I’ve always hated talk about “tort reform.” There’s nothing worse than a conservative, anti-consumer policy pretending to be a populist movement. Corporate interests want this “reform” to shield them from responsibility, Republicans want it because corporate interests tell them to, and the public generally agrees with it because they perceive a systemic problem that rewards fraud.
What’s worse, the White House touts the policy as a cure-all. Want to expand access to quality health care? Back tort reform. Want to boost the economy? Tort reform. Create jobs? Tort reform. As Bush said in this year’s State of the Union address:
Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits.
To help debunk the tort reform nonsense, The Gadflyer has prepared a helpful response to common arguments as part of the magazine’s “Ammo Dump” series. It’s worth reading and holding onto for future reference.
One good way to argue against tort reform, particularly when it comes to things like product liability, is to put it in terms of whom you can trust. Tort reform advocates are essentially saying that you can’t trust juries made up of ordinary citizens, so instead we should simply trust corporations not to make products that harm people, or doctors not to make mistakes that can ruin people’s lives. If something bad happens to you, tough luck.
The jury system is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. Among other things, it ensures that people are accountable for their actions. And the decisions are meted out not by the powerful but by regular citizens.
And here’s the kicker:
Didn’t George W. Bush go around the country claiming, “I trust the people”? But here’s a funny story: in 1999, Bush’s daughter Jenna was involved in a fender-bender with someone driving an Enterprise rental car. Because the other driver had a suspended license, Bush sued Enterprise.