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.

Advertisements

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.

A City Upon a Hill

Tags

Allegory of the Cave, barack obama, biden, bill maher, bullying, City Upon a Hill, darkness, democrats, diplomacy, economy, email, example, fundraising, gay marriage, gay rights, joe biden, John Lauber, Lauber, light, Maher, Maurice Freehill, media, media coverage, mitt romney, move on, moveon.org, news, obama, Plato, politics, president obama, progress, republicans, respect, romney, same sex marriage, school, social media, society, The Washington Post, vice president biden, William Winthrop, youth

The last few days have been abuzz with stories related to homosexuality, or as Bill Maher would put it, “it’s been a big week in gay”.  Since every pundit is putting his or her spin on the most recent news–and it is a pivotal moment–I’d like to offer my analysis.  To sum things up: Vice President Biden said in a televised interview that he fully supported same sex marriage, the media went crazy because President Obama had not shared that stance publicly, 3 days (and way too much media dithering later),  Obama echoed Biden’s stance.  A lot of people were excited (and some people used the issue to bolster socially conservative bona fides), but as we all know, since even important stories have shelf lives in the nanoseconds, a Romney story eclipsed the Obama story.  In high school, Romney apparently held down a boy with the help of his friends, and forcibly cut his hair.  This would be a horrible thing to do no matter what the circumstances, but the story takes on another dimension: the boy had dyed his hair blond, was presumed to be gay, and came out later in life.  Whether Mitt Romney engaged in a hate crime (according to legal definitions) against John Lauber or not, he did bully a fellow student and human being.  Some of the media coverage and the response to this story has been almost as upsetting as the story itself.  I’ll get to that.

Let’s begin with Joe Biden’s “gaffe”.  Why is it a gaffe?  Because he was honest and came out ahead of the president?  Biden spoke his mind.  He was not offensive.  It’s not even like he threw a whole party or something.  He answered an interview question honestly, didn’t dodge it like many other politicians would have (and will continue to do), and demonstrated the courage of his conviction.

If his statement “made Obama look bad”, the only person Obama or his staff can really blame is the president himself.  Obama certainly could have come out fully and forcefully for same sex marriage sooner, especially if, as he claims, he had reached this conclusion before Biden’s public moment.  Attaching the term “gaffe” to every phrase that comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth doesn’t work.  If Biden pushed Obama–even inadvertently–good.  Obama has been conciliatory, overly compromising, and too passive on a number of issues: climate change, the debt negotiations, supporting 10-1 spending cuts to tax increases in an effort to appease Republicans,  passing another round of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, health care reform, banking reform, anyone?

It’s been said that Obama staffers are upset because Obama had a huge rollout planned.  K, well, you snooze, you lose.  A bigger issue, though: way to play politics with people’s lives.  Oh, the administration was waiting for an opportune moment?  Well, waiting until an election year at all is probably not the most opportune moment–unless they’re blatantly pandering.

Oh, well.  Obama has a very strong record on LGBT rights including not supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, strengthening rights for domestic partners and protections for the LGBT community, spearheading the effort and corralling the necessary votes to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act, and more.  Obama declared his support for same sex marriage in an interview, and while lingering questions remain about political pressure and whether his language was “strong enough”, it was a monumental civil rights moment.  The first sitting president in history used his bully pulpit to influence the country.  All’s well that ends well, right?  Not quite.

The story about Mitt Romney and John Lauber came to light around the same time.  5 witnesses testified to The Washington Post that they were deeply ashamed of the incident, regretted it, and directly fingered Romney as the ringleader.  They claimed that Lauber screamed and cried as he was immobilized.  In the words of one witness, he “was terrified” and “it was an assault”.  Romney claims to not remember the incident and offered the same asshole not-apology apology that people offer when they are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions or when they think the accuser is just too sensitive, i.e., the one with the problem.  He chuckled, claimed he played pranks and engaged in “youthful hijinks”, and that if he did offensive things, he’s sorry if people interpreted them that way.  He also said this was 48 years ago, and let’s focus on the economy, pretty please, because as even Republican strategists have claimed, keeping the focus solely on the economy is the only way he has a shot at winning.

I received an email from moveon.org that aimed to capitalize on the Romney incident.  The language used absolutely exploited John Lauber in order to raise money for Democrats.  It shifted the focus from the bullying incident to making fun of Romney (because an eye for an eye is always the way to go), and it used the Lauber story as a draw.  It glossed over why the situation was terrible, and instead pushed shameless partisan self-promotion.  The email was entitled “Dark Incident”.  This email was a dark incident.  Way to be unprofessional.  The email sensationalized events and then brought in irrelevant information.  The organization does not need to do that.  The story speaks for itself.  Way to stay classy, Move On.

To say society is in flux would be trite.  Society is always in flux.  We should all take a page from Vice President Biden’s book and take personal responsibility, while diplomatically stating our personal opinions.  Shooting each other down and out-nastying each other just turns people off.  The last thing we need is more disillusionment with the only system we have to protect us and to promote our rights as citizens.  It’s easier to sit in the dark of the allegorical cave, and throw stones at each other, playing it safe.  In the immortal words of Maurice Freehill, “Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?”  And if politicians choose to invoke William Winthrop’s iconic “City Upon a Hill”, (which they are prone to do), then they should strive to live up to this ideal.  We all should.