America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great (22 page)

There is perhaps more hope for our country than currently meets the eye. It would seem as if we are hopelessly gridlocked by Democrats and Republicans, each with very different ideas of government and its role in our lives. The ray of hope is found in the fact that there is an ever-increasing number of Independent voters who sometimes vote one way and other times vote another way, and therefore cannot be taken for granted by either party. There is also the rise of the Tea Party, which is interested in limited government according to the United States Constitution, capitalism with free enterprise, tax reform, sovereignty of the states consistent with the Constitution, border control, and fiscal responsibility. The very fact that so many people are joining the Tea Party or becoming politically Independent suggests that people are less willing to be spoon-fed by a largely biased media and are thinking for themselves again.

I believe the new Tea Party is going to be very important in deciding the future direction of our country. By its very nature, it is unlikely to ever become a well-organized political party, and it represents different things to different people, but the one factor that brings all of its constituents together is the desire for individual freedom and less government in our lives.

Having had the opportunity to experience virtually every economic class in our society firsthand, I have found very little difference between people from the lower-middle class all the way to the upper echelons of the upper class in terms of financial values and belief in a strong work ethic. Most of the rich in America do not expect special treatment, nor do they get it unless they pay handsomely for it. Our society is very egalitarian, with a kind of social mingling and camaraderie not found in other nations around the world.

I mention these values because there is really no natural basis for class warfare here in America. After all, relatively few people begrudge the wealthy of the things they have acquired honestly.
Honestly
is, of course, the key word there, for I also know few people of
any
socioeconomic status who are not outraged that so many Wall Street fat cats experienced personal financial windfalls during the financial meltdown of many financial institutions in 2008 and 2009.

There continues to be an element, primarily in the Democratic Party, however, who use such abuses of the capitalist system to constantly evoke class warfare. They know that if they can get poor people to believe that they are the ones advocating for them, and that the other party advocates only for the rich, then it is very likely that the poor will vote for them in overwhelming numbers — and, of course, there are a lot more poor people than there are rich people. By attempting to associate Americans who are well off due to their extremely hard work and honest efforts with those despicable, greedy financiers, they distort reality. For these are by no means the same kinds of people, and, in fact, the hard-working, honest rich are the primary providers of jobs that allow us to have a middle class in this country. If we demonize, persecute, and overtax such people, they will become unsure of themselves and considerably less productive, which will have a devastating impact on the general economy, both because they are not spending and because they are not creating jobs.

Class warfare is an artificial division created for political advantage, and it should be rejected outright by the American people — for we have far too many real problems to devote energy to artificial ones.

Another growing division in our nation exists between people who are unionized and those who are not. The concept of unions is actually quite good, and they played a very important role in the industrial development of our nation. The initial idea was “strength through unity” to keep unscrupulous owners/employers from taking advantage of defenseless workers. Without them, it is unlikely that we would have ever developed a robust middle class.

As time has gone on, however, many employees who are already well protected, such as government workers, have insisted on unionizing in order to strengthen their hands during collective bargaining. Initially, this was about getting the highest possible salaries, but now collective bargaining includes tenure, vacations, class size for teachers, meals, and a host of other things that frequently are not available to the general public.

In many cases, unions have now evolved to gain unfair political advantage based on the numbers of potential votes that can be delivered and the amount of money that can be donated to political causes. Leaders of many of these unions see nothing wrong with coercing members to donate a portion of their salary for dues, which they use to create very large monetary war chests for political campaigns. They then elect politicians who are obligated to them, allowing them to further enhance their positions financially, socially, and politically. In a twist of history from unions’ original intention, sometimes the
unions
become the bullies against whom other people need protection. I do not believe that the average union worker grew up thinking that they should have unfair advantages over everyone else, but many union leaders try to create an entitlement mentality among their constituents. Once people get used to having certain advantages, they will fight vigorously to keep them.

Again, it is time for us as a nation to step back and ask ourselves, who is really being treated unfairly — unionized government workers or taxpayers who have to support unaffordable benefits? If we can just stop being selfish and think about “liberty and justice for all,” we will not tolerate rabble-rousers endeavoring to create a need and a well-paid position for themselves.

