The impending Supreme Court consideration of the Universal Health Care legislation is certain to generate great debate in legal and ideological circles. The technicalities of the law will be a minor part of the popular discussion. But, we can be assured that the most caustic battles will occur on that field where the most paradoxical cognition and/or vacuous dogmatism will be ineluctable - the ideological front. Many have or will initiate their attack or defense of the program from an ideological set-point, but for me a synoptic understanding of the particulars of the issue necessitate a different process.
My secular mentality never allowed me to divinize the primacy of the free market and separate it from the working of common sense. The conceptualized new legislation was predicated on the fact that health care in this country is unaffordable for many and is on a trajectory to be out of reach for most, with little evidence that the unfettered free market will offer any special dispensation to meliorate this trend in the foreseeable future. So, the question then becomes what can or should be done about health care. Can it be an “industry” whose underlining raison d’être is the care of the corporeal body and relieving of physical suffering wrought by the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to, which should legislatively be abandoned to fickle and uncaring winds of the marketplace, at the same time all manner of tax exemptions, perks, and privileges are granted to religious organizations whose mandates are the disposition of the intangible soul.
It is not my intent to attack religion, but I believe all the complexities of the debate ultimately boil down to the dichotomy of how we resolve our dealings with the same inheritances from the natural world and human awareness that teach us to esteem our bodies as well as our souls. If we include special indulgence for religion in the fabric of our social contract as integral to “the promotion of the general welfare”, how can we be so dissociative when it comes to mutual care of our brief mortality?
Whether we wish to associate ourselves with the implication of the phrase “promote the general welfare” or the legal delicacies of the Commerce Clause, it may be instructive to examine the passive acceptance of the body politic to the huge and indecent expenditure on our military, which is frittered away on non-existential threats, not to our nation, but to our world hegemony and empire. So, if it a matter of how our commonwealth is spent, and if we are a truly free people, not indentured to any ideological master, why can’t universal health care be a legitimate social construct simply because we want and need it?
Friday, November 18, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
AKA Voter Nullification
Today I was on a conservative blog site where there was an almost cult-like refutation of the NAACP's intent to challenge voter ID laws nationwide.Unfortunately my cynicism doesn't allow me to believe that this new urgency for voter ID is motivated by concern for the integrity of our elections. Although arguments about the ubiquity of identification or the ease of its acquisition in our society are compelling, the most egregious recent controversy over proper democracy was in the 2000 election where the votes of duly registered voters were not counted because of arbitariness with a distinctly partisan odor. I haven't been convinced of the new serious, compelling circumstances requiring this new scrutiny of individuals showing up at the polls to vote. And I marvel at the ideological divide of those who want more people to show up and cast votes and those who are threatened by it.
In the present environment where wealth and therefore power is so unequally partitioned, it would seem the rich and powerful would have the greater ability and incentive to encourage and stimulate fraudulent votes, and yet the party most closely identified with the financial and corporate elite, is the political party most closely identified with measures that would place barriers, however insignificant they are reputed to be, between living, breathing people and voting. And though many of the commentators on that site advanced the observation that it is politically incorrect to notice that most of those impacted by the new and necessary requirements are among the "brainwashed" black and brown populations, it is nonetheless hard not to notice.
It is also hard not to notice the results in Maine this past Tuesday.
In the present environment where wealth and therefore power is so unequally partitioned, it would seem the rich and powerful would have the greater ability and incentive to encourage and stimulate fraudulent votes, and yet the party most closely identified with the financial and corporate elite, is the political party most closely identified with measures that would place barriers, however insignificant they are reputed to be, between living, breathing people and voting. And though many of the commentators on that site advanced the observation that it is politically incorrect to notice that most of those impacted by the new and necessary requirements are among the "brainwashed" black and brown populations, it is nonetheless hard not to notice.
It is also hard not to notice the results in Maine this past Tuesday.
