If the socialists believe in complete government control of the economy (and society, in the case of Communists), and true libertarians believe in a severely limited role for government, then what do the Republicans believe? It is tempting to say that the Republicans are libertarians-light, as I suggested in the first post in this series; that is, they basically have a ‘small government’ philosophy, but are more tempered about it. I no longer believe that this is true.
A better summary of the Republican philosophy is something like this: “We believe in small government, except for when we don’t.” For example, they believe in small government except when they tried to defeat health care reform by arguing that it would cut Medicare (I thought they hated Medicare?). Or take warrant-less wire-tapping. I am fine, as any normal person should be, with warranted wiretapping (let’s get those terrorists!). But warrant-less wiretapping means that the executive branch spies on any citizen it wants too, for any reason whatsoever, without having to explain those reasons to the legislative or judicial branches. All Republicans I know supported this, although it’s hard to imagine how the government could get any bigger and more intrusive than that.
Or some other philosophy busters: the Americans with Disabilities Act, the proposed federal amendment banning gay marriage, the jaw-dropping expansion of the federal deficit under Reagan and both Bushes (it declined slightly under Carter and actually turned in a surplus under Clinton), and a highly-desired federal amendment to ban abortion (not a state-by-state law, as it was before Roe).
We could multiply examples, but my point is that the idea that a ‘small government’ philosophy guides the GOP’s policy positions just flatly contradicts history. The truth is that, in the end, I have more respect for the strict libertarian. It’s just ridiculously frustrating to talk to a Republican, because they just keep making up the rules as they go along. For example, it was a complete waste of time to try to talk to a Republican during the heath-care debate, because as I alluded to before, they just kept saying how health care reform would cut Medicare. The libertarian, on the other hand, believes in principles, and it is possible to have a fruitful discussion about principles, even if those principle are, as I tried to argue last week, unrealistic.
Showing posts with label Seriously Republicans?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seriously Republicans?. Show all posts
8.10.2010
Four Theories of Government Involvment, Part I
[The Orthodox Heretic finally finished his dissertation. So finally, some more blogs!]
It is common to believe that the Republicans are ‘libertarians-light’ in the same way the Democrats are ‘socialists-light;’ that is, Republicans are generally in favor of small government, but not to the extent that libertarians are, and the Democrats generally favor large government, but don’t want to go to the extremes of socialism.
This is what I used to think. Now, I see things as significantly more complicated – so much so that it turns out my initial analysis was just plain wrong. I want to spend a few weeks 1) describing what appear to be the four major theories of government involvement – libertarianism, socialism, and whatever the Democrats and then Republicans believe, 2) arguing that a morally responsible person should desire a society that considers its most vulnerable members, and 3) arguing that this kind of society is the one that fosters non-state involvement but is willing to involve government when appropriate.
[If you are reading this on FB, there may be some advantages to visiting the actual blog]
It is common to believe that the Republicans are ‘libertarians-light’ in the same way the Democrats are ‘socialists-light;’ that is, Republicans are generally in favor of small government, but not to the extent that libertarians are, and the Democrats generally favor large government, but don’t want to go to the extremes of socialism.
This is what I used to think. Now, I see things as significantly more complicated – so much so that it turns out my initial analysis was just plain wrong. I want to spend a few weeks 1) describing what appear to be the four major theories of government involvement – libertarianism, socialism, and whatever the Democrats and then Republicans believe, 2) arguing that a morally responsible person should desire a society that considers its most vulnerable members, and 3) arguing that this kind of society is the one that fosters non-state involvement but is willing to involve government when appropriate.
[If you are reading this on FB, there may be some advantages to visiting the actual blog]
2.15.2010
Insanity and Health Care, Part One
I’m very tired of hearing this definition of insanity: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” People think that they are so clever when they use this definition against their opponent that you can almost see them straining their own arm to pat themselves on the back. For example, I hear this slogan most often as an out of hand dismissal of Communism: “Well, Communism may sound nice, but has been tried before and has failed; therefore trying it again would literally be insane.”
