Political Reality of Nursing

[goingCOASTAL]

Been reading through the forums, and have enjoyed many of the lively discussions. Invariably many of the problems discussed become political discussions, with some respondents stating they don't like nursing institutions acting in a political manner -- one stating that they should be politically neutral.

I don't know what planet anyone else works on, but the country I live in is becoming extremely politically polarized. Our profession, one of the largest in the nation, does not exist in a political vacuum -- it has to try and navigate through this system to create any sort of action. We have many nursing lobbyists in Washington trying to affect change . . . why? Because that's how change comes in America, or through worker organization. I hear a lot of people complaining about unions and PACS, with the requisite "there has to be a better way!" What way? This is the American system -- nurses didn't create it, but if they're going to be effective on a national scale, these are the tools given to us by the political reality here in America.

To make matters worse, the ruling party in DC has decided to limit the access of lobbyists and PACS to Capitol Hill unless they fire their lobbyists that are Democratic, and hire all GOP staff (including secretaries), and promote GOP-only leadership to the top of these firms. What does this mean? That unless the ANA and other nursing lobbies fire any Democrats working for them in Washington, and hire only Republicans, their voices won't be heard -- they won't have access to Republican politicians who currently run the country. Bipartisanship -- goodbye. Before, lobbyists hired from both parties so that they could lobby powerful congressmen and Senators on either side of the aisle -- that is out the door.http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18075

We can't pretend that the political reality nursing must work with is a peaceful pasture, with everyone holding hands and singing lullabies. Hospitals have their interests represented, doctors have theirs -- and nursing MUST have its own political voice, or it will continue to be marginalized as it has been for most of the time up till now. If you don't like the "action" of your unions or organizations, get involved, recruit other likeminded people, and let your voice be heard. Whether I agree with everything or not is not the point -- I'm glad nurses are organizing and making their needs and patient safety needs heard. It's about time, and I applaud the effort!

[1Tulip]

and nursing MUST have its own political voice

In the main, I am in agreement with you. I am a member of my state nurses assn and have been doing my part with our causes in the state legislature. Much more of our immediate interests (like licensure and practice issues) are handled on the state level.

The ANA has been to the left of me politically since the time I graduated. I was a Navy Nurse in the Vietnam war. I was a gung-ho-love-my-profession-AJN-subscriber and everything. Until they ran an egregious in-your-face, insulting editorial condemning the military, it's nurses and any member of the military that recruited student nurses. (I'm once again an ANA member and I toss the journal when it comes each month. Still worthless in my view.)

In point of fact, there are as many political voices in nursing as their are nurses. I think the national organization has been presumptuous in some of the political stands it has taken on "our behalf" and has risked alienating many of us.

I'm not sure what you're talking about vis. the Bushies telling our lobbiests who can work on capital hill and who can't. The fact is the country is leaning red, most of the representatives are republicans and if our lobbiests don't know how to get along with the majority party... they CAN'T do what "we" pay them to do.

But your point is well made. We do need to be engaged... keeping an eye on those that govern us as well as those that use our dues money to lobby for us.

[lady_jezebel]

I'm blue all the way, and so are most of us in Seattle. I don't care what the rest of the country thinks, for in my opinion most of the country is wrong & contributing to mistakes that will haunt future generations. You're right, there is a deep divide in this nation.

But regardless, just wanted to say "amen, sister (brother)!" There are many nursing issues that need national attention, issues that go beyond conservative vs. liberal, issues that most nurses feel are important (ex. appropriate staffing #s for safety). We nurses need to step out of our comfort zones & get political active. Thanks for the reminder.

[1Tulip]

Wait, wait, wait folks.

The point should not be whether we are Red or Blue or love George or think John Kerry is a gift from God.

When the issue is squarely about nursing practice and patient care issues, we should be arm in arm, willing to go to the mat for one another. (Funding for nursing education, for example.) We have to be united and engaged.

To the degree that our professional organization presumptuously speaks on issues that widely divide nurses (and voters in general) they are alienating thousands of us. Those they alienate will not be there to respond with co-ordinated e-mail, phone calls and financial donations when the next hot nursing issue arises in Washington.

[goingCOASTAL]

In point of fact, there are as many political voices in nursing as their are nurses. I think the national organization has been presumptuous in some of the political stands it has taken on "our behalf" and has risked alienating many of us.

I'm not sure what you're talking about vis. the Bushies telling our lobbiests who can work on capital hill and who can't. The fact is the country is leaning red, most of the representatives are republicans and if our lobbiests don't know how to get along with the majority party... they CAN'T do what "we" pay them to do.

But your point is well made. We do need to be engaged... keeping an eye on those that govern us as well as those that use our dues money to lobby for us.