Paterno's Lesson
There are several tragedies attached to the Penn State affair. The rape and maiming of children by a sexual predator is the most immediately egregious and monstrous. But for some reason all eyes are drawn to Coach Paterno, a man who used sport as his instrument to mentor boys into manhood. My brother, a Penn State alumnus, four decades removed, used to regale us with Paterno’s famous “football is like life” predicate to the similarities of the vicissitudes experienced on the football field and those inescapable in real life. Although we chuckled at his mimicry we nonetheless absorbed the sensibleness of many of the coach’s dictums and I, at least, have repeated the mantra silently in my mind at various points of decision and hardship where the hard-knock of conscious direction was required in resistance to the momentum of the flow. That is why this heinous fiasco has re-humanized and re-adultified the slumbering and rote activities of my moral senses.
Not to belittle the terrible and permanent scarring that will be borne by the actual victims, but we have all been injured in that our belief in ourselves must be challenged by Coach Paterno’s shortcoming. We are beset by a society and a culture that defines and rewards a conception of adult sophistication, personally and geo-politically, as measured by our bravery to do the naughty thing, and not by our courage to do the right thing. Mr. Paterno blessed with wealth, fame, family, and success, and after the Biblically allotted three score and ten years, presented with his test of morality, principle, and courage, pitted against friendship and legacy and loyalty to a university and football program, was confounded into inaction. It was a horrible choice much beyond the sniveling choices, that thankfully, most of us are accosted with, but I’m sure in retrospect Coach Paterno will admit the consequences of belittling morality and courage for a temporary convenience is a more horrible burden to bear than the weight of the decision he had been called upon to make.
It is a shame that the Michelangelo statue of Mr. Paterno’s life and career has been graffiti-ed by a man he called friend, but it was Mr. Paterno himself who caused the chip that forevermore will not allow his personal legacy to be appraised at its highest possible value.
The riotous overreaction is somewhat to be expected from a mob of deeply disappointed youth, but Mr. Paterno’s termination was a correct decision responsible adults were required to make. It is only debatable whether they are requiring a higher or minimal standard of us all.
Not to belittle the terrible and permanent scarring that will be borne by the actual victims, but we have all been injured in that our belief in ourselves must be challenged by Coach Paterno’s shortcoming. We are beset by a society and a culture that defines and rewards a conception of adult sophistication, personally and geo-politically, as measured by our bravery to do the naughty thing, and not by our courage to do the right thing. Mr. Paterno blessed with wealth, fame, family, and success, and after the Biblically allotted three score and ten years, presented with his test of morality, principle, and courage, pitted against friendship and legacy and loyalty to a university and football program, was confounded into inaction. It was a horrible choice much beyond the sniveling choices, that thankfully, most of us are accosted with, but I’m sure in retrospect Coach Paterno will admit the consequences of belittling morality and courage for a temporary convenience is a more horrible burden to bear than the weight of the decision he had been called upon to make.
It is a shame that the Michelangelo statue of Mr. Paterno’s life and career has been graffiti-ed by a man he called friend, but it was Mr. Paterno himself who caused the chip that forevermore will not allow his personal legacy to be appraised at its highest possible value.
The riotous overreaction is somewhat to be expected from a mob of deeply disappointed youth, but Mr. Paterno’s termination was a correct decision responsible adults were required to make. It is only debatable whether they are requiring a higher or minimal standard of us all.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Is Cain Sane?
Herman Cain repeated one of the calculated conservative talking points on Wednesday that blacks have been “brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view”. Although all reasonably sophisticated persons understand the Pavlovian tactic of stimulating a desired political response by redundant repeating of a constructed mantra – “Obamacare”, “socialism”, “class warfare” – Mr. Cain chose to mount an assault by insult, by the sweeping general conclusion that the majority of black Americans are minions in a mindless herd driven across the prairie of political and economic life by an unquestioned Svengali. He suggests that there is limited possibility that blacks could consider political options and then “choose” liberalism (in conjunction with roughly 50% of the national political body that doesn’t identify as conservative) as best serving their interests and concerns. It was a stunning affront that could stimulate the suspicion of “tokenism”, since Mr. Cain apparently gives due deference to white liberal’s ability at self-interested political thought. Why would a supposedly intelligent man say such a thing? What strings are the Koch Brothers pulling to make him proffer such an insulting stereotype out of a black mouth.
We un-sophisticates must assume Mr. Cain, the self-proclaimed “political outsider” is nonetheless playing the “inside” political game and saying the market and Limbaugh-tested things predominantly white conservative audiences want to hear. Granted Mr. Cain is clever enough to appropriate Mr.Obama's demonstration that blackness needn’t be a disadvantage, unless you make it one. Mr. Cain is certainly using race as an advantageous tool to promote a natural separation from the monotony of ideologically indistinguishable colleagues. Used in conjunction with the powerful tendency of idealouges to rally around whatever is said by a candidate waving a favored ideological flag, it can be a very effective tool to attract loyalty and votes, regardless of the factualness of what is said.
For example, recently in Florida Mr. Cain said the cancer he experienced in 2006 would have been fatal if “Obamacare” had been in force. He cited government imposed bureaucracy over the practice of medicine and the treatment options of doctors, and the infernal (and in his case ‘deadly’) delays inherent in Washington administered bureaucracy. In the interest of time and space I’ll just refer you to reportage by PolitFact seen at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/herman-cain-obamacare_n_985148.html as an alternative to Mr. Cain’s screed. If it is deemed meaningful and credible, what must we make of the man self-marketed as the ‘C.E.O. who is supposed to know’? Does it mean he actually knows very little about the nuts and bolts of what is strategically obscured as “Obamacare”, which he castigates at every opportunity? Does it mean he only knows what the minions of the Koch Brothers tell him? Or does it mean he constructed a tale and an appropriate black persona cynically designed to appeal to an audience prepped to detest “Obamacare”? Mr. Cain, by the way, won in that bastion of the senior vote, the Florida Straw Poll.
I am not opposed to clever electoral politics, I am in fact inured to it, as many Obama supporters and disappointees must be, but it only makes me more resolved to focus on the interests and concerns of my America - the middle class. In my opinion, as uncomfortable as it may be, we are not engaged in an ideological struggle, but a class struggle. And, as a political person, I believe what’s good for the middle class is good for America. The concrete instruction of history proves the fallacy of a scheme of thought whereby the prosperity of the majority is dependent on the altruism of the minority. History also delivers another lesson, to which 21st century humans are not immune, that the outsized economic dominance of a minority leads to the serfdom of the majority.
I would ask what would have been the health prospects of a man delivering pizzas for Godfathers in 2006 afflicted with the same form of cancer as Mr. Cain. Was he privy to the same quality of care for which C.E.O. Mr. Cain has expressed gratitude? Did he even have health benefits? Would he still be alive, and if so, are he and family financially viable after such a health catastrophe? Or would only a brainwashed person ask such questions?
We un-sophisticates must assume Mr. Cain, the self-proclaimed “political outsider” is nonetheless playing the “inside” political game and saying the market and Limbaugh-tested things predominantly white conservative audiences want to hear. Granted Mr. Cain is clever enough to appropriate Mr.Obama's demonstration that blackness needn’t be a disadvantage, unless you make it one. Mr. Cain is certainly using race as an advantageous tool to promote a natural separation from the monotony of ideologically indistinguishable colleagues. Used in conjunction with the powerful tendency of idealouges to rally around whatever is said by a candidate waving a favored ideological flag, it can be a very effective tool to attract loyalty and votes, regardless of the factualness of what is said.
