HAIL TO THE VICTORS

Zachary Sheinberg

Sunday, November 27, 2011

I ran the loop in Central Park this morning. As I made my way north up the East Side of the trail, I felt very thankful for the park and those who spearheaded the effort to create it. In 1853, the New York State Legislature set aside the original 700 acres, from 59th Street to 106th Street (today, Central Park extends north to 110th Street), to create Central Park.

Prior to 1853, several earlier efforts to create a park failed. Given this fact together with the reality of how politics works (i.e. complete unanimity of opinion rarely, if ever, exists), is there any doubt that people opposed the creation of Central Park? For whatever the reason. Is there any doubt that people lobbied members of the State Legislature to vote against the bill? Is there any doubt that people thought it was a terrible idea?

Yet today, almost one hundred and sixty years later, I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find anyone in New York City who thinks Central Park is a bad idea, who wishes that Central Park was developed with skyscrapers, parking lots and townhomes.

So to those who fought for Central Park in Albany all those years ago and won, hail to the victors. I’m grateful they fought for the park and won. Because now I can run there whenever I want.

The reason I raise the origin of Central Park is that decisions made long ago that we take for granted today, at the time that those decisions were made, that those votes were taken, most if not all were controversial.

Does anyone today question the right of women to vote? Of course not. A Constitutional Amendment that would allow women to vote was first introduced by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1878. But the 19th Amendment was not ratified until 42 years later, in 1920. Which makes clear that, during the intervening years, granting suffrage to women was controversial.

Change is always controversial. Because change changes the status quo, to which so many people have become accustomed, with which so many people are comfortable, in which so many people are invested (both financially and emotionally).

So is it any surprise that all the major accomplishments of President Obama, universal healthcare, financial regulation overhaul, the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the economic bailout, have been controversial? Even the recent decision to continue funding the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees air traffic and air safety, was controversial! Congressman Ron Paul went so far as to suggest that we abolish the FAA and leave coordination of air travel to the individual states (which, objectively, is a horrible idea).

Do you think the decisions by President Obama that led to the policy changes I mentioned above were good decisions? Before you answer the question, consider the following.

There is a difference between a right decision and a good decision. Every decision is right, wrong or indifferent as well as good, bad or neither here nor there. In many cases, we know, based on law, societal norms and our personal ethical codes, whether a decision is right or wrong immediately. But very often, we do not know whether a decision is good or bad until later. Sometimes many, many years later.

In 2003, President Bush decided to invade Iraq. Most people had an opinion on whether this decision was right or wrong. From the perspectives of international law, international relations and some parts of national security, this was probably the wrong decision. From the perspectives of human rights and other parts of national security (which includes physical security as well as energy security), this was probably the right decision.

But was President Bush’s decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein by force a good decision?

I posit that we do not yet know. If Iraq becomes a robust democracy, a staunch US ally, a reliable trading partner, an effective counterbalance to Iran and a voice of non-radical Islam, then the decision will turn out to be a good one and well worth the costs (financial, prestige, foreign relations, etc.). If enmity against the United States among Sunni Muslims persists, if internal strife continues among the ethnic groups in Iraq, if Iraqi democracy recedes back to totalitarianism, if none of the things listed above happen, then the decision will turn out to be a bad, and very costly, one.

But we cannot yet determine whether the decision was a good one. And even if it turns out that it was a good decision, that still does not mean that it was the right decision.

I sincerely hope that the war in Iraq, universal healthcare and all the other controversial decisions made by Presidents in my lifetime, even those that I thought and continue to think were wrong decisions at the times made, turn out to be good decisions. And hopefully decisions as good as the decision to create and maintain Central Park. If they do, I will happily salute those who can claim victory for having made those good decisions. I will happily hail those victors. As well as the Maize and Blue on this day.