I’m not here to defend Communism; it has some serious problems in my judgment. But I want to discuss this odd analysis of insanity, and then next week, apply these observations to the current health care debate. There are two dramatic insufficiencies with this so-called definition of insanity. First, it would require us to say that it was insane of Edison to try again and again, even 100 times, to invent the light bulb. It must have been insane – right?, because he did the same activity over and over again expecting different results. This, of course, is false. The obvious response is that even though engaged in same activity again and again, he did it in a different way each time. That makes his actions completely sane.
Or consider my adventures with my computer. Sometimes, I click a button, and I get an error message. Then, I click the same button again. And I get the exact same error message again. This may happen a third or fourth time, until the fifth time it finally works. I did everything in exactly the same way, but my actions are not insane because I was hoping – and reasonably so - that the underlying conditions had changed.
What these two examples show is that it is stupid to say, for example, “well, health care reform has been tried several times before, and failed every time; therefore it is insane for Obama to try it again.” It is not insane for both of the reasons introduced above; Obama is trying to reform the health care system in a different way (like Edison). Furthermore, the underlying conditions have changed (like me clicking the same button repeatedly). Next week I want to discuss these underlying conditions that have shifted.
I’m not here to defend Communism; it has some serious problems in my judgment. But I want to discuss this odd analysis of insanity, and then next week, apply these observations to the current health care debate. There are two dramatic insufficiencies with this so-called definition of insanity. First, it would require us to say that it was insane of Edison to try again and again, even 100 times, to invent the light bulb. It must have been insane – right?, because he did the same activity over and over again expecting different results. This, of course, is false. The obvious response is that even though engaged in same activity again and again, he did it in a different way each time. That makes his actions completely sane.
Or consider my adventures with my computer. Sometimes, I click a button, and I get an error message. Then, I click the same button again. And I get the exact same error message again. This may happen a third or fourth time, until the fifth time it finally works. I did everything in exactly the same way, but my actions are not insane because I was hoping – and reasonably so - that the underlying conditions had changed.
What these two examples show is that it is stupid to say, for example, “well, health care reform has been tried several times before, and failed every time; therefore it is insane for Obama to try it again.” It is not insane for both of the reasons introduced above; Obama is trying to reform the health care system in a different way (like Edison). Furthermore, the underlying conditions have changed (like me clicking the same button repeatedly). Next week I want to discuss these underlying conditions that have shifted.
12.14.2009
The Governement Can't Do Anything Right?
Children speak in extremes – “All,” “None,” “Every.” The reason that these words are childish is because except for in mathematics, these words are rarely true. So it is unfortunate that so many supposed adults adopt this mantra: “The government can’t do anything right.” If you watch Fox News in the evening, it will probably only take you 15 minutes to hear this phrase in this exact wording.
But this is a senseless phrase uttered by thoughtless people. Brief reflection reveals this truth instead: there are 1) some things that the free market does well, 2) some things that the government does well, and 3) some things that the government doesn’t do particularly well, but there is no free market solution for it, and so we are stuck with the government. The successful politician distinguishes between these three types of activities, and acts accordingly. The Republicans simply try to shove everything into the first column.
There are of course plenty of examples of #1: the free market has given us many wonderful things and improved all of our lives. But, although the Republican will be surprised to learn this, there are also many examples of #2. Do you ever worry about the mail you send? Do you ever use your tap water? Do you know any old people who want private insurance rather than Medicare? These are trustworthy services provided by the government. There are also examples of #3. For example, it is cheaper for company X to dump its hazardous waste into the river behind its factory than to dispose of it properly. Now, sometimes the EPA does an alright job of preventing this, sometimes it does not. But there is no free-market solution for this (the free-market is the problem here), and so we are forced to hope that the EPA is competent.
We need a leader who allows to the free market to work its magic, provides citizens with services when appropriate, and has the courage to stand up to the free market when the free market is threatening to destroy itself and us. If the Republicans ever come up with a candidate like this, I will consider voting for him or her. But right now, the Republican party is filled with children who think that no matter what the problem, the solution is the free market. This is only true occasionally.
But this is a senseless phrase uttered by thoughtless people. Brief reflection reveals this truth instead: there are 1) some things that the free market does well, 2) some things that the government does well, and 3) some things that the government doesn’t do particularly well, but there is no free market solution for it, and so we are stuck with the government. The successful politician distinguishes between these three types of activities, and acts accordingly. The Republicans simply try to shove everything into the first column.