For example, recently in Florida Mr. Cain said the cancer he experienced in 2006 would have been fatal if “Obamacare” had been in force. He cited government imposed bureaucracy over the practice of medicine and the treatment options of doctors, and the infernal (and in his case ‘deadly’) delays inherent in Washington administered bureaucracy. In the interest of time and space I’ll just refer you to reportage by PolitFact seen at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/herman-cain-obamacare_n_985148.html as an alternative to Mr. Cain’s screed. If it is deemed meaningful and credible, what must we make of the man self-marketed as the ‘C.E.O. who is supposed to know’? Does it mean he actually knows very little about the nuts and bolts of what is strategically obscured as “Obamacare”, which he castigates at every opportunity? Does it mean he only knows what the minions of the Koch Brothers tell him? Or does it mean he constructed a tale and an appropriate black persona cynically designed to appeal to an audience prepped to detest “Obamacare”? Mr. Cain, by the way, won in that bastion of the senior vote, the Florida Straw Poll.
I am not opposed to clever electoral politics, I am in fact inured to it, as many Obama supporters and disappointees must be, but it only makes me more resolved to focus on the interests and concerns of my America - the middle class. In my opinion, as uncomfortable as it may be, we are not engaged in an ideological struggle, but a class struggle. And, as a political person, I believe what’s good for the middle class is good for America. The concrete instruction of history proves the fallacy of a scheme of thought whereby the prosperity of the majority is dependent on the altruism of the minority. History also delivers another lesson, to which 21st century humans are not immune, that the outsized economic dominance of a minority leads to the serfdom of the majority.
I would ask what would have been the health prospects of a man delivering pizzas for Godfathers in 2006 afflicted with the same form of cancer as Mr. Cain. Was he privy to the same quality of care for which C.E.O. Mr. Cain has expressed gratitude? Did he even have health benefits? Would he still be alive, and if so, are he and family financially viable after such a health catastrophe? Or would only a brainwashed person ask such questions?
Friday, June 3, 2011
Medicare or Not?
Government and society are continuous enterprises, with obligations and benefits shared by multiple generations. Should the generation that undertook the financing and construction of the Interstate Highway system have some special benefit from it or exclusivity to it because their expense in building it is greater than the present generation's per capita cost of maintaining it? Medicare is a benefit that is supposed to be perpetual, built on the assumption that there is or should be enough prosperity to afford some measure of health security to present and future Americans.
The typical attack against Medicare is the hint or suggestion of "socialism", as if the very word or concept is some toxic mist from a miasmal swamp of civil evil. Like everything, Medicare costs money, but it appears Americans, granted freedom by nature or nature's God, have established a 'people's priority' of mutuality of social welfare, to retain some portion of societal wealth that 'government' otherwise feels compelled to waste in militarism and imperialism. Why is the welfare of the people and not the waste of war always secondary in the opinions of amateur economists and sociologists, when it is hardly arguable which pursuit produces the most social and financial detriment?
Since there isn't any historical evidence that the world of unfettered capitalism, a hundred years ago, was a superior or preferable environment for the poor or elderly, we must account the newer elements in the social order, unions, collective bargaining, Social Security, and Medicare in some degree responsible for the qualitative improvement in the standard of living of those classes of people who would have had much bleaker prospects under the past socio-economic formula. A pertinent statement by Rudi Nussbaum highlights the socio-economic myopia and rote ideology of our amateur economists and sociologists. "Following a tradition illustrated nearly 400 years ago by Gallileo's fate, accepted beliefs and supporting theoretical models, combined with vested interests, trumped observation". It did, and it does.
The typical attack against Medicare is the hint or suggestion of "socialism", as if the very word or concept is some toxic mist from a miasmal swamp of civil evil. Like everything, Medicare costs money, but it appears Americans, granted freedom by nature or nature's God, have established a 'people's priority' of mutuality of social welfare, to retain some portion of societal wealth that 'government' otherwise feels compelled to waste in militarism and imperialism. Why is the welfare of the people and not the waste of war always secondary in the opinions of amateur economists and sociologists, when it is hardly arguable which pursuit produces the most social and financial detriment?