Having said all of that, there are businesses and industries that do try to take advantage of individual workers, and unions are very effective in those situations — but this does not mean that everyone needs a union. If physicians were unionized, it is likely that they would bargain for higher pay and fewer hours. It is unlikely that they would accept the sometimes meager reimbursements from insurance companies, and they would demand significant
tort reform. I can hear the union bosses saying that those are just the things that doctors should be complaining about, and that they are foolish to allow themselves to be abused by an unfair system. I fully agree that many aspects of the medical profession are less than optimal, but we have jobs that allow us to help people and save their lives. These jobs provide a great deal of fulfillment and satisfaction, and there is no need to squeeze every drop of blood out of the proverbial turnip. If physicians join together, however, and demand job perks for us as physicians simply because we provide a unique, indispensable service, doesn’t that make us blackmailers? I am only using physicians as the example here because I am a physician, but the point is that it is rarely necessary to divide ourselves into special interest groups to gain advantages, and that much more progress can and will be made when we place our emphasis on creating opportunities for
everyone
as opposed to creating unfair advantages for those with the power to do so.

The election of Barack Obama as the first black president in 2008 was a momentous occasion and signaled the fact that race was no longer a barrier to election to the highest office in the land. However, people still disagree about whether or not the United States remains racially divided.

Over the last two decades, I believe a great deal of progress has been made. During that time, many minorities have assumed important and very visible positions in our society and performed extremely well, eliminating anxiety on the part of the majority about their capabilities. Today one would have to live a fairly sheltered life in a highly biased community to harbor the belief that someone is inferior simply because of the color of their skin.

This does not mean that racism has disappeared completely from America, but it is gradually becoming a dinosaur in communities of educated people. I do know some who feel quite differently and think racism is alive and well. When I was a psychology major in college, one of the things I learned — which in retrospect is really only common sense — is that people tend to see what they are looking for. If you think someone likes you, you are likely to interpret their words and actions very differently than if you think they hate you. Prejudice is generally born out of ignorance and the propagation of myths; fortunately, Hollywood and the media have eliminated a great deal of misinformation about different races and nationalities.

In the national elections of 2012, we will have a wonderful opportunity to really see whether we have largely vanquished racism in America. Part of that final shift will require white America to set behind them the notion that
most black candidates running for office share the same political left-wing leanings held by President Obama, and to embrace the process of scrutinizing candidates’ positions rather than simply making assumptions about them. Doing so will help confirm that the evil of racism is losing its hold in this nation once defined by it.

Unlike the division caused by racism, which seems to be shrinking, the division caused by religious differences seems to be intensifying, with the greatest conflict between Islam and Christianity. I was recently at a university-hosted dinner for a well-known expert on Islamic culture, and I asked him if it were possible for Islam and Christianity to peacefully coexist. It was clear that the question made him very uncomfortable, but he answered it honestly and said, unfortunately, it is not possible because some Islamists believe that Christians and Jews are infidels who should either be converted or at the very least avoided. It is very important to remember, however, that there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and to paint them with a single philosophical brush is just as absurd as trying to characterize the diverse thinking of billions of Christians around the world.

Perhaps the real problem with Islam is its radical faction, which has grown dramatically in recent years. Large groups of Muslim youths growing up in poverty-stricken areas in the Middle East and Africa, without a great deal of exposure to other religions and cultures, become relatively easy pickings for radical Islamic terrorists. These terrorist factions extract portions of the Koran, which they distort and use to convince these energetic but misdirected young people to join the “holy jihad” and receive an everlasting reward. With more than one billion Muslims in the world, there are certainly enough radical Islamists among them to cause concern. It is the quickest expanding religion in the world, but by births not by conversions. With a number of that magnitude and the intensity of their hatred, it is easy to see how this can be an enormous problem both now and in the future. At least knowing the numbers gives us some perspective on whether this problem can be ignored or deserves our full attention and efforts to address it.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all sprang from the seed of Abraham, which might lead one to believe that the religions should have enough in common to peacefully coexist. And if you exclude the radical elements of each religion, harmony should be within reach since peace, love, and fairness are foundational pillars of each of the religions. Since the vast majority of each religion’s constituents embrace the concept of peace, it is incumbent
upon those members to control their radical elements. This means they have to confront the radical elements who advocate violence and often the very principles that constitute their belief system. This must be done both publicly and privately, and they have to use every means available to them to eliminate this cancer among them. If they are afraid or refuse to stand up to the radicals among them, they will share in the guilt for the worldwide holocaust that will ensue. The only way in which religious division will not be highly destructive is if people embrace and live up to the precepts and principles of their respective religions.

In conclusion, many other factors such as sexism and ageism threaten our unity as a nation, but perhaps the most important factor is not what divides us, but rather what unites us.

Proverbs 29:18 says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” One defining feature of an outstanding leader is the ability to bring divergent groups together and unite them in a common mission with benefits for all. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern what the vision for America is. Do we really know who we are and what we stand for? Do we know what we believe in, or are we constantly walking around with our fingertips in the air, trying to decide which way the wind is blowing at any given moment? Are we willing to think for ourselves, or do we believe media pundits have all the answers? Our founding fathers placed so much emphasis on nurturing a well-educated populace because they knew that our system of democracy could not long survive with ignorant and uncaring citizens who could easily be manipulated by slick politicians.

As we enter the next election season, I hope we will each be willing to take a step back and ask the question, what is of crucial importance to me and to the future of our nation?

G
ROWING UP
changes one’s definition of what is fun — maturation does that, thankfully — so I hate to admit now that as a boy I thoroughly enjoyed throwing rocks at cars. It was a thrill to wait in hiding, ambush the car driving by, and then make our escape. Occasionally, a driver would stop their vehicle and get out to yell at us. But if we were really fortunate, they would chase us. We would run just far enough ahead to encourage them, but when they got close, we would turn on the afterburners of youth, leaving them far behind while we laughed hysterically.

Once in a while, the police would come by — usually in unmarked cars — and the chase would be much more dramatic until we reached the ten-foot-tall fences at the end of the neighborhood field. To the police, it must have appeared as if they had us trapped. They had no idea, however, how practiced we were at vaulting those fences. We treated it like an Olympic event, running at full speed toward the fence and then leaping high into the air, grabbing the chain links, and allowing the momentum of our feet to swing us over the top and down on the other side. We would laugh at the police as we ran off, knowing there was no way they would follow us.

Today I have great admiration for the police, who risk their lives on a daily basis to protect
our
lives, freedom, and property. Remove all police protection in our society for just a day, and imagine the mayhem that would ensue. Sure, corruption exists in some police departments, because police officers are human beings like the rest of us; give power to human beings and corruption naturally follows. But police provide far greater good than bad in our society. Our justice system may have plenty of opportunities to
malfunction, but we should not give up on it and must continually, objectively evaluate potential improvements.

When I started reading as a boy and began getting serious about my future, I was deeply encouraged by stories of those who had gone from rags to riches. One of the things virtually all of them had in common was that they benefitted from the freedom and justice in our system of government. I believe that all of these people would tell you that the only thing they really ever asked for was a fair chance to work hard, prove their worth, and benefit personally from their own efforts.

When we stand, place our hand over our heart, and before our country’s flag pledge “with liberty and justice for all,” we are simply saying that we want a nation that allows everyone to pursue their dreams as long as they are not injuring someone else, and that we will protect their right to do so. We should never underestimate the huge role that our justice system carries out in creating “fair play,” allowing individuals to be successful in a large and complex society where given half a chance bullies will take advantage of anyone. Our legal system is rather large and cumbersome, but in the long run I would not trade it for any other system in the world.

I was recently summoned to fulfill my civic duty as a petit juror. When I first received the notice, I began thinking of all the patient surgeries and clinical appointments I would have to cancel in order to serve, but then I remembered that an obligation is an obligation no matter who you are and what you have to do. If some of us think we are too important to fulfill our civic duties, the very strength that our wonderful judicial system is built on in drawing from a diverse pool of jurors breaks down. I will confess that I was in the courthouse from 8:30 a.m. until a little after 6 p.m. essentially wasting my time. I was being considered as a juror for two cases, both of which were medical malpractice cases, and I knew there was no way on earth that the plaintiff’s attorneys in either case would accept a neurosurgeon as a juror. I’m sure the judges knew that also; nevertheless, we spent several hours going through the motions and eventually jurors were selected. Do I think there are more efficient ways to select jurors? Of course I do. But I also realize that there will always be imperfections and room for improvement, and as long as we continue to work toward those improvements without being overly critical, we will make progress on improving a system that is already one of the best in the world.