I think one reason that many "professional" health orgs lean liberal is because liberals and other left-leaners (like myself) see things that need changing and get about actually doing it, where as the nature of conservatism is "leave things the way they are." Most of these organizations are non-profit, participatory "mini-democracies," and they represent the majority of those who choose to be active in the organization. If people want them to "lean conservative," all the conservatives need to do is participate in greater numbers than they already do.

About the lobbyist issue, the article I linked is a detailed explanation of a new effort by the majority in Congress to no longer communicate with lobbyists who do not have republicans in their firms' leadership, and who have not fired the democratic staff that work in their offices. Lobbyists, as you know, are the "special interests" (like the ANA, the AARP, NRA, Christian Coalition, etc.) that contribute to the campaign funds of congressmen and Senators in exchange for "face time" with the lawmakers to discuss the concerns of their donors (AARP will chat wit Senators about elderly issues, ANA about nursing, etc.). Lobbyist firms (otherwise known as political action committees or PACs) are independent from Congress, and are funded by the dues and revenue of those organizations. This new "blacklisting" of non-Republican-operated lobbyist firms is not an attempt to shut the mouths of special interests (believe me, the GOP wants their money), but is an effort to "change the environment" within these firms to reflect their own values -- and some of them are already laying people off to meet this new demand.

So, basically, unless the ANA fires their staff that are vocal democrats, and replace them all the Republicans, the ANA can't lobby the ruling party of the United States, and neither can any other lobbying group that doesn't fall in line.

Often, people will say, "but when the Democrats were in office" . . . this never happened while the Dems were in office. This is a new offensive measure by the Republican right to influence the voices and organizations that talk to them.

[goingCOASTAL]

Wait, wait, wait folks.

The point should not be whether we are Red or Blue or love George or think John Kerry is a gift from God.

When the issue is squarely about nursing practice and patient care issues, we should be arm in arm, willing to go to the mat for one another. (Funding for nursing education, for example.) We have to be united and engaged.

To the degree that our professional organization presumptuously speaks on issues that widely divide nurses (and voters in general) they are alienating thousands of us. Those they alienate will not be there to respond with co-ordinated e-mail, phone calls and financial donations when the next hot nursing issue arises in Washington.

I would also add workplace environment and job security to that list of concerns. Too long, groups like the ANA have made it known that they don't care a fig about workplace issues, and they're only playing lip-service now after they lost a major source of revenue when the CNA pulled out. When I was in nursing school, I went to my first conference by the student branch of the ANA (can't remember the initials), and there were several students from the NYC area that were complaining during an open-panel session about massive overseas recruiting when they weren't getting job offers. The panelists basically accused the students of being racists, and refused to discuss the issue -- saying that staffing (regardless of the source) was their only concern. Until recent union activities, all nursing organizations have turned a deaf ear to the workplace issues -- and if conservatives could join in on these issues as well, we could all "stand together" a lot more often.

The voice of nursing MUST be included in the conversation of US healthcare. We can't simply sit back and let the "doctors and hospitals" decide what's best for us, or for healthcare in general. We are the "frontline," and we know what needs to happen to make it better.

[1Tulip]

Coastal... we probably agree on a whole lot vis. nursing issues. I used to be very anti-nsg union. Saw the teamsters organize one hospital full of nurses once and it was ugly. They got a closed shop contract and then stopped listening to their nurse members. Basically told the nurses to bug off. Sort of one of those "of course I'll still love you in the morning" deals. When it comes to professional issues, I'm more pragmatist than conservative.

I don't know what to think of the ANA. Honestly. (Actually one of my classmates was the Pres. for a while. She always did think highly of herself.) But this I do know... there's a lot that can and should be done on the State level and I've seen our association hit some home runs. This is where I'm trying to make a difference.

Who knows... maybe the internet will make the national organization sort of moot. Using a robust website like this one, nurses could organize grass-roots campaigns for our shared vision.

We'll see. I can dream.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

too long, groups like the ana have made it known that they don't care a fig about workplace issues, and they're only playing lip-service now after they lost a major source of revenue when the cna pulled out.

couldn't disagree with you more.

ana's core issues :

nursing shortage

appropriate staffing

health and safety

workplace rights

ethics

nursing standards

quite striking to see these same issues worked on thoughout ana's history:

voices from the past, visions of the future: ana's centennial presentation

last year:annual stakeholders report 2004 and

read 2005-2006 strategic imperatives

[goingCOASTAL]

Couldn't disagree with you more.

I wonder how much of that stuff you could come up with from sources that they don't publish?

Respectfully,

[1Tulip]

I don't think I posted the comments attributed to me.