Today’s quiz, boys and girls, will
consist of one multiple choice question, regarding a man who would be
president, and who actually has people
voting and working for him: Newt
Gingrich. Newt is (A) Megalomaniacal
(B) Dishonest and hypocritical (C) Racist (D) All of the above.
If you chose (D) all of the above,
you may now go to the head of the class.
Let us review –answer- by-answer, (A) Why that is the correct choice,
and (B) What it means for the Republican Party Establishment: Megalomaniacal: If Newt saying that he will have a colony
on the moon by the end of his second term, that could become our fifty first
state isn’t enough, or that he wants Brad Pitt to play him in
a movie, then perhaps this quote can qualify: “I
want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it.” The dishonesty and hypocrisy
labels are explained, of course, due to his role in trying to impeach President Clinton for sexual
misconduct, while committing sexual misconduct himself. Finally, calling Obama the “food stamp
president,” as well as a “Kenyan anti-colonialist,” (as if colonialism were a
good thing) should qualify Newt as a racist.
It is painfully obvious to sane
people that a Newt Gingrich presidency would make George
W. Bush look like a statesman for the ages by comparison. (No, I don’t think any of the others would be
much better, in fact, Rick
Santorum and/or
Ron Paul might be worse, but that’s for another discussion). The Republican establishment, led by the likes
of former senator and presidential candidate, Bob
Dole, has come out strongly against Gingrich. Dole has correctly noted that virtually no
one who has served with Gingrich has endorsed him. Gingrich
probably will not get the nomination.
But my question is if he did, would the Republican establishment, knowing
the damage he would do to the country, support him anyway, or would they
endorse President
Obama, despite their differences with him?
We know the Tea
Party people will put ideology and party above country every time. But what would the Republican establishment
do? Since Mitt Romney (not exactly a
paragon of integrity himself) will probably get the nomination, the question seems
moot. But it’s an interesting one,
nonetheless.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IN A
RELATED MATTER …
As
someone cursed by the need to understand people whose thought processes are
diametrically opposed to my own, I found a recent Bill Moyers’ program absolutely
fascinating. Moyer’s guest, social
psychologist, Jonathan Haidt had conducted
a study on how liberals and conservatives see the world differently. Haidt examined the dynamics involved when
presidential candidate and extreme libertarian, Ron Paul, was presented with a
scenario in which a healthy young man chose not to purchase health insurance, and
then became seriously ill. Would Paul
let the young man die? Normal Americans were aghast as tapes of the encounter
played on the news, showing the Republican audience members shouting, in a
scene reminiscent of the ancient Roman coliseums where Christians were fed to
lions, “Let him die!”
Haidt
explained that the conservative mindset is steeped in the tradition of
consequences and individual freedom. In
their minds, the young man had the right to decide not to buy health insurance,
but with that right came the obligation to deal with the consequences of his
decision. Haidt provided the analogy of the
ant and the grasshopper. He reminded us
that the grasshopper perishes as the result of his decision not to work, and that
the ant does nothing to assist the grasshopper.
Thanks
to Haidt’s work, I now have a vague idea of the “logic” at work in conservative
politics. I profoundly disagree with it,
but I kind of, almost, understand it. The conservatives
are concerned more with the rights of the individual than the group.
Haidt’s explication never mentions
any concern for the impact of the young man’s plight on society. It is purely a matter of the individual
having the right to literally gamble his life away.
This
conservative perspective views society as an aggregate of unrelated, disconnected
individuals. The
young man can gamble his life away, because, in their world view, the rest of
us are in no way diminished by allowing him to die. We owe
each other nothing.
This
world view might explain, for example, why people in rural areas where gun
violence is not an issue, are unwilling to compromise on gun legislation, even
if it means that most of their guns would be unaffected, and that many lives
might be saved in urban areas. This view
also helps explain the conservative view on extending unemployment insurance as
well as a host of other social issues. As
I said before, it’s not that I can begin to agree with it, I’m just trying to understand
it.