There are of course plenty of examples of #1: the free market has given us many wonderful things and improved all of our lives. But, although the Republican will be surprised to learn this, there are also many examples of #2. Do you ever worry about the mail you send? Do you ever use your tap water? Do you know any old people who want private insurance rather than Medicare? These are trustworthy services provided by the government. There are also examples of #3. For example, it is cheaper for company X to dump its hazardous waste into the river behind its factory than to dispose of it properly. Now, sometimes the EPA does an alright job of preventing this, sometimes it does not. But there is no free-market solution for this (the free-market is the problem here), and so we are forced to hope that the EPA is competent.
We need a leader who allows to the free market to work its magic, provides citizens with services when appropriate, and has the courage to stand up to the free market when the free market is threatening to destroy itself and us. If the Republicans ever come up with a candidate like this, I will consider voting for him or her. But right now, the Republican party is filled with children who think that no matter what the problem, the solution is the free market. This is only true occasionally.
11.24.2009
The Republicans and Racism
I’m not one to shout ‘racism’ much. I watch Keith Olbermann frequently, and while I like the program generally, I can’t stand the way he invents new reasons to call the Republicans ‘racist.’ For example, I didn’t think it was racist that Joe Wilson shouted ‘You lie’ in Obama’s address to congress. Now, Joe Wilson is a first class idiot, but I didn’t see racism there.
Generally, I am hesitant to find racism in people for three reasons: 1) ‘racism’ has no good definition that I know of, 2) I think it is possible to be racist without knowing it, 3) it’s always hard to really know someone’s intentions. Having said that, the recent rage over the Acorn scandal is very thinly veiled racism. The scandal in question is the recent ‘undercover’ video that was taken by two teenagers and given to Fox News. In it they get Acorn workers to help them cheat on their taxes, affirm prostitution, etc. All sorts of nasty stuff. What followed was a complete defunding of Acorn, which almost every single Democrat in congress supported.
I think it was appropriate for Acorn to be defunded. Yes, those were low level workers, but I believe it shows some weaknesses in the organization. I am sure that as a whole, Acorn does many positive things, but because of the scandal, it was time for their government funding to end. So if you ask any conservative why they hate Acorn, they will say “Because Acorn is a corrupt organization.” This is false; conservatives generally hate that organization because it is run by black people and it largely serves black people.
The reason I know this is that shortly after the Acorn scandal unfolded, it was discovered that members of Halliburton (now KBR) gage-raped a female coworker, and when she went to the higher-levels of Halliburton to complain, she was put in a box without food and water for two days. Because this happened in Iraq, the rapists and those who covered up the crime could not be prosecuted. The prompted the Democrats (specifically Al Franken) to put out a bill that said employees of contractors could at least sue the contractor in that situation.
When the Senate voted, almost all of the Republicans voted against the provision. Their justification was that KBR is an independent contractor, and the government should not interfere with their business. But of course, all of those same Senators were absolutely outraged when a far less morally significant crime was committed by Acorn. The Acorn workers didn’t actually do anything; they gave advice about how to do it. The KBR employers actually screwed up someone else’s life. And it appears the Acorn workers were all low-level employees, as opposed to the KBR supervisors who assigned the rape victim to that box. The only difference I see between the two organizations is color.
Generally, I am hesitant to find racism in people for three reasons: 1) ‘racism’ has no good definition that I know of, 2) I think it is possible to be racist without knowing it, 3) it’s always hard to really know someone’s intentions. Having said that, the recent rage over the Acorn scandal is very thinly veiled racism. The scandal in question is the recent ‘undercover’ video that was taken by two teenagers and given to Fox News. In it they get Acorn workers to help them cheat on their taxes, affirm prostitution, etc. All sorts of nasty stuff. What followed was a complete defunding of Acorn, which almost every single Democrat in congress supported.
I think it was appropriate for Acorn to be defunded. Yes, those were low level workers, but I believe it shows some weaknesses in the organization. I am sure that as a whole, Acorn does many positive things, but because of the scandal, it was time for their government funding to end. So if you ask any conservative why they hate Acorn, they will say “Because Acorn is a corrupt organization.” This is false; conservatives generally hate that organization because it is run by black people and it largely serves black people.
The reason I know this is that shortly after the Acorn scandal unfolded, it was discovered that members of Halliburton (now KBR) gage-raped a female coworker, and when she went to the higher-levels of Halliburton to complain, she was put in a box without food and water for two days. Because this happened in Iraq, the rapists and those who covered up the crime could not be prosecuted. The prompted the Democrats (specifically Al Franken) to put out a bill that said employees of contractors could at least sue the contractor in that situation.
When the Senate voted, almost all of the Republicans voted against the provision. Their justification was that KBR is an independent contractor, and the government should not interfere with their business. But of course, all of those same Senators were absolutely outraged when a far less morally significant crime was committed by Acorn. The Acorn workers didn’t actually do anything; they gave advice about how to do it. The KBR employers actually screwed up someone else’s life. And it appears the Acorn workers were all low-level employees, as opposed to the KBR supervisors who assigned the rape victim to that box. The only difference I see between the two organizations is color.
9.20.2009
Health Care, Part IV: Private Compassion?
In Obama’s speech to the joint session of Congress, he saved his ‘preaching’ for the end. He described the practical advantages in the first part of his talk, and then the moral imperative: making sure that everyone has access to health care is our moral obligation. I certainly agree that there is a moral dimension to health care. It is absolutely shameful that we have the richest nation on earth, and yet are the only first-world nation where money (and/or insurance adjustors) comes between people and their lives.
Conservatives have always been sensitive about the morality issue, because in advocating small(er) government, their position ends up looking something like social Darwinism: the rich, talented, and well-connected survive and prosper, while the poor stay poor for generations. So conservative Christians, ever since they joined Republicans in the 70’s, have always had an answer ready: “of course we are concerned about the welfare of other human beings, but we think that it should be the concern of the private sector, not the government.”
I have heard several Christians stick to this same traditional line in response to Obama’s plea for health care. Now, if you oppose government-run health care because it gives the government too large a role in citizen’s lives, fine. I disagree, but at least I can respect that argument. But the moral argument that I just briefly described is quite different. The claim is that the private sector should be compassionate instead of the government.
This argument is as senseless as it is old. Are conservatives afraid that the government will ‘take their business’? That if health care is free they will run out of sick people to visit? I just don’t understand. Why is it an ‘either/or’? Why is it either the government’s responsibility or the obligation of churches? This would be a stupid position, were it actually the position of Christians who are politically liberal. Why can’t it be both the job of the church to provide services and then the government, when necessary. If churches provided free health care for everyone, then I would say, ‘Yes, keep the government out – the private sector is taking care of things.’ But they are not – people are sick and dying and filing for bankruptcy in numbers that should make any true Christian sad. If churches can't be bothered to stop persecuting gay people and instead provide health services for those who can't afford it, perhaps it is the government's turn.
Conservatives have always been sensitive about the morality issue, because in advocating small(er) government, their position ends up looking something like social Darwinism: the rich, talented, and well-connected survive and prosper, while the poor stay poor for generations. So conservative Christians, ever since they joined Republicans in the 70’s, have always had an answer ready: “of course we are concerned about the welfare of other human beings, but we think that it should be the concern of the private sector, not the government.”
I have heard several Christians stick to this same traditional line in response to Obama’s plea for health care. Now, if you oppose government-run health care because it gives the government too large a role in citizen’s lives, fine. I disagree, but at least I can respect that argument. But the moral argument that I just briefly described is quite different. The claim is that the private sector should be compassionate instead of the government.
This argument is as senseless as it is old. Are conservatives afraid that the government will ‘take their business’? That if health care is free they will run out of sick people to visit? I just don’t understand. Why is it an ‘either/or’? Why is it either the government’s responsibility or the obligation of churches? This would be a stupid position, were it actually the position of Christians who are politically liberal. Why can’t it be both the job of the church to provide services and then the government, when necessary. If churches provided free health care for everyone, then I would say, ‘Yes, keep the government out – the private sector is taking care of things.’ But they are not – people are sick and dying and filing for bankruptcy in numbers that should make any true Christian sad. If churches can't be bothered to stop persecuting gay people and instead provide health services for those who can't afford it, perhaps it is the government's turn.
8.31.2009
Health Care, Part II: We Are Not First
I am going to do a brief series about health care (again), and I consider last week the first in that series. I want to evaluate the claim which was a fixture of the McCain campaign and has since become a talking point on Fox News: “The USA has the best health care system in the world.”
The question is, what is the evidence for this claim? I have never heard them quote any statistics in support, nor could I find any on the internet. I have two guesses about the popularity of that quote. The first is that we Americans love to tell ourselves that we are the best. In everything. And so I assume that the phrase in question resonates well. The second is that even though there is no statistical support for this claim, there is some anecdotal evidence. The fact is that when rich foreigners need surgery, they tend to fly in to the good ole USA. So doesn’t that mean that we have the best health care system in the world?
The answer is yes – unless you are a Christian. One thing about Christians is our upside-down value system. Instead of valuing the great, powerful , and rich, Jesus told us that the weak, meek, and poor are the ones who are really well off. For those with money, this is indeed the best health care system in the world. That must be why the rich fly to America for surgery. But if you are a ‘have-not,’ this is the worst (37th) of all the first world countries. In America, money leads to health, and poverty leads to sickness. And no, the good health care does not ‘trickle down.’ If such a thing happened, it already would have. America’s health care system has already been tested, and found to be wildly successful for the rich, and neglectful of the poor. And that gap only appears to be widening with time.
So if you insist that America has the best health care system in the world, what do you mean? Which people do you include in your calculus?
The question is, what is the evidence for this claim? I have never heard them quote any statistics in support, nor could I find any on the internet. I have two guesses about the popularity of that quote. The first is that we Americans love to tell ourselves that we are the best. In everything. And so I assume that the phrase in question resonates well. The second is that even though there is no statistical support for this claim, there is some anecdotal evidence. The fact is that when rich foreigners need surgery, they tend to fly in to the good ole USA. So doesn’t that mean that we have the best health care system in the world?
The answer is yes – unless you are a Christian. One thing about Christians is our upside-down value system. Instead of valuing the great, powerful , and rich, Jesus told us that the weak, meek, and poor are the ones who are really well off. For those with money, this is indeed the best health care system in the world. That must be why the rich fly to America for surgery. But if you are a ‘have-not,’ this is the worst (37th) of all the first world countries. In America, money leads to health, and poverty leads to sickness. And no, the good health care does not ‘trickle down.’ If such a thing happened, it already would have. America’s health care system has already been tested, and found to be wildly successful for the rich, and neglectful of the poor. And that gap only appears to be widening with time.
So if you insist that America has the best health care system in the world, what do you mean? Which people do you include in your calculus?
8.25.2009
Puttin Granny to Death
I don’t want to waste words talking about the hypocrisy and stupidity of the Palin/Gingrich ‘death panel’ world. Obama’s proposed legislation is not about death panels, but about paying for doctor consultations about end of life decisions. For example, you must decide in advance if you want to be resuscitated if you are merely going to live a few more painful months hooked up to a ventilator. When thy meet their maker, Palin and Gingrich will have to explain why they choose to scare old people and make their lives worse in order to score cheap political points.
But let’s leave the actual proposed legislation aside. Instead, let’s pretend that we live in a world where Palin’s worst nightmares came true, and there were a death panel: a group of doctors and politicians that decided whether someone deserved further treatment. Would that be immoral?
Two things must be pointed put. First, there already is a ‘death panel’ of sorts. It doesn’t involve beaurocrats or doctors, though; it involves money. If you have enough money, you can get your hip replaced when you’re 100. But if your mom doesn’t have money, she can’t take you to the doctor to screened for basic diseases when you’re a baby (actually, since Bush and the Republicans lost their ‘fight’ to the Democrats, free health insurance has been extended to poor children). A politician shouldn’t make health care decisions, but that seems no better than letting money decide.
Second, the euthanasia scare glosses over the incredibly important distinction between active and passive euthanasia. I think active euthanasia in all its form is immoral. That’s why I have a moral objection to abortion. But passive euthanasia is something vastly different. The question is, when an old person with asthma is being kept alive by a breathing machine, why are they alive? Is that the will of God? It is not. It is because medical technology has advanced to such a state that keeping them alive is possible. So is ‘pulling the plug’ immoral? The question is, why were they ‘plugged in’ in the first place?
Passive euthanasia just doesn’t bother me at all. When I am old, I would rather have God decide when I take my last breath – not a doctor or an insurance adjustor. Active euthanasia is completely different. That is what is immoral and deserves condemnation from Christians.
But let’s leave the actual proposed legislation aside. Instead, let’s pretend that we live in a world where Palin’s worst nightmares came true, and there were a death panel: a group of doctors and politicians that decided whether someone deserved further treatment. Would that be immoral?
Two things must be pointed put. First, there already is a ‘death panel’ of sorts. It doesn’t involve beaurocrats or doctors, though; it involves money. If you have enough money, you can get your hip replaced when you’re 100. But if your mom doesn’t have money, she can’t take you to the doctor to screened for basic diseases when you’re a baby (actually, since Bush and the Republicans lost their ‘fight’ to the Democrats, free health insurance has been extended to poor children). A politician shouldn’t make health care decisions, but that seems no better than letting money decide.
Second, the euthanasia scare glosses over the incredibly important distinction between active and passive euthanasia. I think active euthanasia in all its form is immoral. That’s why I have a moral objection to abortion. But passive euthanasia is something vastly different. The question is, when an old person with asthma is being kept alive by a breathing machine, why are they alive? Is that the will of God? It is not. It is because medical technology has advanced to such a state that keeping them alive is possible. So is ‘pulling the plug’ immoral? The question is, why were they ‘plugged in’ in the first place?
Passive euthanasia just doesn’t bother me at all. When I am old, I would rather have God decide when I take my last breath – not a doctor or an insurance adjustor. Active euthanasia is completely different. That is what is immoral and deserves condemnation from Christians.
10.13.2008
America: The Best Greatest Country that God Has Ever Given Man On the Face of the Earth, Part I
An extremely interesting thing happened on Friday at a McCain rally. He actually was forced to defend Obama’s character as a “decent, family man,” and was subsequently booed at his own rally (here) He was taking questions from the audience, when one person called him “dangerous,” and another said he was “an Arab.” McCain rejected those proposals by saying that while he has some fundamental policy differences with Obama, Obama is not actually seeking to destroy America (or whatever those people believe).
This incident was not isolated. In the past week, the following phrases have been yelled out at McCain or Palin rallies: “BOMB OBAMA!,” “HE’S A TERRORIST!,” and “KILL HIM!” So why all the hate-speech in the last week? Coincidence? No, of course not. It is because, for one, people have started introducing Palin at rallies by referring to her opponent, Barack “Hussein” Obama (which is officially condemned by the McCain campaign, but hmmm, it keeps happening). Also, Palin is traveling around the country talking about Obama’s secret terrorist connections (which is false), and McCain has been running ads to that effect. Officially the ads question his judgment, but of course the word that sticks in the mind of the intended audience is terrorist.
So the steep rise in hate-speech at the Republican rallies this week was no coincidence. The amazing thing is that McCain seemed to be surprised that his recent tactics have been working so well. Now, I don’t know why McCain reacted as he did, but I am more interested in why those crowds have been reacting so strongly to affirmations of Barack’s middle name. The Republican strategy here is to paint Barack as un-American, as not “one of us.” I believe that the reason that the “un-American” attacks are so effective (and they worked on Kerry, too: he’s French!), is because most Americans have a deep belief that Americans are just better people than are people of other countries.
This leads me to my topic for the next two weeks: the doctrine of American exceptionalism. For a primer, check out this video of Colbert making fun of Sean Hannity’s articulation of exceptionalism that America is “the best greatest country that God has ever given man on the face of the Earth (here). Next week, I want to try to make a connection between this doctrine and the recent death-threats that Obama has been receiving at Republican rallies.
