Today was a good day for investors as the Dow closed at over 10,000 for the first time in longer than a year. Moreover, J.P. Morgan Chase reported some pretty good third-quarter earnings. Hopes are that other major banks, like Citigroup and Bank of America, will report high earnings later this week as well.
Does this mean the banking crisis is over? What about the recession?
That all depends on the scale one uses to measure each. Recovery in the stock market is a good thing. I checked my Scottrade account for the first time in awhile without crying, but it's not like I'm rolling in it, and neither are many other small investors.
Holistically, the economy is still suffering. The housing market is yet to bounce back and foreclosure rates are still high. In my mind, perhaps the most important number for middle-class America is the unemployment rate, which rose to 9.5 percent in September according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics -- and it's probably growing.
And what about the banking industry? Well, Chase is claiming that the economic crisis -- which they directly helped cause -- has slowed consumer spending to the point where their credit card department is not expected to turn a profit until 2011. On top of that, let's not forget $25 billion they still owe the taxpayers from the June bailout, which may have been one of the worst decisions in our nation's history.
I think you could make the argument that the banking industry is worse off now than it was a year ago -- or at least it potentially could be. We're seeing a phenomenon now where large, failing banks are being purchased by larger, faltering banks. This means that institutions that were already "too big to fail" are not only continuing to fail, but are getting even bigger. Take a moment to let that settle in.
The very concept of "too large to fail" seems to connote ideas of "trusts," "pools," "monopolies," and other business practices that have been illegal for a century. Why can't we break these banks up and overhaul the system? If we allow these institutions to grow without stiff regulation -- and even with it, because we've seen how quickly that erodes -- we are begging for another meltdown. What's worse is the precedent we've set with the bailout, which encourages institutions to act frivolously know that our dime will rescue them. What the hell kind of capitalism is that?!
I guess what it comes down to is the fact that banks are paid up with the right people, so much so that it often overrides the democratic process itself. The Supreme Court's ruling on the Hilary film could make the current situation that much worse. I just wonder how much our system can stand before it collapses on itself...or maybe even implodes against itself.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
Apparently the president himself was unaware that he was even nominated. I have to say, I'm not surprised. He's now the fourth U.S. president to win the prize. Jimmy Carter won in 2002 long after his term in office expired; needless to say he had racked up an impressive resume both in and out of office. The other two presidents to win were still in office. Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 for negotiating a peace between Japan and Russia. Woodrow Wilson won in 1919 after negotiating an end to WWI and beginning the steps to create the League of Nations, which was later replaced by the United Nations.
Obama seems a bit out of place in that group. I think he is an intelligent, well-intentioned man who most certainly has made "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," as the Nobel committee has stated. But are efforts enough? Other U.S. presidents who won the prize has results, but Obama is yet to deliver on that front.
I find it odd that the prize is going to a sitting president who has failed to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, failed to speedily end the war in Iraq, and is seriously considering escalating the war in Afghanistan. War and peace don't really work together unless you're Leo Tolstoy, but I guess the Nobel committee thinks differently.
I think Obama would do well to decline the award. I know people spend a lifetime of effort to win one of these things, but it's clearly questionable as to whether he is deserving. An exercise in humility would do him that much more good on the international stage.
As for the home front, he's fucked either way, as conservative pundits will have a field day questioning the legitimacy of this award if he accepts(some of them don't even think he's legitimately the president); if he declines they'll argue that even he thinks he's not all that great.
In the end that choice would be mostly a personal one. I like Obama, I really do, but I'm just not convinced that he is the effective leader we all hoped for, and I certainly don't think he has the resume to justify this honor. Hopefully his future endeavors will prove me wrong.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Health Care Reform (?)
Last week's news that health care reform bills featuring a public option failed to make it out of the Senate Finance Committee left me feeling that much more unsure about health care reform.
I'm a big proponent of a public option, though I'd rather we take a stronger socialist stance that would feature a single-payer plan. A lot of the arguments against the public option are that it would serve as a "Trojan Horse" that would lead to a single-payer system. Naturally, I don't see a problem with that, nor do I really follow the logic.
