THOUGHTLESS AMERICA

What were they thinking? They weren’t.

Not many of Bernie Madoff’s victims. Not two-thirds of Congress in October 2002, among other instances. Not voters who often entrust incapable candidates with public office.

The fury voiced by Madoff’s victims in past weeks begs this question: How could they take such chances with their fortunes, large or small? Would they gamble their entire paycheck on slot machines each week? It is one thing to invest part of their money with Madoff or anyone else, but nearly everything?

I sympathize with these people, but their grousing affirms that they refuse to take personal responsibility. Hirschhorn family members were quoted by at least three news organizations complaining about Madoff. Carla Hirschhorn of Manalapan, N.J., was quoted in The New York Daily News as saying, “He has destroyed us. We are not wealthy, fancy people. Never were, never will be.”

Her family’s loss was $7 million, according to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article. That’s not wealthy? Who couldn’t live on $7 million?

Madoff blew $21 million of the American Jewish Congress’s endowment, 90 percent of the account, JTA reported. In fact, Madoff was once a board member of AJCongress, which meant that he influenced the agency’s policies while being entrusted with much of its cash. That’s a conflict of interest.

Alluding to Madoff’s 150-year prison sentence for defrauding clients in a Ponzi scheme, acting co-executive director Marc Stern said, “Mr. Madoff is not going to find any sympathy from us…It doesn’t give us our $20 million back…It is satisfaction mixed with the reality that it does not undo the harm that he did?”

That he did? Perhaps the 25 former staff members who lost their jobs lack “any sympathy” for their old bosses. Did Madoff force them to invest the money? Madoff was no doubt skillful in convincing them to invest the money with him, but in the end it was still their decision.

It is this kind of thinking - true, that is a contradiction in terms - which produces so much trouble in our society. People neglect to consider the consequences of their actions. It is common sense to take into account the potential results of a major decision. If they had that kind of money accrued by Madoff‘s victims, many people would make certain to bank a substantial amount of it before considering investments.

Examples throughout history abound of failure to think things through: Custer’s last stand, the Confederacy’s split from the Union, the North’s application of Reconstruction, the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam war, to name a few. Recently, tax cuts for the rich, the mortgage scandal and, especially, the invasion of Iraq.

Congress in October 2002 voted to authorize military action in Iraq without bothering to consider the risks.

There were risks, among them a ghastly civil war and an administration which set the stage for thousands of deaths, drained hundreds of billions from our treasury, left government buildings vulnerable to looting, tortured prisoners and furnished multi-billion dollar assignments to private firms tightly linked to the White House.

The public either supported the war or did not care. The relatively few dissenters could not gain traction during the early part of the war. President Bush and Congress were warned repeatedly that the invasion of Iraq would be a high-stakes gamble. All anyone needed to do was follow history.

An acquaintance suggested that Congress’s decision to permit the invasion of Iraq resulted from an emotional reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Congress was not created to act on emotions but to deliberate on the pros and cons on given issues that come before them.

If Congress was to operate according to the emotions of the people, there would be no need for Congress. A form of mob rule would be adequate. The idea of bringing together representatives of the public amounts to a meeting of the minds, presumably some of our best minds.

In other words, they are expected to think before voting on measures which could decide the fate of the world.