This incident was not isolated. In the past week, the following phrases have been yelled out at McCain or Palin rallies: “BOMB OBAMA!,” “HE’S A TERRORIST!,” and “KILL HIM!” So why all the hate-speech in the last week? Coincidence? No, of course not. It is because, for one, people have started introducing Palin at rallies by referring to her opponent, Barack “Hussein” Obama (which is officially condemned by the McCain campaign, but hmmm, it keeps happening). Also, Palin is traveling around the country talking about Obama’s secret terrorist connections (which is false), and McCain has been running ads to that effect. Officially the ads question his judgment, but of course the word that sticks in the mind of the intended audience is terrorist.
So the steep rise in hate-speech at the Republican rallies this week was no coincidence. The amazing thing is that McCain seemed to be surprised that his recent tactics have been working so well. Now, I don’t know why McCain reacted as he did, but I am more interested in why those crowds have been reacting so strongly to affirmations of Barack’s middle name. The Republican strategy here is to paint Barack as un-American, as not “one of us.” I believe that the reason that the “un-American” attacks are so effective (and they worked on Kerry, too: he’s French!), is because most Americans have a deep belief that Americans are just better people than are people of other countries.
This leads me to my topic for the next two weeks: the doctrine of American exceptionalism. For a primer, check out this video of Colbert making fun of Sean Hannity’s articulation of exceptionalism that America is “the best greatest country that God has ever given man on the face of the Earth (here). Next week, I want to try to make a connection between this doctrine and the recent death-threats that Obama has been receiving at Republican rallies.
3.10.2008
American Politics, Part II
Out society is not primarily controlled by the government. Rather, our society marches to the beat of the drum of the capitalistic marketplace. I do not wish to say that this is good or bad, for there are many positive and negative features of capitalism. I just want to say that this is our reality, so instead of thinking of America as controlled by the government, it would be more accurate to think of America as being directed by business, and merely managed by the government.
By analogy, the market could be thought of as a fire. Fires are nearly miraculous in that they provide a natural source of heat and light. If you have trouble imagining how central this is to life, imagine how terrible a frontier lifestyle would be without a fire. But like most good things, a fire can quickly turn disastrous and deadly if it leaps out of its intended boundaries. Likewise, the market can provide untold good and prosperity, and in an instant can lift a family out of generational poverty. But it can also be quite disastrous, as a fire that jumps over its boundaries. So the analogical conclusion is that just as we need the fire controlled, so also we need tight reigns on the economy. There are two primary ways that the marketplace can cause mischief, although I will only address one this week.
First, the market itself provides no incentive whatsoever to help a person who is not yourself or not in your immediate family. The market, rather, by its very essence, actually encourages every person to look out only for her own interests. “Its just business,” they tell you after they announce a company restructure. There is no basis to complain about or criticize any single businessperson who triumphs over someone else over on the way to more money, provided he does it within the bounds of the law. Indeed, this is what is required of a successful capitalist society. I, for example, will enter the meager philosophy professor job market in a couple of years. My hope is that I will be better, more intelligent, etc., than the other PhD students entering the marketplace, and that I will get the job instead of them. Correspondingly, the institution will only higher the best candidate and turn the others away. That is not positive or negative, but merely a description of how a capitalistic society improves itself.
Given the harsh realities of competition within capitalism, it is quite easy to see how our society can quickly become a society of “haves” and “have-nots.” But no single person is to blame – every “have” is simply doing his job. Capitalism, then, unchecked, can bring absolutely wicked outcomes, from the perspective of the Christian. James nails down the whole point of religion in general: “to look after orphans and widows in their distress…” (James 1:27). If this is true, then we should be worries about creating as society of “haves” and “have-nots,” which means that we need a government that is willing to step in and disrupt the marketplace when the marketplace in creating too much inequality. The Republicans despise this kind of thinking as “big government” – capitalism needs to be free to play itself out. If the market operates without interference, they claim, then it will continue to grow. And after all, they add, “A rising tides raises all ships.”
