The 20th century American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once observed that “No man will ever be so intelligent as to see the needs of others as vividly as he recognizes his own . . .” This observations has been echoed in more recent descriptions of “empathy deficits,” which have been amplified by a political climate marked by growing selfishness, hostility, and personal animosity. Regardless of the characterization, the inability of our modern leaders to think beyond the next election has fueled a crippling shortsightedness that threatens the sustainability of public policies designed to foster shared security and prosperity.
Connecticut has witnessed this first hand as the state’s General Assembly failed to act on the original SustiNet proposal, which would have taken a bold and evidence-based step toward ensuring all Connecticuters have meaningful access to preventive and medical care. A dearth of imaginative leadership and our inability to identify the needs of our fellow man as our very own has compromised our economic and political sustainability as never before. The consequences are vast and have significantly changed the character of American life. Existing wealth, health, and education disparities within our population are simply unconscionable. In terms of wealth, the top 1 percent of Americans control 40 percent. Inequities in health are perhaps even more disturbing and health disparities along socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic lines continue to grow. The nation’s marginalized communities do not only bear a tremendous burden in terms of illness, but disproportionately so, such that existing health outcome trends render individuals’ opportunity for good health drastically different based upon they are born. Essentially, whole neighborhoods have their entire health destinies shaped by unjust conditions, practices, and systems that have been institutionalized through no fault of their own. Gaps in educational achievement persist and mirror patterns of poverty concentration in our isolated urban centers. Such inequality is nearing levels of historic significance and as Americans are increasingly fearful of the nation’s status in the world economy, we too, now face the realization that the accumulation of resources in one place leads to compromised opportunity elsewhere. The growing awareness of health disparities among economists, the medical field, and public health professionals is heartening, but ultimate success in mitigating them depends upon the development of leadership that can foster understanding that the fate of our most privileged citizens is bound up with the amount of opportunity open to the rest of the population.
Health disparities result from complex interactions among genetics, environment, and culture and are amplified by public policies which may open or restrict opportunities for optimal health. While the diversity of our population makes our lives richer and presents some of our greatest assets, it also represents an incredible range of health improvement challenges– challenges that require leadership from individuals, families, communities, and public institutions. Regardless of how health disparities or health inequities are defined, they have emerged as one of the defining problems of our time– problems that serve as a reminder of the stark injustices that still exist in our society.
Leadership at the forefront of some of our greatest causes have been able to expand our collective imagination and artfully make the case for why we should account for, and even prioritize, the interests of others. This ability to apply timely leadership in the face of social injustice has probably been most evident in the “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” mentality of the civil rights movement; however, the interconnectedness of our modern global society and the complexity of the institutionalized injustice require a heightened level of human imagination that appreciates the fact that one individual’s, one family’s, one city’s, one state’s success depends upon the continued success of others situated around them.
For instance, the economic health of Connecticut’s central cities, their surrounding suburbs, the former mill towns, and the entire state are all inextricably linked. As such, our political victories should not be defined by what we win at someone else’s expense, but rather by how we enable communities throughout the state to pursue their dreams. Connecticut has accomplished significant progress and is aiming for admirable goals, such as universal health care access. The state’s public interest community has done a tremendous amount to “comfort the afflicted”; however, true progress in the name of health equity will only be achieved once we “afflict the comfortable” and the state’s grossly disproportionate distribution of opportunity is recognized as the liability it is. As has been described by Former President Bill Clinton, “Our world is too small, our wisdom – too limited, our time – too short, to waste any more of it winning fleeting victories at other people’s expense.” Connecticut has the potential to rise to the occasion and take advantage of the state’s unique opportunity to pave the way for others in nurturing a society conscious of the interconnectedness of all of its residents. Such a framework will ensure the vitality of the American dream– passing on a greater world of opportunity and security to each generation. In that vein, our current efforts in pursuit of health justice are not altogether for today – they are for a vast future also.
