You hear the phrase “let’s have a conversation” a lot as the liberal arm of our political class confronts problems. Does it solve anything or is it an excuse for doing nothing?
When I was a kid in 1950s Los Angeles, the six local TV stations would haul their large cameras down to “skid row” in midtown LA every Thanksgiving and Christmas to report on celebrities and politicians serving dinners for the street people and the poor who lived in the area.
This always stirred up “conversations” about what could be done to “help these folks out.” That was 70 years ago, and after billions have been spent, the problem has only gotten bigger.
Another problem in the 1950s was the need for more housing as LA was growing. Millions of houses have been built since then, but we are still “having conversations” about how to solve the need for more housing.
Conflict in many regions around the world has been a problem since before the United States was established. Once again, many wars and conversations have occurred to make peace, but conflict still exists and no one has figured out how to use words, not bullets and bombs, to solve disputes.
In the 1970s, it was how we could reform the education system on a national scale—the federal Department of Education was deemed the only answer, but education hasn’t improved.
Once teachers unions became entrenched in classrooms, the education of our children to survive in a work-a-day world declined steadily. The only interest of these unions was to get raises and benefits increased not to provide a useful education, get class sizes reduced, and protect errant or poor performing teachers—some accused of felonies—from being fired. Maybe we need another conversation and less indoctrination.
The political class has been having conversations on how to solve the “immigration problem” for decades. The latest solution was to open the border; how has that worked out? An orderly immigration system is essential, but to get there more than a conversation is required.
And as the population continued to grow, there were many conversations about how to provide more water, this as other louder conversations demanded that dams be removed to “save the fish.” Once again, just noise and no solution.
Recently we were reminded of the ever-present danger of fires in what firefighters call the “urban interface zone.” In the late 1950s and early 1960s, large-scale fires occurred in the canyons and hills of Los Angeles that destroyed thousands of houses and businesses. Following the recent fires in the same areas, conversations focused on federal aid for cleanup, demoting a local fire chief because she told the truth about the impact of budget cuts, rapid rebuilding, and not accepting responsibility for political decisions that led to the losses that occurred in hurricane-level wind conditions.
As politicians pointed fingers and promised “speedy help,” families who lost everything were struggling to rebuild their lives. So far, there have been no conversations about preventing other fires with the same result. Once again, noise but no lasting solution.
I guess my point is that conversation is only good in social settings where you talk about sports events, the beautiful spring flowers, the brilliant sunset, a full moon, starlit sky, or your favorite eatery.
“Having a conversation” hasn’t solved any of the serious problems in our society; only bold action produces positive results. m
Ron Fink writes to the Sun from Lompoc. Send a letter for publication to letters@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Mar 20-30, 2025.