![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinWhenever liberal judges or politicians bring up the state of justice overseas in discussing the laws here, a certain segment of the far right tends to go into a tizzy.
"New World Order!" they say.
"One World Government!" they say.
Pish, I say.
We're just taking stock of the world and our place in it. If we happen to notice that we're engaging in a practice that only countries Bush 43 identified as members of an "Axis of Evil", we wonder about the company we're keeping, you know?
We're not interested in giving up our sovereignty. We're interested in using it... using it to better ourselves as a nation, to form a "more perfect Union"... more perfect today than it was yesterday, we hope, and possibly even better still tomorrow.
And at its heart, that's what this health care debate is about: how we define ourselves as a people, how we define ourselves as a nation.
Is it enough to be a free people and a powerful nation? Does it not matter what we do with our power and freedom?
Is it enough that America is great?
My thought is that greatness is okay, so far as it goes, but it's better to be great and good than the alternative.
Those who are against reform say that there's an effort underway to change America, to redefine what America is and take it away from our roots and traditional values.
Folks, that's going to happen anyway. It's happening anyway.
A shining beacon on the hill? Not when we lag behind every other developed nation in how we treat our citizens.
A Christian nation? Not with how we do unto the least of us... and I don't know exactly who shall know us by our works, but probably not anyone we'd want to be seen with.
The land of opportunity? Face it, we've had a mixed record on that one. Unavoidable, really... if success doesn't bring rewards then "opportunity" is worthless, but if the rewards are meaningful then the rich hold advantages over the poor that carry across generations, resulting in unequal opportunities.
But even if we've never been perfect in an area, we can still do better or worse and right now we're doing much worse than we should be. The rising cost of health care shackles people to jobs by making a lot of traditional opportunities... entrepreneurship and education, for instance... too risky for the rewards.
The land of the free and the home of the brave? It's hard to be brave when you have to choose between food, rent, and medicine. It's impossible to be free when your choice is death from untreated but preventable conditions or a lifetime of onerous debt.
America is redefining itself by degrees. Like a satellite in a decaying orbit, the great and soaring dream of the world's first Democratic Republic will come crashing down if we're too afraid to make some necessary course corrections. We will become a third world country with scattered pockets here and there of breathtaking privilege. Within one hundred years, we may not be one nation indivisible, but two nations divided: a permanent underclass of workers who find that both the simple necessities of life and the opportunities for advancement are rigidly controlled and rationed in order to keep them in bondage, and an upper class that pats itself on the back and congratulates itself on having "made it" while exhorting the teeming masses to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
(Hopefully somebody among the underclass will be educated enough to appreciate the irony when the ruling class identify themselves as John Galt and claim the millions whose labor supports them are parasites and looters.)
And you know what? Eventually I think the underclass will pull themselves up... and it will be ugly. When our descendants some centuries hence read about "The American Revolution", they won't be reading about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They will be reading about something that would make the Bolsheviks blush and Robespierre go "Oh, my."
Because that's what it would take to upend a social order that entrenched in a nation so large, so great, and so powerful.
And with that, the redefining of America will be complete.
Call this speculation. Call this hyperbole. Call it a bit of fiction dreamed up by a purveyor of the same.
But don't be afraid to look at the path we're on and see where it's leading... not where you want it to lead, not where you think it should lead, but where it actually is leading: the gap between the rich and poor... the increasing barriers to opportunity... the almost pathological gutting and cutting of any tool we give ourselves to use our collective might and wealth and freedom to help our fellow citizens.
Making access to our leading edge health care system a public concern, a national concern isn't so much about "redefining America" as it is about examining our existing definitions and seeing how we measure up.
I think we can do better. I write this without irony: we can put a man on the moon. We can split the atom. We wrapped a continent in bands of iron and a world in bands of information.
Anybody who says we can't provide health care is underestimating us. Anybody who says we shouldn't... well, with as much respect as I can muster, I disagree with their definition of America.
"New World Order!" they say.
"One World Government!" they say.
Pish, I say.
We're just taking stock of the world and our place in it. If we happen to notice that we're engaging in a practice that only countries Bush 43 identified as members of an "Axis of Evil", we wonder about the company we're keeping, you know?
We're not interested in giving up our sovereignty. We're interested in using it... using it to better ourselves as a nation, to form a "more perfect Union"... more perfect today than it was yesterday, we hope, and possibly even better still tomorrow.
And at its heart, that's what this health care debate is about: how we define ourselves as a people, how we define ourselves as a nation.
Is it enough to be a free people and a powerful nation? Does it not matter what we do with our power and freedom?
Is it enough that America is great?
My thought is that greatness is okay, so far as it goes, but it's better to be great and good than the alternative.
Those who are against reform say that there's an effort underway to change America, to redefine what America is and take it away from our roots and traditional values.
Folks, that's going to happen anyway. It's happening anyway.
A shining beacon on the hill? Not when we lag behind every other developed nation in how we treat our citizens.
A Christian nation? Not with how we do unto the least of us... and I don't know exactly who shall know us by our works, but probably not anyone we'd want to be seen with.
The land of opportunity? Face it, we've had a mixed record on that one. Unavoidable, really... if success doesn't bring rewards then "opportunity" is worthless, but if the rewards are meaningful then the rich hold advantages over the poor that carry across generations, resulting in unequal opportunities.
But even if we've never been perfect in an area, we can still do better or worse and right now we're doing much worse than we should be. The rising cost of health care shackles people to jobs by making a lot of traditional opportunities... entrepreneurship and education, for instance... too risky for the rewards.
The land of the free and the home of the brave? It's hard to be brave when you have to choose between food, rent, and medicine. It's impossible to be free when your choice is death from untreated but preventable conditions or a lifetime of onerous debt.
America is redefining itself by degrees. Like a satellite in a decaying orbit, the great and soaring dream of the world's first Democratic Republic will come crashing down if we're too afraid to make some necessary course corrections. We will become a third world country with scattered pockets here and there of breathtaking privilege. Within one hundred years, we may not be one nation indivisible, but two nations divided: a permanent underclass of workers who find that both the simple necessities of life and the opportunities for advancement are rigidly controlled and rationed in order to keep them in bondage, and an upper class that pats itself on the back and congratulates itself on having "made it" while exhorting the teeming masses to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
(Hopefully somebody among the underclass will be educated enough to appreciate the irony when the ruling class identify themselves as John Galt and claim the millions whose labor supports them are parasites and looters.)
And you know what? Eventually I think the underclass will pull themselves up... and it will be ugly. When our descendants some centuries hence read about "The American Revolution", they won't be reading about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They will be reading about something that would make the Bolsheviks blush and Robespierre go "Oh, my."
Because that's what it would take to upend a social order that entrenched in a nation so large, so great, and so powerful.
And with that, the redefining of America will be complete.
Call this speculation. Call this hyperbole. Call it a bit of fiction dreamed up by a purveyor of the same.
But don't be afraid to look at the path we're on and see where it's leading... not where you want it to lead, not where you think it should lead, but where it actually is leading: the gap between the rich and poor... the increasing barriers to opportunity... the almost pathological gutting and cutting of any tool we give ourselves to use our collective might and wealth and freedom to help our fellow citizens.
Making access to our leading edge health care system a public concern, a national concern isn't so much about "redefining America" as it is about examining our existing definitions and seeing how we measure up.
I think we can do better. I write this without irony: we can put a man on the moon. We can split the atom. We wrapped a continent in bands of iron and a world in bands of information.
Anybody who says we can't provide health care is underestimating us. Anybody who says we shouldn't... well, with as much respect as I can muster, I disagree with their definition of America.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2009-09-15 11:51 am (UTC)Funny how they work a lot less well for people now than 8 years ago.
Any true economist can tell you that longterm health of the economy is to let failing businesses fail, to make way for those that can do it better.
If you are starting your sentence "any true", then ur doin it rong. Just sayin'. The essential question was whether or not the failure of a sufficient number of those companies would trigger global financial collapse. The consensus was that it would. Global financial collapse is NOT better for the long-term health of anyone but the cockroaches.
Granted, the collapse of the auto manufacturing sector was less likely to trigger global collapse, however, their failure and the follow-on collapse of the suppliers (down to several degrees of remove) would have lead to fairly significant hardship for a lot of workers in the US and abroad.
Perhaps cheap labor and a lower standard of living IS beneficial to the long-term health of the economy? But I don't see too many people getting in line to be the serfs.
no subject
on 2009-09-15 02:11 pm (UTC)Funny how they work a lot less well for people now than 8 years ago.
***I was speaking more to businesses than individuals.
If you are starting your sentence "any true", then ur doin it rong. Just sayin'. The essential question was whether or not the failure of a sufficient number of those companies would trigger global financial collapse. The consensus was that it would. Global financial collapse is NOT better for the long-term health of anyone but the cockroaches.
***How many of those that made the "consensus" had a vested financial or political interest in propping up those businesses? I'm thinking pretty much all of them.
no subject
on 2009-09-15 02:37 pm (UTC)I'll wait.
no subject
on 2009-09-15 03:03 pm (UTC)I'll wait. :)
no subject
on 2009-09-15 03:25 pm (UTC)And you spin me a scenario in which it doesn't.
Oh, look at that... I take the word "somehow" out of the first paragraph of this post and I'm done.
You?
no subject
on 2009-09-15 03:29 pm (UTC)And this right there is why we need the government to solve problems of public interest rather than the market... the market will give us all sorts of solutions that "speak more to businesses than individuals".
no subject
on 2009-09-15 04:01 pm (UTC)To be clear, I am NOT in favor of propping up "big business." The "market" is us. If they aren't satisfying the market they will not succeed. Government need not apply.
no subject
on 2009-09-15 04:02 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-09-15 04:08 pm (UTC)Or to be more specific, government is We The People. The market is Us The Persons.
In the absence of We The People acting collectively, certain of Us The Persons will inevitably seize power over the rest of Us The Persons. Inevitably. Each of Us The Persons can stand on individual guard 24/7 to prevent this from happening to Us, but that doesn't lead to a robust society or a fulfilling life of any kind for very many of us.
The government need apply, unless you favor a direct route to tyranny.
a republic...
on 2009-09-24 02:04 pm (UTC)First, I don't think I'm smart enough to figure out the healthcare mess... I agree it's a mess, and I've lived on both sides of the poverty line.
What makes me sad is your assertion that government is us. I'm sad because I wish it were true. It was supposed to be true. But it's not true. Whether because government is now done mostly on the national level, or for some other reason, our government is a democracy, which means that it represents the majority. Not all people equally, but the majority.
Which means I've never had a government that represents me, no matter which side they hail from. Here's a quick example, drawn from common issues:
One side wants to fight wars I don't agree with, and refuse homosexuals the ability to define their relationships as marriage. (To which I say, Why? They didn't ask to do it in your church.) But as a dad of three kids who saw a lot of sonograms (due to medical issues) along the way, I can't help but believe that in-utero babies are real people who should have the rights of people... and the other side weighs the rights of the mother at 100% against the right of the unborn child.
"We" are the government, as long as you're part of some majority. If you're not, you might be able to understand why it's sometimes tempting to want government to get the heck out.