An Intergenerational Chat about Politics and Dentistry
Dr. Jeff Parrish
WSDA News Editorial Advisory Board
UWSOD 1979
Dr. Brittany Dean
WSDA News Editorial Advisory Board
UWSOD 2012
| WSDA News: Drs. Dean and Parrish, members of the Editorial Advisory Board, have been discussing organized dentistry’s role in and philosophy around political giving. Brittany and Jeff have worked together on several projects, including as leaders of the dental clinics at Seattle/King County Clinic. Though they do not see eye to eye on every issue, they respect each other’s opinions and use them as basis upon which to reflect on their own points of view. They hope this “chat” can be of similar benefit to others within the dental community. |
Jeff: It should be obvious to all of us by now that politics has taken a much more dominant and invasive role in all our lives in recent years. Among other reasons, I worry where this is all going and what impact it will have on you, Brittany, your generation of dentists, and your ability to practice as you were taught and aspire. To protect our professional autonomy, it is important that we stay engaged politically and contribute to the American Dental Political Action Committee (ADPAC), Washington State Dental Association Political Action Committee (DentPAC) and our specialty organizations’ PACs to have our voices heard in DC and Olympia. Our PACs exist to pool our money to give to candidates who will give us an audience regarding dental issues, be they economic- or practice-related; it gives us more clout and credibility. Thereby, we hope to have influence in the political process.
Brittany: I have been a long-time believer in the importance of dentistry having a “seat at the table” in politics. I regularly meet with state and national elected officials and write to them about issues that affect dentistry. As a dental student, I completed a DC externship, served on the DentPAC Board and chaired the American Student Dental Association’s Advocacy Council. I am invested.
I must admit, though, that in recent years I stopped my faithful contributions to ADPAC. The rhetoric that I saw from many politicians made my skin crawl. I could not get away from the fact that even if my contributions were being given to some of these politicians in the name of dentistry to promote the betterment of the dental profession and dental health, the recipients of the funds could push other agendas that I frankly find morally wrong. If someone is friendly to dentistry, but callous to minorities, immigrants, and the poor, that is a problem for me.
J: I hear you. And my hair is set on fire by members of a different persuasion who also receive our donations (if someone is unfriendly to free enterprise, liberty, and individual responsibility, that is a problem for me). But politics is pervasive. When I was chair of ADPAC, we emphasized that, for us dentists to be heard, we often had to deal with politicians we might not otherwise like or support because they were supportive of some important aspect of dentistry. Look at Congress today, or more accurately, the slim Democratic House majority and their advocating a full-blown Medicare dental benefit for ALL seniors (fortunately it’s not passed for now). Medicare is probably the most invasive, non-science based impact ever laid on medicine. As someone on Medicare, I see the small reimbursements my providers receive to provide me with care — so small as to make it difficult to stay in business. Where would all this new necessary funding come from for dentistry? Basically, your generation is subsidizing my generation by contributing to the dwindling “trust fund” and paying higher fees to providers to keep them in business. Good luck having those funds available when you are my age. Imagine a similar scenario with dentistry under Medicare.
B: In truth, dentistry is important to me, but it is not the most important thing in my life, nor in the lives of many dentists. I give to political causes through other groups, such as faith-based organizations, as well. Sometimes I realize that my gifts through those groups are to help elect candidates to oust the ones that ADPAC is currently supporting.
J: I don’t like political agitation and theater either, but I don’t get to make the rules. Running for office is incredibly expensive (obscene is more how I’d describe it), and candidates in and out of office spend hours every day raising money — lots of dialing for dollars. Candidates who support dentistry must be supported, and, depending on the issue, that person can be on one side or another of other issues. Just as we must hold our nose and vote at times, I guess we must also hold our nose and contribute. It’s a messy business.
B: I’m concerned about the idea of having no criteria for choosing who receives PAC monies except for those friendly to and strategic for dentistry. Consequently, I found the ADA Board of Trustees’ vote to remove dentist Rep. Paul Gosar from their list of ADPAC donation recipients this past July encouraging. Following an outcry of concerns from dentists and constituents, the ADA Board reasoned, “Participation in the political process should reflect [the ADA’s] values, ideals and priorities. The ADA will support those individuals who advance our mission and are in alignment with those ideals, views and priorities.” I think it is important that we promote ALL our values and recognize the entire body of work of an incumbent or candidate before we support him or her.
J: As a former chair of ADPAC, I was happy to hear that ADA Leadership consulted with the ADPAC Board before taking the dramatic step of singling out one individual dentist/candidate, who, I might point out, has been very supportive of most of the ADA’s and dentists’ political interests for many years. It was his “extracurricular political positions and statements” that got him in trouble with lots of folks. If you want to examine a candidate’s “total body of work,” I only ask it to be done uniformly and fairly for all candidates. And, dare I say, that there was also a certain amount of political correctness that played a role in this withdrawal of future financial support. I will leave this decision to “my betters,” but I would hope this is a one-time event, and the ADA Board doesn’t start dictating to ADPAC who to support and who not to support. Why bother to have an ADPAC Board if the ADA Board is going to intervene?
