Friday, February 11, 2011
Profits, Regulations and Politics
Since the new Congress was seated last month, among the flurry of activities has been the House repeal of the Healthcare law and, more recently, an effort to strip the FDA of its authority to control greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. There are many tangents that can be taken when looking at these acts such as cynically wondering how Congress can think that it is ok to choke our air while simultaneously making access to healthcare more challenging for those with pre-existing health conditions - the very people most likely to suffer from unhealthy environments. For politicians and political couch-surfers, this is great fodder, but I'm not sure that this approach is the way to promote a sharing of information that results in a more informed populace that can better understand the issues and the paradigm shifts we all need to make.
Basically, there are two main forces at play here: corporations and regulatory agencies. Corporations have one main task - to make a profit. It is this group that gets people to shriek that government is broken, but then ignores the history that is riddled with examples of corporations putting profit for the bigwigs ahead of concerns for their employees or the communities in which they operate (including the global community). Acid rains, burning lakes, fish kills, nuclear meltdowns, deadly sweat shop fires. The list is endless, but rarely do corporations talk about community responsibility. Regulatory agencies are supposed to look out for the greater good of all of us but often lose sight of this and seem to create regulations because that is what they do. It is often people just staying in their boxes and acting as if society is some inert being. When these regulatory agencies create unnecessary or burdensome regulations, they play right into the hands of the big corporations, as it is often just the big players that can afford to jump through the loopholes, and create the clout to make the loopholes work for them. The cynicism of big industry is that they will create a narrative about "Main Street, USA" suffering from over-regulation, but big industry really has no interest in them either. This is true not just of the for-profit world, but is true for the non-profit sector as well. The big charities take most of the pie, but they make it difficult for new ideas and innovations to sway their work. I continue to see this not just with HIV work but in a number of ways where good people reflexively reject new ideas out-of-hand without discussion.
It is this lack of discussion that keeps us polarized and from looking both more authentically at the issues and at what our options are. In this case, for example, it is true that the EPA - as with all federal agencies - routinely overstep their bounds on regulation and can make things onerous. President Obama has cited as much recently, and I think is making a sincere effort to make government more efficient and flexible. GW Bush did much the same post 9-11, making it far easier to establish a non-profit and drastically cutting down the bureaucracy from what had been about a 2-year ordeal to a fairly straight-forward 6-month process. The challenge is to balance the tension between allowing for opportunities while maintaining checks and balances so that people are not shirking responsibilities and doing harm in pursuit of profit.
When these two sides become political footballs for the lobbying groups - corporate as well as non-profit and charity groups - is when things really start to fall apart, as sides get chosen and blame gets tossed around. We as grassroots folks are told to leave it to experts, but haven't we heard tales of experts being horribly wrong over the past decade (on everything from the economy to HIV/AIDS). Why do we keep falling for the false authority? Mostly because, I suspect, we are easily duped by their fear-inducing and anger-inflaming messages that succeed because we don't talk. What I think we need to start doing is exercising our ability to sit around a table and have conversations on the challenges we face - reaching across all divides - and be willing to put literally everything on the table as negotiable. Forget the rules, forget the experts. What I am increasingly seeing is that there are many who are calling for this, but few who are actually doing it. The result is the perpetuation of the "either/or" divide when really "yes, and..." is what we need.
When these two sides become political footballs for the lobbying groups - corporate as well as non-profit and charity groups - is when things really start to fall apart, as sides get chosen and blame gets tossed around. We as grassroots folks are told to leave it to experts, but haven't we heard tales of experts being horribly wrong over the past decade (on everything from the economy to HIV/AIDS). Why do we keep falling for the false authority? Mostly because, I suspect, we are easily duped by their fear-inducing and anger-inflaming messages that succeed because we don't talk. What I think we need to start doing is exercising our ability to sit around a table and have conversations on the challenges we face - reaching across all divides - and be willing to put literally everything on the table as negotiable. Forget the rules, forget the experts. What I am increasingly seeing is that there are many who are calling for this, but few who are actually doing it. The result is the perpetuation of the "either/or" divide when really "yes, and..." is what we need.
About the Author
 |
Connect:    Brad's articles on Policy Diary |
Brad Ogilvie spent over a decade working on the "treatment" side of HIV as a clinician and program coordinator in a holistic clinic, and then running an AIDS housing program. During this time period – 1995 to 2005, he witnessed huge advances in the treatment of HIV. He also noticed that the institutions that had grown out of the early HIV/AIDS movement were slow and even resistant to change – often being competitive and divisive along demographic and geographic lines both nationally and internationally. He was increasingly convinced that the "business of AIDS" was big business that placed greater weight on keeping case loads and beds full, rather than stopping the spread of HIV.
As a person living with HIV, he also experienced the “spend-it-or-lose-it” policies that fostered a culture of dependency. Armed with this knowledge and these experiences, he founded The Mosaic Initiative in 2005 to focus solely on stopping the spread of HIV through education and testing. He has worked in conservative and liberal communities in Illinois, Washington DC and rural Kenya.
As a gay man living with HIV, he has also found that by simply engaging people with open arms rather than closed fists, new alliances, friendships and community partnerships form that will, hopefully, bring a stronger grassroots voice to HIV from a place of common ground that influences better policy and action. Brad lives in Washington, DC and works full-time for William Penn House developing programs for youth and young adults on social justice issues including HIV. His blog Mosaic Initiative is frequently updated and a wealth of information.
As a gay man living with HIV, he has also found that by simply engaging people with open arms rather than closed fists, new alliances, friendships and community partnerships form that will, hopefully, bring a stronger grassroots voice to HIV from a place of common ground that influences better policy and action. Brad lives in Washington, DC and works full-time for William Penn House developing programs for youth and young adults on social justice issues including HIV. His blog Mosaic Initiative is frequently updated and a wealth of information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment