Cognitive Dissonance: Conservatives and Government

Tags

allure, allure of government, America, American government, anarchist, anarchists, anarchy, atheism, atheist, atheists, Ayn Rand, Bible, campaigns, Capitol Hill, cognitive dissonance, communism, communitarianism, congress, conservatism, conservative, conservatives, D.C., DC, demographics, demography, diversity, E.P.A., elections, entitlement programs, entitlements, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, equality, federal government, food stamps, freedom, gay marriage, governing, government, Grover Norquist, gun control, guns, health, health care, healthcare, Henry David Thoreau, hypocrisy, ideology, Kryptonite, laws, Leviathan, libertarian, libertarianism, libertarians, limited government, local government, marriage equality, media, National Parks, Norquist, On Walden Pond, politics, power, Rand, religion, reproductive rights, S.N.A.P., safety, same sex marriage, secular, secularism, secularist, secularists, security, self reliance, small government, smaller government, SNAP, social security, socialism, society, stability, state, state government, states, taxes, Thoreau, U.S., U.S. Government, united states, United States Government, US, US Government, Walden, Walden Pond, Washington, Washington D.C., Washington DC, white house, women's rights

I have a pretty simple question. This is not meant to alienate anyone, but I’m curious about the answer. If you consider yourself a conservative, and claim government as the enemy, why would you want to be a part of the system?

I’m not quite sure when conservatism became synonymous with spending no money and dismantling government as we know it, but here we are. If you’d like to reform the system in such a way that it better serves people, to make it more efficient, I understand that. That does not, however, mean destroying the Environmental Protection Agency, privatizing all education, and taking a sledgehammer to unions. It doesn’t mean cutting food stamp programs by billions of dollars to starving children and families because Ayn Rand gave you the idea that you could pull yourself up by your bootstraps and, you know, ideologically, it just doesn’t sit well with you that there are people out there “getting handouts”.

Recently, I was attacked by someone as I know as being the kind of person who “loves government”, and who defends its practices. While this is a blanket statement–I don’t support everything the federal government of the United States does–yes, I tend to support government. Since when should that be an insult?

This is a word of warning to the anarchists and the so-called libertarians and all the others who fancy themselves modern day revolutionaries. We live in a country comprised of approximately 320 million people. Among those 320 million, there are varying states of education, income, opportunities, and health conditions. Even from state to state, living conditions vary widely. We live in a patchwork society of diverse demographics, from age to culture to ethnicity.

But more important than even our differences are our connections to one another. Even if you don’t believe in a kumbaya ideal or attach the words “communism” or “socialism” to anything that remotely resembles cooperation, you have to admit that we must interact with one another in society. We merge on the same roads. We go to schools and workplaces with others. We purchase goods and services on a daily basis. These are the basics.

And we all benefit from services provided by the government from traffic lights to mail delivery to public libraries. It was often cited in the direct aftermath of the recent government shutdown that the biggest winners were the National Parks. Even the most self reliant among us love our national parks. And who can resist nature? Thoreau did write about Walden Pond, after all.

Government–from the lowest levels to the highest–has a role to play. This role is a significant one. Whether we’re talking about “entitlement” programs or passing the very laws that enable us to live in a stable society, we need government.

Grover Norquist’s colorful imagery of shrinking government to the point that we can “drown it in the bathtub” is disgusting. I’d really like to see where all these people would be without government services.

You can’t say “hands off my guns” (and my taxes and my religion), and then decide that government overreach is non-existent when it comes to “pension reform” or controlling reproductive choices or shutting down marriage equality or denying atheists and secularists the same respect as religion (often mainstream Christianity) is afforded.

Is that the real aim: to remake society in one’s own image? To so fundamentally alter the landscape of the United States as to comport a self-styled combination of the Bible and the “good old days”? To decry diversity and change and progress? Perhaps the most effective way is to declare the evils of the monstrous government that swallows all of our money, that ever-growing Leviathan run by the evil corporatists and opportunists who work in a place worse than hell. This place–gasp–is called Washington, D.C., and it’s where dreams go to die. Worse yet, it’s where the government bogeymen are killing all of your dreams too.

…Except that many of the government haters work there too. From local governments to state houses, thousands of people who won elections on the idea that government is the root of all evil are reaping its benefits in the form of salaries, health care, jobs, contracts, success, relative levels of fame, and the furtherance of their agendas using the tool that’s supposed to be their kryptonite.

I’m a vegetarian. I hate the entire system that goes into the production of killing animals so that people can eat them. Do I continue to eat meat, and say how horrible the system is? No. If it’s so abhorrent to you, government haters, how can you be a part of it? Are you trying to change it from the inside, out? That begins with a respect for its very existence and the admission that you want to be a part of that system, at the very least. If principle is so important, at least be honest with the public and yourselves.

Obama Cares

Tags

ACA, affordable care act, chief justice john roberts, compassion, congress, Constitution, constitutionality, contraception, cooperation, cost control, costs, democrats, economics, federal government, fiscal responsibility, free rider, free rider problem, health care, healthcare, healthcare law, individual mandate, john roberts, libertarian, mandate, mitt romney, money, morality, obama, obama admistration, Obama Cares, obama's healthcare law, obamacare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, politicians, politics, PPACA, preexisting conditions, president obama, republicans, roberts, romney, romneycare, SCOTUS, society, success, Supreme Court, Supreme Court decision, Supreme Court healthcare, Supreme Court healthcare decision, sustainability, US Constituion, women, women's health

On Thursday, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA for short).  In the ruling of a lifetime (really, how often do non-constitutional scholars get this excited about anything involving the Supreme Court?), the Court upheld the entire law as constitutional, aka, legal.  The details were very exciting, but I won’t get into them here.  That’s not what this post is about. 

This post is about the fact that certain segments of society have taken up the most selfish, bigoted, irresponsible, opportunistic, and ignorant views on this subject that it makes me embarrassed to call them fellow citizens.  It is one thing to disagree with the nuances of the law.  I certainly don’t think the law is perfect as is.  I would even understand if people openly stated that they don’t care about other people and don’t want to pay for them.  At least they’re being honest.  It’s quite another to brandish your argument in fancy words and pretend you’re all about cost control, “freedom”, and “judicial restraint”.  While I’m probably preaching to the choir, and it’s not like my blog post will reach Cantor and Co., I feel compelled to spell out two arguments for the necessity of health reform.

The moral argument: You’ve heard the statistics.  50 million people are uninsured in America.  That’s nearly 1 in 6.  Those who are insured may be underinsured, or may take a job or remain at a job because they need the healthcare provided by their employer.  Pre-“Obamacare”: Lifetime caps on coverage were instituted, making it impossible for many people to pay their medical bills, medicines were more expensive, contraception cost more money, those with preexisting conditions such as breast cancer (yes, really) were routinely denied coverage altogether, and there were gaping holes in insurance coverage for young adults and rising costs for senior citizens.  Nearly 50,000 people a year die because they don’t have health insurance.  This is a staggering number and should be unacceptable to any human being.  The United States, an industrialized country, and the wealthiest country in the world by far, has no excuse.  Politicians love to brag about how the American medical system has the finest doctors and the best technology in the world.  Yet, we charge people exorbitant amounts at the emergency room, and let tens of thousands die per year.  It’s often said that reason is the better tack to take in an argument as opposed to emotion.  In this case, there’s no way to leave emotion out of it.  Sickness and suffering is an emotional thing—especially if much of this suffering can be alleviated, and care can be provided for all.

The economic argument: For those who don’t care about the morality of the matter—or who have compassion, but “don’t think we can afford” to overhaul the healthcare system right now—there is a very strong economic argument to be made.  Currently, healthcare accounts for 18% of the country’s GDP.  To put that number in perspective, the United States government spent approximately 1% of GDP on the space program at the height of the Cold War, and that was a lot of money.  This 18% is not stagnant, either.  When people say that healthcare costs are “spiraling out of control”, and need to be contained, they mean it.  Healthcare will eat up more and more of the budget, and soon, we won’t be able to pay for anything else.  This is not meant as a scare tactic, and it’s not wild speculation.  It’s the truth.  Insuring more people, providing preventative care, preempting emergency room visits (the only way some people get treated), neutralizing risk, and creating a climate of stability will bring the costs down significantly.  Sure, it will take a few years, but inaction is worse.  If the U.S. had taken significant action on climate change decades ago…but I digress.  Doctors, hospitals, patients, and healthcare experts all agree that the fiscally responsible thing to do is to go the way of the ACA.

The free rider problem: This is about who we are, as Americans, as a society.  Like it or not, we do live in a society, and this concept carries with it certain responsibilities.  Given the choice, individuals will act in self interest, aka, not take care of someone else.  People will also not pay for things they don’t want or don’t see a need for—or, especially, if they feel the “intrusive” government is “shoving it down their throats”.  Unless that something is on an infomercial…maybe the government should’ve tried to selling healthcare reform on TV at 3 in the morning.  The point is, people need to be mandated to buy insurance to neutralize risk and to control costs for everyone.  There needs to be a penalty for noncompliance to ensure people participate and that the program is successful.  Also, it’s not as if people never get sick or hurt or old.  It’s really an investment.  Many of the people who don’t want to buy health insurance are the people who end  up needing it the most.  Those who can’t afford it will be aided.  We live in a society in which cooperation is key.  No one lives in a vacuum and became successful or self sufficient by himself or herself.  A real patriot would want to do what’s best for the people in his or her country.  Any person who wants to live in a successful society—really just an outgrowth of the idea of favorable environment—should understand and internalize this fact.  We need to work together in a society, and sorry, Ron Paul, libertarian tendencies of hoping the “members of a church” will help someone in their community who is sick is unrealistic, unpredictable, and unsustainable.

In the 2 years and 3 months since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed, it seems all Republicans have been doing is mounting a relentless P.R. campaign against the “monstrosity” they call “Obamacare”.  When the scare tactics of alleged “death panels” didn’t catch on much beyond Tea Party circles, Republicans aimed for greater legitimacy by claiming that the ACA was unconstitutional.  Eventually 26 states advanced this charge, and the healthcare law made it before the Supreme Court.  In reality, behind the scenes much debate was going on within the Republican Party.  In the last few months, talking points started to shift from “gutting the whole thing” to “of course, we’d keep the most popular parts”.  While “replace and replace” became the de facto sound bite for any politician with an “R” attached to his or her name, the issue of what to replace their dreaded Obamacare with became more real.  The sobering reality, once the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the constitutionality of the law in March, was that the Republicans must provide a viable alternative to the “2,700 page” legislation they had worked so tirelessly to strike down.

Herein lies the issue.  As many have observed, prominent Republicans seemed to want to keep many parts of the law that proved popular.  Their main opposition (beyond some of the issues with women’s health coverage and other so-called “liberal” provisions) was to the individual mandate part of the law.  They didn’t like the loss of freedom imposed by a mandate forcing people to pay for healthcare.  Their claims about the mandate, like all of their other claims about the law, were, of course, greatly exaggerated and distorted.  Hyperbolic or not, Republicans didn’t like the idea of a penalty and infringement on individuals’ all-important “liberty”.

Cue the free rider problem.  Also, isn’t denying people healthcare coverage an infringement of their liberty?  “Life” comes before “liberty” in the Declaration of Independence.  Without life, the pursuit of liberty and happiness become nonexistent.  Besides, a lot of people are stupid.  That’s not very diplomatic, but it’s true.  When they need it, people want government to step in and protect them from their mistakes or when they’re at their most vulnerable—then it’s ok, apparently.  In addition, people’s “liberty” often adversely affects other people, and everyone would admit that security (in this case, harm minimization) is the government’s role.

You would think that Republicans would be satisfied with the law because it helps big business.  Insurance companies, overall, end up the big winners.  The ACA is nowhere near nationalized or universal healthcare.  That “Romneycare” was the blueprint for “Obamacare” need not be mentioned except to draw attention to the humor and irony involved in the opposition presidential candidate’s contortions around such a personally damaging issue.  Hypocrisy at its finest.  In fact, Romney, too, notably changed his tune in his speech following the Supreme Court decision which upheld the ACA in its entirety.  Romney wants to keep certain provisions in place such as keeping kids on their parents’ insurance until they’re 26, not denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, and maintaining competition between plans.  Some Republican politicians have gone even further to endorse the provision of stopping lifetime caps on care.  How to pay for all of this, though, without the mandate?  The lynchpin of the law, much like the “automatic trigger” of sequestration enacted after the debt ceiling debates, was put in place to hold people accountable.  Otherwise, they will “kick the cab down the road” forever and people will not take responsibility, not individually, and certainly not for the wellbeing of society.  The conservatives, who always stress sustainability, have spit in the face of a plan whose central tenet–the individual mandate–they, themselves, designed.

Do they want freedom or security (read: liberty or sustainability)?  President Obama’s Democratically passed law provides some measure of both.  It aims to address spiraling healthcare costs and provides much choice and increased coverage for millions of people.  Almost everyone in the United States is impacted by this law.  It is by no means perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction, and if Republicans are still so up in arms about it–and not just because they’re sore losers, hate Obama, aren’t too fond of women, prefer the status quo, and will cling to power at all costs–then it’s a positive sign.

Give Me Liberty, Not Cyber Death

Tags

ACLU, boundaries, cyber, equality, facebook, federal government, freedom, government, Harry Potter, inequality, internet, justice, libertarian, libertarianism, liberty, online, politics, privacy, religion, rights, school, security, social networking, social networks, technology, tyranny, warrentless wiretap, warrentless wiretapping, work

The recent attempts by authority figures at curtailing individuals’ Facebook activity are disturbing.  Two recent examples of such action include attempts by employers to obtain new and prospective employees’ facebook passwords and the order by officials at a Crown Heights, Brooklyn high school that students must cancel their Facebook accounts or suffer expulsion from school (in addition to a $100 fine). 

It is a new, more open world in which technology allows activity that hasn’t been regulated.  Those who wish to control such activity by members of their groups are playing catch up, trying to exert control over people in a changing world.  The advent of Facebook creates a plane in which people can express themselves outside of the controlled environments of school or work.  On Facebook, the person is free to be himself or herself without the enforced constraints of these environments, and transcend the identifiers of “student” or “employee”.

Every day, I hear cries of “tyranny” used by people against the power of the federal government, and dismiss them as hyperbole.  In the cases of cyber infringement (more of which I’m sure are to come), a smaller private body is trying to get its overarching tentacles into the personal affairs of citizens in the same way that some allege that the federal government tries to control aspects of their lives.  I do not consider myself a Libertarian, but something must be said for personal freedom.  Let’s be clear: these individuals are not being targeted for engaging in illegal or otherwise criminal behavior.  No such invasion of their privacy or usurpation of their autonomy is necessary.  Was warrantless wiretapping ok in order to listen in on people’s conversations?  Many people thought it was not, and the reason given for such intrusive action was national security.  Though “national security” was an ill-fitting, catch all phrase, at least it hinted at the possibility of a real reason.  Nothing approaching this scale even comes close to the reasons behind destroying a large part of someone’s autonomy.  Again, not hyperbole. 

 With the number of Facebook profiles approaching the 1 billion mark, Facebook is no mere fluke or fringe movement.  It is a worldwide, easily accessible network, which makes it a threat.  It is also an extension of ourselves.  When the rabbis in charge of the Crown Heights school claim that the world created by the website is “not real”, they display a gross misunderstanding of the technology.  Interactions occur through Facebook, but profiles also serve as a conduit for a wide-ranging manner of personal information.  It is no wonder each page is called a “profile”.  From photo albums which chronicle important life events to the digital recognition of personal milestones to spaces in which everything from niche interests to news stories can be disseminated and connections can be built, Facebook is like the Room of Requirement for any person wishing to use it.  Yes, that was a Harry Potter reference.  The next thing you know, those frightened, ignorant adults will be trying to ban that book series too.  Oh, wait, that’s already happened.  Thanks, overzealous Christians who think that the wizards and sorcery in children’s books are the “devil’s work”. 

Digressions aside, we live in the 21st century.  Such technology cannot and should not be held back because it presents uncertainty for a ruling class in any situation.  Employers claim fear of liability if they don’t properly vet employees.  Fine, perform background checks.  Asking for a Facebook password oversteps any reasonable person’s bounds.  Social networking is very new.  The Internet is not much older.  It is easy to forge these facts because they have become such an integral part of our lives.  Because the youth have grown up in the cyber age, we have taken for granted the wonders of the Internet, particularly the freedom and the new degree of interconnectedness it allows us to have.  This is all the more reason we should be aware of attempts to chip away aspects of this from us.  Anything that upends the status quo is viewed warily by those in positions of power.  Facebook is the latest battleground.  We must protect our liberty, or someone more powerful will always try to take it away.