My figuring is that a public option would be able to provide affordable health care under reasonable conditions and rates. I think private insurance companies could compete, though they would most definitely see a drop in profits. If that means a rise in the quality of care, I'm all for it.
However, assuming private insurance companies could not compete and we actually did end up with a single-payer system, then I'm all for that too. Really all that would mean is that a privatized, profit-driven model could not provide adequate coverage and that the government could. If this scenario led to a rise in the quality of care, then where is the problem?
Still, I don't understand why public and private-run health care institutions could not coexist in a competitive marketplace. Industries like education and parcel services have existed under this model for decades and -- despite problems -- have managed to provide access to these needed services at a level that is usually acceptable. I'm not sure why health insurance would be different.
Nor do I buy into the argument that a public option or a single-payer system would put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor. We already have insurance executives enacting that role now, so even if the mystical government bureaucrat accusation came to fruition, I don't think things would be much different than they already are.
Insurance essentially serves as a middleman, transferring money from individuals to a pool, and then to a health care provider. Ideally, all that should occur is paying a bill, but since overhead costs for private companies is usually 20 percent higher than those of public institutions, that pool isn't as large as it could be.
Despite all these setbacks to a public option, reform is apparently taking place, and the leading bill from Max Baucus might have a chance. I'm just concerned that without a public option it won't be as sweeping a reform as we need.
The Baucus alternative to a government run plan is to set up state-run exchanges to make shopping for insurance easier. I think the idea is that the people could see if they're getting screwed. My concern is that insurers could artificially inflate their prices as a trust or pool, which would still make insurance unaffordable.
The plan calls for subsidies to help lower-income families purchase insurance but does not require employers to provide insurance to employees, nor does it require individuals to purchase insurance. If these subsidies are not enough to make health care affordable to all -- and they probably aren't seeing as an estimated 25 million people will still be without insurance in 2019 -- and if people are not forced have health insurance, then why bother?
The large expense of emergency room visits will still be shouldered by taxpayers and the system could flounder. Not to mention the fact that this bill does little to provide anything resembling universal coverage. In fact, the tax proposed on high-end plans would probably encourage people to less adequately insure themselves.
The Baucus plan is essentially an extension of Medicaid, but it doesn't seem like the bill calls for enough money to enlarge Medicaid to the required extent. Also, Baucus estimates that American families will still spend roughly 13 percent of their income on health care. I'm not sure what the number is currently, but 13 percent seems high to me.
I certainly don't have the answer to all of this mess, but I do know we need money to make this thing work, and it has to come from somewhere. It seems to me that the extra 20 percent or so that private companies take for overhead and profit would be a good place to make up the difference, but the finance committee apparently doesn't see it that way.
I'm a big proponent of a public option, though I'd rather we take a stronger socialist stance that would feature a single-payer plan. A lot of the arguments against the public option are that it would serve as a "Trojan Horse" that would lead to a single-payer system. Naturally, I don't see a problem with that, nor do I really follow the logic.
My figuring is that a public option would be able to provide affordable health care under reasonable conditions and rates. I think private insurance companies could compete, though they would most definitely see a drop in profits. If that means a rise in the quality of care, I'm all for it.
However, assuming private insurance companies could not compete and we actually did end up with a single-payer system, then I'm all for that too. Really all that would mean is that a privatized, profit-driven model could not provide adequate coverage and that the government could. If this scenario led to a rise in the quality of care, then where is the problem?
Still, I don't understand why public and private-run health care institutions could not coexist in a competitive marketplace. Industries like education and parcel services have existed under this model for decades and -- despite problems -- have managed to provide access to these needed services at a level that is usually acceptable. I'm not sure why health insurance would be different.
Nor do I buy into the argument that a public option or a single-payer system would put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor. We already have insurance executives enacting that role now, so even if the mystical government bureaucrat accusation came to fruition, I don't think things would be much different than they already are.