My first time in court — and one of the only times — I was a neurosurgical resident at Johns Hopkins. I had been driving my car on a newly opened stretch of highway, going fifty-five miles per hour, when I was pulled over by a policeman.

“Sir, did you know that you were exceeding the speed limit by fifteen miles per hour?” he asked.

I was still surprised and confused about why I had been pulled over. “Well,” I replied, “I was only going fifty-five. The speed limit is fifty-five miles per hour.”

“No, sir,” he replied. “The speed limit here is forty miles per hour.”

“Where is that posted?” I asked.

“At the entrance to the highway, sir.” He issued me a speeding violation and told me that I should go to court if I felt strongly about it.

Ultimately, I did decide to go to court to plead my case, but when I arrived and was waiting for my turn to approach the bench, I began having second thoughts about the wisdom of being there as I watched how stern the judge was with others. Finally it was my turn and I approached the bench.

“What do you do for work?” asked the judge.

“I am a neurosurgical resident at Johns Hopkins Hospital,” I replied.

He looked up. My answer had brought a smile to his face. “Do you happen to know a neurosurgeon there by the name of Dr. John Chambers?”

“Sure,” I said. “I operate with Dr. Chambers all the time.”

“He’s a good fishing buddy of mine,” the judge said thoughtfully. He paused a moment. “Case dismissed,” he said. “Next case.” The poor police officer who had given me the ticket was astonished, and I exited the courtroom triumphantly.

Although it may seem that the judge was unfairly biased in my favor, I’m sure he knew the facts of the case and also knew that I had a perfectly clean driving record. Nevertheless, this case does point out how arbitrary some decisions can be — and those decisions can have profound effects on people’s lives. This is the reason the founders of our judicial system inserted a provision to recall or dismiss rogue judges. They realized that judges are also people who can be quite imperfect like the rest of us, or who can become corrupted or even demented.

I do not wish to imply that our nation is the only nation with a solid judicial system. After I finished my neurosurgical residency at Johns Hopkins, Candy and I spent a year in Australia — as I mentioned earlier — where Murray, our oldest son was born. One evening we were driving down a hill and noticed a large number of cars at the bottom, some of which were police cars. We were soon stopped by a police officer on the street, who stated that we were exceeding the speed limit. The police had set up a speed trap at the base of the hill, realizing that almost everyone would be speeding by the time they hit the bottom due to their momentum. They were using radar
guns, which they were all too happy to show to the disgruntled, entrapped travelers. I argued with the police, stating that they were engaging in entrapment. I told them that I was an American citizen and that we rarely did such things in America. They invited me to go to court and state my case, which I decided to do.

The judge there must have been in a particularly bad mood because he was slamming everyone, most of whom had legal counsel. Alone in a foreign country, I was feeling very vulnerable, and I asked God to give me wisdom as I approached the bench. The judge had already heard about the circumstances of my case, because some of the other victims of that evening had just argued in vain for mercy. I started my defense by talking about radar equipment and their use of Doppler waves to detect speed. I told him that the accuracy of such equipment could legitimately be called into question when it is used on an angle, which rapidly degrades the accuracy of the detected waves. He was fascinated as I explained in detail some basic principles of physics. At the end of my discourse, he said, “Case dismissed.”

Both the American judicial system and the Australian judicial system are based on the English system, which has long been recognized for its fairness. Integral to a fair justice system is the opportunity for the accused to present their case to an impartial judge or jury, with an opportunity to appeal the judgment. Because there are a limited number of courts and personnel, our judicial system can be somewhat cumbersome and time consuming, but it generally works.

As a neurosurgeon, I have had many opportunities to participate in courtroom proceedings involving medical malpractice claims. Fortunately, all of these appearances so far have been as an expert witness — primarily for the defendants — but in a few egregious cases, for the plaintiffs. Much of our time during these trials is spent trying to educate the jury about things most of them have very little knowledge about. Unfortunately, in many such cases, the outcome of the trial depends more on who establishes the best rapport with the jury and puts on the best dog and pony show rather than who has the facts on their side.

