  The two do not necessarily have to be antagonistically linked.  It is very possible that both sides could learn to tolerate the Other.  Most of what occurs in these conflicts lies in a fear of the unknown.  When American children learn from an early age that Muslim children have very similar interests and goals as them, these future generations will not begin conflict with a group they fight against because of ignorance.

A comparative religion and culture class may involve field trips to mosques and Middle Eastern restaurants; it could also easily involve reading a textbook about Islamic history.  All of these are things needed to integrate the two societies together in order to finally end the clash between the Orient and the Occident.

A comparative would also teach children about their own religion.  A recent study showed that Atheists and Agnostics knew more about Protestantism than most Protestants. Through their struggle to understand religion and the existence of a high power, most Atheists and Agnostics study comparative religion in order to learn the parts of each religion that they agree with.  If the actual members to these religions had to go through the same realizations, they would be able to better understand the cultural practices and religious rituals that may have little to no significance to them.

High School is not too Young to Learn to Manage One’s Money

By Tessa Baizer; Washington University

Trigonometry, calculus, algebra.  All of these are important mathematical tools for understanding the world that are requirements for graduation in most high schools.  But how many kids today take even one economics course?  Every social science and nearly every professional discipline requires some knowledge of economic thought.  Furthermore, the constant mutability of the international markets ensures that every child needs to learn how to manage their finances and, more importantly, understand what these market changes mean for them and the world they live in.

There needs to be a course on personal finance and investment in every high school in order for today’s kids to understand how to handle their money.  Nearly everyone has been blamed for the current economic crisis besides the American people.  Much of the economic distress across the country would be lessened if people really understood how to take care of their money.

In addition, many people talk about the bankruptcy of America through social service programs like Medicare and social security.  Today’s youth might not have to worry so much about these problems if they take a course on investment during school.  Many children obtain jobs straight out of high school, and immediately begin to start worrying about foreign acronyms like 401K and IRA that have no relevance to them.

If children start learning how to invest their money while still in high school before their first “real” jobs, their lives will be better off – from a low-paid waitress job, or being a graduate research assistant, to being the manager of a restaurant, or being a professor at a university.  Every single person, regardless of socioeconomic class, can go broke because they do not realize how to manage their money.  Don’t toss clueless kids into a corporate America without teaching them how to control it first!

By Tessa Baizer; Washington University

High school has increasingly become the new college for American teenagers as they attempt to keep up with the constantly expanding wealth of knowledge worldwide.  Over the past ten years, AP and IB programs have gained a massive following and importance in most every high school around the nation.   However, many students still feel unprepared for the challenges of college, even after taking these preparatory classes.

Specifically, many students fall behind in the realm of paper writing.  Most high schools prefer to use tests as a system of grading and thus only provide little focus on the art of writing long essays.   Clearly, this needs to change.  A person who is able to write clearly is a person who is able to organize his or her ideas well and think clearly about critical issues.  In order to learn the logic and skills necessary needed to express their thoughts optimally, students should have the option of taking a writing-intensive class in high school.

The International Baccalaureate program includes the Extended Essay as a graduation requirement, wherein students write an approximately twenty-page essay on the topic of their choosing.  This assignment should be given to all students, not just those in the International Baccalaureate program.  Students who have experience writing longer papers will not only have an easier time with long assignments in college, but will be able to better understand their own ideas and thoughts than students who have not had such a lengthy and focused assignment.  An Extended Essay requirement would be the best step possible in preparing high schoolers for college and the world beyond.