Insurance essentially serves as a middleman, transferring money from individuals to a pool, and then to a health care provider. Ideally, all that should occur is paying a bill, but since overhead costs for private companies is usually 20 percent higher than those of public institutions, that pool isn't as large as it could be.
Despite all these setbacks to a public option, reform is apparently taking place, and the leading bill from Max Baucus might have a chance. I'm just concerned that without a public option it won't be as sweeping a reform as we need.
The Baucus alternative to a government run plan is to set up state-run exchanges to make shopping for insurance easier. I think the idea is that the people could see if they're getting screwed. My concern is that insurers could artificially inflate their prices as a trust or pool, which would still make insurance unaffordable.
The plan calls for subsidies to help lower-income families purchase insurance but does not require employers to provide insurance to employees, nor does it require individuals to purchase insurance. If these subsidies are not enough to make health care affordable to all -- and they probably aren't seeing as an estimated 25 million people will still be without insurance in 2019 -- and if people are not forced have health insurance, then why bother?
The large expense of emergency room visits will still be shouldered by taxpayers and the system could flounder. Not to mention the fact that this bill does little to provide anything resembling universal coverage. In fact, the tax proposed on high-end plans would probably encourage people to less adequately insure themselves.
The Baucus plan is essentially an extension of Medicaid, but it doesn't seem like the bill calls for enough money to enlarge Medicaid to the required extent. Also, Baucus estimates that American families will still spend roughly 13 percent of their income on health care. I'm not sure what the number is currently, but 13 percent seems high to me.
I certainly don't have the answer to all of this mess, but I do know we need money to make this thing work, and it has to come from somewhere. It seems to me that the extra 20 percent or so that private companies take for overhead and profit would be a good place to make up the difference, but the finance committee apparently doesn't see it that way.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The truth will set you...SOLD!
 |
| Photo by Jonathan McIntosh |
The debate has been re-energized with the rare request for second arguments in a case concerning "Hillary: the Movie." The film was made by Citizens United, a conservative political group that, in this case, aimed at discrediting Senator Clinton both personally and politically during the 2008 election.
The film was not permitted to be distributed online or via DVD because the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws prohibit corporate money from being used in such a manner. The court could potentially negate those laws as well as overturn the 1990 decision in the case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which originally banned corporate money from being used to either support or oppose political candidates.
Precedents concerning the current case before the Court go much further back. In the 1886 decision of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the Court extended the right of personhood to corporations (though there is considerable debate about the intention of the Court in this case, the effect remains the same). Nearly a century later in 1975, Buckley v. Valeo established a seemingly separate precedent that money constitutes a form of free expression and is thus protected under the first amendment.
Those in favor of restricting limitations on campaign finance are using the current case to connect the logical dots between 1886, 1975, and 2008. If corporations are persons, then corporations are guaranteed free speech under the first amendment. Money is a form of free speech. Therefore, limiting the amount of money a corporation can spend on any cause is a violation of the first amendment.
Logically this argument appears sound, and ordinarily I would not be against limiting free speech in any way, but I make an exception here for various reasons.
First, extending financial contributions in such a way would actually make corporations more person-like than people. People are limited to $2,400 donations to individual candidates and $30,400 to political parties per election year. Removing the cap from corporate spending places individuals' "monetary speech" below that of corporations -- though one could argue that system already exists.
Second, corporations are not actually people. The 1886 case extended the rights of individuals to corporations, but none of the responsibilities or consequences that come with those rights. An argument based on the full personhood of corporations is based on a false assumption.
Lastly, to allow infinite monetary contributions to campaigns by corporations would be an affront to representative democracy. Essentially, such a ruling would make a fact what many already assume to be true: a vote for every dollar, not for every person.
Though I am not much for argumentation on the basis of intention, I think it applies here. The creation of a corporation is intended to protect personhood by removing the business from the individual. It safeguards the personal assets of owners in the event of financial collapse or legal action. Incorporated institutions were meant to exist beyond the realm of personhood, not act on its behalf.
Moreover, the passing of the first amendment was intended to protect individuals from tyrannic rule by government; the courtroom logic that will likely play out here will place individuals under tyrannic rule by corporations. In either case, the opinions, beliefs, and values of the public become inconsequential.
Lastly, consider that the founders never considered free speech to be completely unlimited. If it were, the Constitution would not provide instances in which speech becomes criminal (i.e. treason) nor would there be similar situations in the practice of day-to-day law (i.e. perjury).
The sad news here is that we the people are probably fucked. According to The New Yorker, the Roberts Court almost always sides with industry:
In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.
I am not a believer in the idea that corporate America is evil, and I believe corporations deserve a fair shake in the legal system, but to consistently emerge the victor in the highest court in the land points to unfairness in a different direction. This matter is something about which we should all be particularly concerned.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Intelligent (?) Design
I see the appeal of intelligent design, though it doesn't really make sense to me, at least insofar as I understand it, and although I have only a rudimentary understanding of Darwinian evolutionary theory, it seems more sound. That said, I'm always looking for information to fill the knowledge gaps I have, and recently I saw a NOVA special about both evolution and intelligent design that I found rather enlightening.
As a viewer, you knew going in which side was going to "win" in a science-based program like NOVA, but I felt like intelligent design had a fair chance to defend itself. It just didn't stack up to evolutionary theory.
Many people argue that intelligent design is a convenient repackaging of creationism, a point which I agree with but I feel is most certainly debatable. Sill, I would say intelligent design isn't about creationism in the same way Animal Farm isn't about Stalinist Russia. Orwell never says Napolean is Stalin or Snowball is Trotsky, but we all know the score; similarly, "intelligent design" could easily be "creation" and the "intelligent agent" behind it all could be "Creator" or "God."
Whether intelligent design constitutes religion is a huge issue concerning its potential to be taught in school sciences classes, but perhaps the more important one is whether it is even science. Let's turn to the dictionary, shall we:
science - the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena
Accordingly, for intelligent design to be science, it would have to meet the above criteria. In relation to intelligent design, one could make the argument that notions of irreducible complexity are based on observations that seek to describe and identify phenomena. However, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation are nowhere to be found.
Again, let's consult the old dictionary:
theory - a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
Experimental investigation is based on falsifiable testing of a phenomena, and intelligent design cannot be tested. Since it cannot be tested it can never assume the status of theory. Period.
Intelligent design seems to have come about from a religious need to provide a counter to Darwinian evolution, even if that counter has no basis in science. The common critique of evolution is that it is "just a theory," as though it is some random idea that is accepted without questioning. Perhaps in the early stages that might have been a fair critique (probably not though), but over 150 years of repeated empirical testing through anthropological records and genetic experimentation have provided a large body of evidence for the validity of evolutionary theory. It has also been used as a successful model for prediction.
The bottom line is that theory is more than an idea; it is a body of work. Evolution meets this standard while intelligent design falls short, aiming only to debunk evolution and replace it with pseudoscience.
The problem is that intelligent design introduces the untestable supernatural element of an intelligent agent (i.e. God) aimed at purposeful creation. While this view could very well be true, it cannot be tested. Once the supernatural enters the debate, you've gone beyond the realm of science. To teach intelligent design in a science class would mean an expansion of the very principles that make science science.
I have no problem with the introduction of a scientific theory to counter evolution; if one exists (and I'm not aware of any that do, though there probably are some) then by all means, teach it. But intelligent design is not a scientific theory and should not be taught alongside evolution. That's a humanities course at best, but frankly I'd rather read the mythology that already exists. I see no need to add to it.
As a viewer, you knew going in which side was going to "win" in a science-based program like NOVA, but I felt like intelligent design had a fair chance to defend itself. It just didn't stack up to evolutionary theory.
Many people argue that intelligent design is a convenient repackaging of creationism, a point which I agree with but I feel is most certainly debatable. Sill, I would say intelligent design isn't about creationism in the same way Animal Farm isn't about Stalinist Russia. Orwell never says Napolean is Stalin or Snowball is Trotsky, but we all know the score; similarly, "intelligent design" could easily be "creation" and the "intelligent agent" behind it all could be "Creator" or "God."
Whether intelligent design constitutes religion is a huge issue concerning its potential to be taught in school sciences classes, but perhaps the more important one is whether it is even science. Let's turn to the dictionary, shall we:
science - the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena
Accordingly, for intelligent design to be science, it would have to meet the above criteria. In relation to intelligent design, one could make the argument that notions of irreducible complexity are based on observations that seek to describe and identify phenomena. However, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation are nowhere to be found.
Again, let's consult the old dictionary:
theory - a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
Experimental investigation is based on falsifiable testing of a phenomena, and intelligent design cannot be tested. Since it cannot be tested it can never assume the status of theory. Period.
Intelligent design seems to have come about from a religious need to provide a counter to Darwinian evolution, even if that counter has no basis in science. The common critique of evolution is that it is "just a theory," as though it is some random idea that is accepted without questioning. Perhaps in the early stages that might have been a fair critique (probably not though), but over 150 years of repeated empirical testing through anthropological records and genetic experimentation have provided a large body of evidence for the validity of evolutionary theory. It has also been used as a successful model for prediction.
The bottom line is that theory is more than an idea; it is a body of work. Evolution meets this standard while intelligent design falls short, aiming only to debunk evolution and replace it with pseudoscience.
The problem is that intelligent design introduces the untestable supernatural element of an intelligent agent (i.e. God) aimed at purposeful creation. While this view could very well be true, it cannot be tested. Once the supernatural enters the debate, you've gone beyond the realm of science. To teach intelligent design in a science class would mean an expansion of the very principles that make science science.
I have no problem with the introduction of a scientific theory to counter evolution; if one exists (and I'm not aware of any that do, though there probably are some) then by all means, teach it. But intelligent design is not a scientific theory and should not be taught alongside evolution. That's a humanities course at best, but frankly I'd rather read the mythology that already exists. I see no need to add to it.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Why I hate the Democrats
The New York Times reported today that the public option for health care is on its deathbed. Most of this has come from an inability of the White House and the Democratically controlled Congress to lead the debate on the issue. If the Democratic majority cannot effectually push through legislation based on a unified agenda its control of American government will be short lived.
But what else would you expect from a party of pussies?
You won the election. You control all the elected branches of government. Your run the country. Those are the rules. Instead, the minority party and the Blue Dogs have pushed the progressive agenda -- the one for which the majority of the country voted -- to the side.
I just don't get it. In every other republic in the world the majority party dictates policy. We did it here during the Bush years, and idiotic and catastrophic as many of those policy decisions were, they made it through and shit got done -- stupid as it may have been.
But that was the one beautiful thing about the Bush years: ruthless efficiency. The answer to the opposing minority was, "Fuck you, we won." That's how democracy works. Individuals are elected based on an agenda (or at least they should be; regardless of the reason for which they are elected, there are always policy plans). If you win, you get to implement your agenda. If they work, or you can make people believe they work, you get to keep your job. If not, somebody else gets a turn, and how glorious is that?
The guy I voted for won. The policies that he supported -- many of which I liked -- won by extension, but are they being implemented. The answer is a resounding "No." The failing health care reform initiative, the legislation about which I am most concerned, is a prime example of my point.
The NYT article had the following to say: “I just want to figure out what works,” Mr. Obama said in March at a White House forum. If he could drive down health costs and expand coverage “entirely through the market,” he said, “I’d be happy to do it that way.” And “if there was a way of doing it that involved more government regulation and involvement, I’m happy to do it that way, as well,” he added.
Well, given the deregulation of the health care industry and the inability of the free market to control costs and increase efficiency, I'd say the latter is the best approach. Why a health care reform bill that includes a public option and stringent restraints can't be railroaded through is beyond me.
My belief is that it could pass easily, it simply won't, and the reason is the crippling concern about public opinion, not what is best for the public. Great leaders take the citizenry down a path its not ready for, a path that ultimately leads to something better. Mediocre leaders just try to keep their jobs, and that's what we've got now.
Again, according to the NYT, the Republican response to health care reform has been one of fear: Conservatives...see the public option as a step toward a single-payer system in which the government would pay most of the nation’s health care bill and could supplant private insurers.
Well, if Obama is right about finding something that works -- and he is -- who gives a shit if the insurance companies go under provided a single-payer system means better coverage?
I know, it's "socialist," and that's scary for whatever reason, but it's not an argument against a policy, it's fear mongering based on a loaded word. I wish that just once someone would just come out and say, "Yep, it's socialist. Why is that bad?" I don't think anyone would know what to say. I'm not sure most Americans even know what socialism means, especially the ones opposed to socialist ideas provided previous arguments are a good estimator.
In the same breath these ignorant lemmings -- who have been paraded around on TV by manipulative bastards -- are calling Obama a fascist and a communist. I don't think he's either, BUT YOU CAN'T FUCKING BE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME!!!
Sill any attempt at a progressive political agenda has to bow to these dumb ass swing voters who couldn't tell their asses from holes in the ground unless Hannity or Beck showed them the way. So I say to Obama, fuck these people, fuck their uninformed political agenda, and give me my goddamn health insurance. That's why I voted for you, and if you don't deliver, then the next guy will get a turn, and that's the irony of this whole mess.
But what else would you expect from a party of pussies?
You won the election. You control all the elected branches of government. Your run the country. Those are the rules. Instead, the minority party and the Blue Dogs have pushed the progressive agenda -- the one for which the majority of the country voted -- to the side.
I just don't get it. In every other republic in the world the majority party dictates policy. We did it here during the Bush years, and idiotic and catastrophic as many of those policy decisions were, they made it through and shit got done -- stupid as it may have been.
But that was the one beautiful thing about the Bush years: ruthless efficiency. The answer to the opposing minority was, "Fuck you, we won." That's how democracy works. Individuals are elected based on an agenda (or at least they should be; regardless of the reason for which they are elected, there are always policy plans). If you win, you get to implement your agenda. If they work, or you can make people believe they work, you get to keep your job. If not, somebody else gets a turn, and how glorious is that?
The guy I voted for won. The policies that he supported -- many of which I liked -- won by extension, but are they being implemented. The answer is a resounding "No." The failing health care reform initiative, the legislation about which I am most concerned, is a prime example of my point.
The NYT article had the following to say: “I just want to figure out what works,” Mr. Obama said in March at a White House forum. If he could drive down health costs and expand coverage “entirely through the market,” he said, “I’d be happy to do it that way.” And “if there was a way of doing it that involved more government regulation and involvement, I’m happy to do it that way, as well,” he added.
Well, given the deregulation of the health care industry and the inability of the free market to control costs and increase efficiency, I'd say the latter is the best approach. Why a health care reform bill that includes a public option and stringent restraints can't be railroaded through is beyond me.
My belief is that it could pass easily, it simply won't, and the reason is the crippling concern about public opinion, not what is best for the public. Great leaders take the citizenry down a path its not ready for, a path that ultimately leads to something better. Mediocre leaders just try to keep their jobs, and that's what we've got now.
Again, according to the NYT, the Republican response to health care reform has been one of fear: Conservatives...see the public option as a step toward a single-payer system in which the government would pay most of the nation’s health care bill and could supplant private insurers.
Well, if Obama is right about finding something that works -- and he is -- who gives a shit if the insurance companies go under provided a single-payer system means better coverage?
I know, it's "socialist," and that's scary for whatever reason, but it's not an argument against a policy, it's fear mongering based on a loaded word. I wish that just once someone would just come out and say, "Yep, it's socialist. Why is that bad?" I don't think anyone would know what to say. I'm not sure most Americans even know what socialism means, especially the ones opposed to socialist ideas provided previous arguments are a good estimator.
In the same breath these ignorant lemmings -- who have been paraded around on TV by manipulative bastards -- are calling Obama a fascist and a communist. I don't think he's either, BUT YOU CAN'T FUCKING BE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME!!!
Sill any attempt at a progressive political agenda has to bow to these dumb ass swing voters who couldn't tell their asses from holes in the ground unless Hannity or Beck showed them the way. So I say to Obama, fuck these people, fuck their uninformed political agenda, and give me my goddamn health insurance. That's why I voted for you, and if you don't deliver, then the next guy will get a turn, and that's the irony of this whole mess.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
In Principle
I've always thought the term "in principle" to be an annoying dodge people use to avoid taking a stand, but as of late I've been (ironically) rethinking my stance. I feel it could just as easily be a way to maintain and defend a personal ideology while at the same time adapting to an ever-changing reality.
I guess what prompted this whole thought process has been the most prevalent political idea in my mind: health care reform. I can't say I'm surprised by the amount of emotion proposing such legislation evokes. Any government decision that deals so directly with life and death is bound to have critics, myself being one. While I don't feel we're taking progressive enough action (I favor a single-payer plan), many others think the government plans to go too far.
The result has led to me watching a lot of individuals beg for "their America back." The reality is "their America" never really existed. It's just a nostalgic longing for a past in which, given their youth, these individuals were too naive to notice the corruption and problems that existed during the time. The baby boomer America consisted of Watergate, political assassinations, sanctioned racism, Vietnam, and a ton of other negative things. I do not mean to say that "their America" was any worse than the one we live in now, but how much better could it have really been?
The thing I find most surprising is how willing people are to cling to an ideology even if it leads to their downfall. Yes, America is founded on principles of capitalism and we have a mean libertarian streak in us. Is it best to let "the market" regulate the practices of business and by extension numerous aspects of our personal lives? Yes, in principle.
I don't want the government in my business anymore than they need to be. I don't think the government has the right to tell me when and where I can smoke a cigarette, to regulate marijuana and other drugs so strictly, to make judgments about profane content via the FCC, to violate my privacy through domestic spying, to suspend habeas corpus en mass, or to do a host of other things.
However, this principle falls apart in that there are numerous things I would like the government to run (and tax its citizens to do so): public roads, libraries, police forces, fire departments, public schools, the military, utilities, and HEALTH CARE. The reason being is that, in a privatized business model, responsibility to investors to turn consistently higher profits leads to cuts in the quality of service in order to increase revenue, particularly if competitors are few and services and price are similar among them.
Health care is essential to a high quality of life and should be available to everyone at the cost of everyone. Problem is this view doesn't mesh well with traditional American ideals. It doesn't mesh well with some of my principles either, but their comes a point when defending a principle only leads to shooting yourself in the foot, and God forbid you do that because it will cost too much damn money to go to the doctor and get that treated, leaving you bankrupt financially, though perhaps not ideologically. At least you'll have your principles, but is it worth it?
I'm reminded of a short essay written by George Orwell, I believe. In it, he argues that societies are built around revolution, but that revolution never creates a situation for advancing the lower class. Instead, the middle class merely deceitfully offers advancement to the lower class in exchange for aiding in toppling the aristocracy. The lower class then discovers that the middle and upper classes have simply switched places.
I feel like much of the political scene now is very different. Out of fear that abandoning the commonly asserted ideal (or myth) that is America will lead the middle class into poverty, the middle class is deceived by an elite few in the upper class into fighting its own interests, and all out of principle. Rather than working with the lower class to stand a fighting chance against powerful interests, the middle class is being eroded all in the name of principle. Health care is just the most recent example. Environmentalists could make similar arguments, as could economists concerning the bail outs, or even accountant when one considers the death (estate) tax reform.
I don't stand on either the right or left; I'm an issue to issue guy. I try to follow a libertarian ideology because I feel granting citizens greater freedom is generally the best thing to do. But not always. For certain things freedom causes chaos and suffering, which has been the case for health care, and it has all been for a principle that probably couldn't be identified by most who suffer in its name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)