Since there isn't any historical evidence that the world of unfettered capitalism, a hundred years ago, was a superior or preferable environment for the poor or elderly, we must account the newer elements in the social order, unions, collective bargaining, Social Security, and Medicare in some degree responsible for the qualitative improvement in the standard of living of those classes of people who would have had much bleaker prospects under the past socio-economic formula. A pertinent statement by Rudi Nussbaum highlights the socio-economic myopia and rote ideology of our amateur economists and sociologists. "Following a tradition illustrated nearly 400 years ago by Gallileo's fate, accepted beliefs and supporting theoretical models, combined with vested interests, trumped observation". It did, and it does.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Am I My Brother's Keeper
There was celebration, especially among black conservatives, of Herman Cain’s polling results after a recent GOP debate. I think Mr. Cain, with his impressive professional resume, has a lot to offer, but still find him philosophically befuddled, as are many black folks who equate personal success with political conservatism. Mr. Cain might suggest that capitalism is responsible for our prosperous, albeit now declining, middle class. But this is just a historically commonplace usurpation of reality by societal elites to inculcate and formalize our existing class structure. I suggest that capitalism didn’t create our modern American middle class, but the true reality is that middle class prosperity was forcibly wrested from the capitalists by the labor movement, and then assisted by progressive, equitable, government policies. This is my opposing view of our socio-economic dynamic.
Mr. Cain is a genuine post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of socio-economic reasoning. He is politically conservative and professionally successful; therefore he is professionally successful because he is conservative. But success is not synonymous with conservatism. In fact Mr. Cain probably owes much to the progressive thoughts and policies stimulated by the labor movement and later formalized into law, for the opportunities that availed him of success. And of course equal and greater success has been achieved by many who self- identify as ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’, seeming to suggest the road to success is traversed by those functioning as individuals rather than ideologues.
I contend that the essential argument isn't over whom or what is the most liberal or conservative. It is about who thinks our national affluence is properly measured by the wealth of the people, or the wealth of capitalists. If you believe it stems from the exertions of the people, then you'd likely support programs and policies that uplift, prioritize, and secure the middle class. If you believe that our prosperous middle class was an altruistic gift trickled down from the capitalist elite, then you'd probably be unthreatened by the destruction of unions and collective bargaining, Medicare and Social Security.
I admit it is as difficult to arrive at a definitive answer to the above questions as it is to decide whether economics is mostly art or science. But I personally believe, if history is an authoritative witness, that we can be assured, when health care and education and secure retirement are divested of collective participation and returned to "the market", they will become as rare and exclusive as they once were before being extracted from the capitalists by the labor movement and social progressives.
Mr. Cain is a genuine post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of socio-economic reasoning. He is politically conservative and professionally successful; therefore he is professionally successful because he is conservative. But success is not synonymous with conservatism. In fact Mr. Cain probably owes much to the progressive thoughts and policies stimulated by the labor movement and later formalized into law, for the opportunities that availed him of success. And of course equal and greater success has been achieved by many who self- identify as ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’, seeming to suggest the road to success is traversed by those functioning as individuals rather than ideologues.
I contend that the essential argument isn't over whom or what is the most liberal or conservative. It is about who thinks our national affluence is properly measured by the wealth of the people, or the wealth of capitalists. If you believe it stems from the exertions of the people, then you'd likely support programs and policies that uplift, prioritize, and secure the middle class. If you believe that our prosperous middle class was an altruistic gift trickled down from the capitalist elite, then you'd probably be unthreatened by the destruction of unions and collective bargaining, Medicare and Social Security.
I admit it is as difficult to arrive at a definitive answer to the above questions as it is to decide whether economics is mostly art or science. But I personally believe, if history is an authoritative witness, that we can be assured, when health care and education and secure retirement are divested of collective participation and returned to "the market", they will become as rare and exclusive as they once were before being extracted from the capitalists by the labor movement and social progressives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)