I simply do not have time to be an expert witness anymore, but two decades ago I served as one for a local neurosurgeon who had experienced a bad outcome with a spinal cord tumor. The defense attorneys warned me that the plaintiff had hired Dr. Harvey Wachsman as their chief attorney, and that he was very tough on opposing expert witnesses. Not only was he
trained as an attorney, he had also trained as a neurosurgeon and he was president of the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys. I was familiar with his name because he had done some presentations at national meetings of neurosurgeons on how to avoid getting to know people like him in court. I must admit he was quite an imposing figure, exuding an air of confidence. As an expert witness, I try to be very cooperative, accommodating, and pleasant to the opposing attorneys, while gradually moving them into a position where I can expose the folly of their argument before the jury. It turns out that Dr. Wachsman used much the same approach initially with his witnesses. There I was trying to lead him into a certain position, which would allow me to spring the trap, and he was doing the exact same thing to me. We quickly recognized what each other was doing, and we were having a fabulous time with our chess match.

After the case was over, we were talking in the hallway and discovered that we had many common interests, as well as children who were similar in age. That was the beginning of a long and close friendship and many interesting discussions about medical malpractice. One of the things I admire about Dr. Wachsman and about my own personal attorney, Roger Bennett, is that they would never accept a case that was without merit, even if they thought it could be settled, resulting in a nice fee for themselves. If all plaintiff’s attorneys behaved in that manner, our judicial system would be much less congested, our society would be much less litigious, and the court’s time would be utilized more efficiently, preventing another level of waste. Unfortunately, we have an overabundance of lawyers — all of whom need to make a living — and so we can expect to have excessive litigation in our society for a long time to come. I hope at some point the legal establishment will recognize the problem and attempt to regulate the number of attorneys produced. If they do not, society at large will have to produce a solution.

The English system does not have the same kind of problem with excessive litigation because they have a “loser pay” arrangement. In that system, if you bring a lawsuit against someone and you lose, you have to pay all court costs and fees associated with the lawsuit — on both sides. In our system, most medical malpractice lawsuits are engaged on a contingency basis, which means the plaintiff has no out-of-pocket expenses, even if the case is lost. It’s basically like playing the lottery; you have very little to lose, and you might become a millionaire if you instigate a medical malpractice lawsuit. Whether we add a “loser pay” arrangement to our legal system or devise another solution, the plaintiffs should have some skin in the game. To be able to bring lawsuits against people with no risk to yourself is antithetical
to a harmonious and fair society. Unjustly accusing someone is also libel, but by the time a countersuit against the initiator of the first lawsuit is complete, the damage has already been done to the medical practitioner, who has lost their reputation whether they are ultimately proved innocent or not.

Another consequence of having too many lawyers and administrative personnel is the proliferation of red tape and regulations surrounding almost everything in our lives. Lawyers and administrators are not bad people, but they tend to regulate things because that’s what they’re trained to do. If you have too many lawyers, overregulation naturally follows. Over the years, I have had an opportunity to deal with many personnel issues at the hospital, in the corporate world, and in the nonprofit world. I have observed how difficult it is to get rid of someone who is not performing their job well because employers fear a lawsuit for unjust termination. You will have to look far and wide to find someone who is more patient and understanding than I am when it comes to giving people a chance to prove themselves, but incompetence and lack of ethical behavior clearly exists in our society, and when allowed to go unchecked, the morale of others is damaged and the result is inefficiency, and in some cases, even a danger to others.

Are there some commonsense approaches to dealing with things such as unfortunate medical outcomes or job termination? Some will be quick to dismiss this question, saying that without protective regulations and threats of lawsuits, discrimination and bias by employers would reign supreme in the workplaces of America. This, of course, assumes that we have not matured at all from the days of segregation and Jim Crowism, which is a huge and probably inappropriate assumption. One must also bear in mind that media scrutiny and bad publicity are huge deterrents of abusive behavior today compared to decades ago. If we continue to sue and regulate for every possibility, however, soon the level of distrust and suspicion throughout our society will begin to provide a real challenge to healthy interpersonal relationships. I believe it is possible to change the atmosphere of antagonism to one that is friendly and oriented toward the resolution of problems if we can find a way to make litigation the last solution rather than the first.