After watching the whole U.S. debt ceiling episode, I think our need for bold and imaginative leadership goes beyond health policy.
I agree, Otis, but we also need a fully informed public; one that is not distracted from the core issues by nonsensical rhetoric.
interesting piece. we are, indeed, interconnected and i agree that higher demonstrated empathy would do great good for our collective society. however, could you elaborate on what you mean by “imaginative” leadership?
Laura, Thank you for the comment. By “imaginative” leadership, I meant the leadership needed to help us understand the interests and needs of others. When acting as individuals, it is very difficult to not be cognizant of the interests of others; however, when we act as groups (as in much of our public policy decision-making), it becomes increasingly easier to overlook the needs and feelings of other groups. The type of leadership I was trying to articulate would be informed by the moral imagination we use as individuals and apply it to how we interact as groups.
The failure of leadership is a common trope that that is
often invoked in the political blame game – when in doubt, blame poor leadership.
However, this approach individualizes what is at its core a structural, collective
deficiency in our representative political institutions. We cannot exclusively
blame either politicians or their constituents who are simply responding the
incentive structures that are built in to our representative institutions. What is needed is not popular and doesn’t
make for good headline grabbing memes. What is needed is a complete overhauling
our electoral laws including thoroughgoing campaign finance reform to prevent
business interests, which have a monopoly on financial capital, from
disproportionately steering g the system. But well beyond this, we need to move
away from the first-past the post,
winner takes all system which promotes a two-party system catering to moderate
voters and increasingly being pulled to the far right. With a proportional representation system,
where a party is assigned a number of seats based on how many votes it
receives, no vote would be wasted or worse put people in the position requiring
them to vote for the lesser of two evils. We do need leadership, but leadership from
viable, left-leaning third parties, which has the best interest of the people (and
not for-profit entities) at heart.
Reducing the term limits to a single term could also encourage
politicians to take bolder action.
Thus, although I agree that a failure of our leaders to
speak truth to power is a key contributor to our lack of social justice, simply
exhorting leaders to lead is insufficient to understand why we have such a
systematic failure of leadership in the US. To understand why our leaders
routinely fail to lead requires an analysis of the structural causes of leadership
failure. Addressing health justice as
well as social justice more broadly requires us to address the root causes of
poor leadership that militates against bold and imaginative action on the part
of representatives.
Thank you for the response – I didn’t mean to place the blame squarely on our elected officials. You’re correct in identifying some of our electoral policies as key contributors to the imbalance of power, but the piece was meant to inspire leadership in all of us rather than just point the finger at “the system.”
The leadership I outlined must come from all walks of life; however, I do feel that our elected officials have a special role in helping us identify the trajectory of American life. We are currently at a loss for this sort of leadership that helps us all understand what our shared values are and how they are codified into the laws that guide how we interact.
Fantastic. I enjoy this on many fronts. You highlighted how and why Connecticut, in particular, can be a potential model/leader in this area. As you suggested in your comment, the timing of this piece was perfect — the consequences of inefficient leadership are dire, as demonstrated in the debt crisis.
While I would agree that the lack of imagination problem is not specific to health justice/disparities/inequalities, I still expect more from these dialogues, especially given the # of experts on the topic, and the overwhelming data supporting best practices (many of which are not emphasized or practiced enough). This makes the lack of leadership in the health justice discourse especially frustrating. Thank you for this piece.
In the health justice context specifically — what might imaginative leadership look like? And where might we find it? I suppose the answer might be “everywhere,” but what might be some models for what effective, imaginative leadership looks like? I can think of some examples….this blog is certainly a start.
Indeed – this imaginative leadership must be cultivated “everywhere.” But is it asking too much to have our elected officials take the lead? As inequities in health, education, and wealth continue to grow and economic hardship is increasingly visiting us all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or region, who will tell the story of where we are heading? Who is acting as our compass? Here’s a great piece from New York Times that describes this lack of leadership much more forcefully than I ever could:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?scp=1&sq=what%20happened%20to%20obama&st=cse