But I have a question for my Republican friends: What if you are wrong about how the economy works? Even the top economists in the world have vast difference in the way they conceive of successful capitalism. I must confess, I have NO idea how the economy works, but even the most well-equipped economists have only possible theories. But if we are going to make an error, as we may be by interfering in the marketplace, we should be concerned to err on the side of making an economically equal society. If those republican economists are wrong, and the “trickle-down” economic system is not the right model for the economy, then we will hamper economic growth AND exacerbate economic inequality. So if I am right that no one really knows how the economy works, and we are concerned about creating a equal society (making sure the orphans and widows are economically secure, even though they are not economically viable), then we should favor a style of government which is willing to step in if conditions are becoming unequal. There is the possibility, I am willing to concede, that the Republican economic policies are better for everyone; after all, I nor anyone else who doesn’t have a Nobel Prize in economics really has any idea. But I do know, as a Christian, that it is not acceptable to have the kind of society that doesn’t do anything about the plight of the vulnerable. But the Republican says, again, “Yes, but a rising tide raises all ships,” which is true. But just in case the “trickle-down” system doesn’t work, I would rather lose the whole world while pursuing justice. I don’t think that losing the whole world for the right reasons would be such a bad thing.
By analogy, the market could be thought of as a fire. Fires are nearly miraculous in that they provide a natural source of heat and light. If you have trouble imagining how central this is to life, imagine how terrible a frontier lifestyle would be without a fire. But like most good things, a fire can quickly turn disastrous and deadly if it leaps out of its intended boundaries. Likewise, the market can provide untold good and prosperity, and in an instant can lift a family out of generational poverty. But it can also be quite disastrous, as a fire that jumps over its boundaries. So the analogical conclusion is that just as we need the fire controlled, so also we need tight reigns on the economy. There are two primary ways that the marketplace can cause mischief, although I will only address one this week.
First, the market itself provides no incentive whatsoever to help a person who is not yourself or not in your immediate family. The market, rather, by its very essence, actually encourages every person to look out only for her own interests. “Its just business,” they tell you after they announce a company restructure. There is no basis to complain about or criticize any single businessperson who triumphs over someone else over on the way to more money, provided he does it within the bounds of the law. Indeed, this is what is required of a successful capitalist society. I, for example, will enter the meager philosophy professor job market in a couple of years. My hope is that I will be better, more intelligent, etc., than the other PhD students entering the marketplace, and that I will get the job instead of them. Correspondingly, the institution will only higher the best candidate and turn the others away. That is not positive or negative, but merely a description of how a capitalistic society improves itself.
Given the harsh realities of competition within capitalism, it is quite easy to see how our society can quickly become a society of “haves” and “have-nots.” But no single person is to blame – every “have” is simply doing his job. Capitalism, then, unchecked, can bring absolutely wicked outcomes, from the perspective of the Christian. James nails down the whole point of religion in general: “to look after orphans and widows in their distress…” (James 1:27). If this is true, then we should be worries about creating as society of “haves” and “have-nots,” which means that we need a government that is willing to step in and disrupt the marketplace when the marketplace in creating too much inequality. The Republicans despise this kind of thinking as “big government” – capitalism needs to be free to play itself out. If the market operates without interference, they claim, then it will continue to grow. And after all, they add, “A rising tides raises all ships.”
But I have a question for my Republican friends: What if you are wrong about how the economy works? Even the top economists in the world have vast difference in the way they conceive of successful capitalism. I must confess, I have NO idea how the economy works, but even the most well-equipped economists have only possible theories. But if we are going to make an error, as we may be by interfering in the marketplace, we should be concerned to err on the side of making an economically equal society. If those republican economists are wrong, and the “trickle-down” economic system is not the right model for the economy, then we will hamper economic growth AND exacerbate economic inequality. So if I am right that no one really knows how the economy works, and we are concerned about creating a equal society (making sure the orphans and widows are economically secure, even though they are not economically viable), then we should favor a style of government which is willing to step in if conditions are becoming unequal. There is the possibility, I am willing to concede, that the Republican economic policies are better for everyone; after all, I nor anyone else who doesn’t have a Nobel Prize in economics really has any idea. But I do know, as a Christian, that it is not acceptable to have the kind of society that doesn’t do anything about the plight of the vulnerable. But the Republican says, again, “Yes, but a rising tide raises all ships,” which is true. But just in case the “trickle-down” system doesn’t work, I would rather lose the whole world while pursuing justice. I don’t think that losing the whole world for the right reasons would be such a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)