Death by Emotion

The new Democratic Congress was sworn in yesterday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began the push of what she has deemed the "100 Hour Plan". The plan calls for things like an increase in the miniumum wage up to $7.25/hr, direct government negotiation of prescription drug prices, and what they call "ethics reform".

No doubt Speaker Pelosi is well aware that her actions will reflect upon the field of Democratic candidates for president in 2008. She has certainly consulted with the rest of the leaders of her party in formulating her agenda. They have settled on these three issues in large part because they resonate quite easily with the America public.

Because of the structure of the House of Representatives, Pelosi can force through these measures without any committee involvement, any amendments, or any open debate. In effect, she is using this time for political gain rather than for creating good government policy. The things she and her fellow Democrats might or might not be good. That is beyond my point. For now I'm asking this: why not have an open debate on these issues, then allow for committees to talk to experts, make amendments, and come up with the best possible solutions?

Simple: Joe American has an emotional attachment to these issues. Better to ram-rod through a poorly crafted bill or a bill that doesn't really address the problem than to be deliberate, thoughful, careful, and bipartisan.

Again, I am not trying to argue that what the Democrats are inherently bad or wrong. Certainly I have issues with they way they are going about some of these changes, and I flatly disagree with them on others. But that is beside the point, which is this: we need to get beyond emotion and ask the hard questions. Is raising the minimum wage good or bad for the poor? Will the job losses suffered by minorities and those who work for small businesses offset the gains in quality of life for those receiving a raise? Will small businesses be unfairly hurt by such a price floor for labor? These questions and more would be good for our country to have. Maybe in the end the answers to these questions would still lead to a $7.25 minimum wage. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Sadly, those with an agenda have worked hard to get knee-jerk reactions about such issues. They have succeeded at getting Americans to be repulsed by anyone who opposses a raise in the miniumum wage, or anyone who sees long-term dangers in government setting price floors for prescription drugs.

The people who push such an agenda use our emotions against us. They play our feelings up to the point that they suffocate our ability to reason. Intelligent discussion dies a slow death at the hands of emotionalism.

This was made all too clear to me when the wife of one of my best friends called him "cold-hearted" for voting against our state's proposed minimum wage increase. That is the perception. If you don't want to raise the minimum wage it must be because you are mean/hateful/heartless/insensitive/insertnegativeadjectivehere. By-and-large, Americans at present seem to distain the idea of thoroughly examining measure they "know in their heart" are good.

Want to raise the minimum wage? Okay, let's have an open, honest, intelligent discussion about it. Want to have "ethics reform". Good. So do I. Let's have the open, well-reasoned discussion about the best way to do it.

Let knee-jerk reactions die at the hands of intellectually honest discussion. Don't try to ram through what's popular so you can claim an emotional victory.