B: Jeff, don’t you think there has to be a line when a candidate, no matter how much they have done for dentistry, is inappropriate to support? When one of the few elected dentists in Congress chooses to speak at a white nationalist convention, and he and others are calling the presidential election fraudulent and speaking in support of the January 6 insurrectionists, I feel forced to think about that line a lot. Especially, when I know that Rep. Gosar’s actions are often reported along with the fact that he is a dentist. I fear for how that makes me and other dentists appear to the public — selfish, bigoted, ignorant?
J: Is there a “don’t give” line for me? Yes, but I’d apply it evenly and to both sides of the aisle. Irresponsible statements are not one-sided. Questionable ethics in one’s financial life are not one-sided. Misuse of campaign funds is not one-sided. Out-and-out lies? We would give then only to about 10% of them. Now that the “Gosar rule” is in effect, it needs better definition. And just applying the ADA’s own Code of Ethics is not sufficient; it’s too easy to interpret different ways based on one’s own biases.
B: I don’t have a perfect answer, either. This is partly because I agree with your assessment that no candidate meets all ideals at all times. I think that I would feel better about making continued contributions to ADPAC and DentPAC if I was assured that their boards were reflecting on the impact of their support as a reflection of their mission statements. This also highlights why it is so important to have member dentists at the state and national level making decisions about who receives funds. Hopefully, they are representing the values of the WSDA and ADA (and their member dentists) as they make their decisions.
J: Recently ADPAC came out with clearer process for how candidates and incumbents will be vetted by ADPAC and the state dental associations when determining federal contributions. At the state level, the DentPAC Board of Directors approves every dollar that is spent by DentPAC. Having both served on the DentPAC Board, we know that legislative record, candidate questionnaires, lobbyist recommendations, and local dentist recommendations are all considered before decisions are made. It’s important to remember that the contribution decisions made by our PAC boards are thoughtful and often occur well before a candidate makes controversial statements.
B: I do appreciate DentPAC’s decision-making process and I know that the input of members is appreciated by the DentPAC Board.
In our own state legislature, the politics seem a little saner to me. I hope that is an accurate assessment because I know that most laws affecting dentistry come at the state level — water lines, prescribing, required CDE, etc. It is more important than ever that we have relationships with our legislators to help them understand the impact of Olympia’s rules and decrees on our daily practice. A lack of educational support for dentists and dental team members has contributed to staff shortages. The pandemic has only made it worse. My owner colleagues are suffering for sure.
J: I might debate the state-level sanity a bit: we both know that there are few things that some of our legislators wouldn’t tax if left to their own devices. A simple truth: Don’t shut down a hygiene school until you know how you will fill the void you just created. Thank heavens for Dean Gary Chiodo and the UWSOD for their creativity and willingness to take Shoreline Hygiene School inside its walls and keep educating young people to perform a much-needed task and make a great living doing so. Another simple truth: think about the various possible outcomes of mandating anything. There are unintended consequences.
Boy, am I glad I’m retired; I don’t envy practicing today.
B: Well Jeff, I am practicing today, and I hope to be for many more years. The future of dentistry is important to me — I wouldn’t share my concerns if I wasn’t invested. The ADA and WSDA will need increasingly more support and contributions from me and my peers and newer graduates. Our perspective on the role of organized dentistry in politics may be different from the past.
A key finding of a 10-year study of 150,000 millennials (I’m considered a “geriatric millennial”) was that this group “cares about social issues rather than institutions.” So, my recent qualms with loyalty to ADPAC as a broader entity may not be so unique. I’d like to believe that this time of absolute divisiveness in DC will be short-lived, but it seems to be growing only worse. I have money that I am willing to put toward progress for dentistry, but I have real fears that doing so will help keep some actors in power who make our country and the lives of its citizens, especially minorities, objectively worse.
ADPAC and DentPAC must engage with members about the priorities of the profession and be as transparent as possible about the decisions that are made and the decision-making process used to make those decisions. These details matter for many people.
J: Brittany, politics may be different now than it was a few years ago but it has been this politicized before. I believe the dental profession is stronger when we can set aside our non-dental differences and come together for dentistry. I hope that the desired transparency will lead to continued support of the dental PACs. I know from experience that this is easier said than done. I wish you and your generation of dentists all well. Always seek wisdom and truth.
| Publisher’s Note: The DentPAC Board of Directors values members’ input and perspectives on political contributions. Members who wish to further discuss DentPAC can contact Emily Lovell, WSDA director of government affairs, at (206) 973-5241 or Trent House, WSDA contract lobbyist, at (360) 888-3975. |
This editorial originally appeared in the Winter 2022 issue of the WSDA News.
The views expressed in all WSDA publications are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions or policies of the WSDA.