You have a problem with holding the young man responsible who didn't buy health insurance, even though he could afford it. However, the responsibility doesn't go away - so, since you don't want to force the responsibility on him, who would you force the responsibility on??? Anyone else, including the tax payer, had nothing to do with the poor decision that put him in his predicament. If it is agreed to take care of his medical needs, would you be comfortable with setting him up on a payment plan to repay the taxpayer? At least that way HE is still responsible for the consequences of his poor decision, and it will most likely change that behavior in the future. If you don't like that idea, how would you effect change in his decision making? And how would you discourage others from making the same poor decisions, since they will catch on to the racket to get free health coverage with no consequences for personal actions or decisions?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you mention that conservatives believe "we owe each other nothing." What conservatives believe is that individuals owe each other responsible actions that do not cause dire consequences for the rest of society. In your example the dire consequences would be higher health care costs for all. His actions amount to theft.
I agree that this young man should be held responsible. That is why we passed a mandatory Healthcare bill that was opposed by conservatives. If this young man has a terminal illness, we won't be teaching him anything for the future, he will be DEAD. Isn't it better to have this young man purchase health insurance, than to teach his corpse a lesson?
DeleteActually, in the Ron Paul example, we don't know that the hypothetical young man could "afford" health insurance. And if that was indeed the way Paul posited his scenario, I would argue that the example is flawed because it does not reflect the reality of our broken healthcare system.
DeleteThe reality is that most of the people who "choose" not to buy health insurance in this country are unemployed, under-employed or self-employed -- individuals who cannot afford the ridiculously expensive policies that greedy insurance companies offer to people who are not part of group plans. So the "choice" these people are left with is buy insurance or pay for other necessities; it's not buy insurance or a Porsche.
Consequently, they end up using emergency rooms as their primary healthcare facilities, and the rest of us subsidize THAT choice, which drives up healthcare costs even more.
Every other civilized nation has a single-payer healthcare system, not merely because it is the humane thing to do, but because it's the most fiscally responsible thing to do as well. What I can't understand is why the libertarians and free-market disciples have such difficulty seeing that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCharles,
ReplyDeleteWho are these people who supposedly have to choose between buying insurance or pay for other necessities? There are very, very few who actually fall into that category. If they own a cell phone, they can afford health insurance. If they have cable tv, they can afford health insurance, if they have a flat-screen tv, they can afford health insurance. If they have an x-box or wii or other gaming system, they can afford health insurance. Are there any left? Name them and there will be plenty of good Christian people and organizations – free organizations that are not run by government – that will help them out. They DO exist, I’ve seen them in action. One quick example is Ron Pauls son, Senator Rand Paul, who recently did cataract surgery for several people in his home community – pro-bono. We The People DO NOT need government care. We can take care of each other just fine.
“Every other civilized nation has a single-payer healthcare system”? Name them and we’ll discuss. That system is not humane, and it’s definitely not fiscally responsible. Because those lines are repeated over and over by media pundits doesn’t make it true.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteMandatory Healthcare bill. Let’s contemplate that for a minute. What is mandatory about healthcare??? Do you believe in liberty? Is it compatible with the term liberty to say that it is mandatory that I spend MY money on health care?
Also, who are “we” to teach this young man anything??? Are “we” this young man’s parents? Is he a little child that requires “we” to look after him? Liberty means I am free to live my own life, make my own decisions, and yes, learn from my own mistakes. Sometimes I choose to take risks, knowing that if I crap out on my risk I will have consequences to pay. Those consequences are what make me grow into a better person. I WANT the learning I gain from my own mistakes. I don’t need anyone, and I mean anyone, to teach me “a lesson.” I am a sovereign human being endowed with inalienable rights from my God, and no one can force me to purchase anything or do anything that I choose not to purchase or do. I dare any government agent or agency to challenge me on this. I will not choose to do anything against the principles I’ve learned from study of God’s word, I don’t care what anyone or any agency tells me I must do.
Dear Gary,
ReplyDeleteI shall try to keep this exchange civil and on high ground, though your narrow and naive view of the world makes it quite difficult.
I would suggest that before you write another word on this topic you take a moment to extract your head from the sand and actually spend some time outside of your social circle. If you actually believe that the vast majority of people in this country are choosing to forego health insurance in favor of consumer electronics, you live in an alternative universe.
You probably suspect -- as the pundits in the conservative echo chamber would have you believe -- that it's the lazy urban poor (i.e. black folks) who are making the ill-adivsed decision to go without health insurance so they can spend their welfare checks on gadgets and gizmos. I won't even waste time trying to disabuse of that notion (as ridiculous as it is). But the fact is, most of the people who are going without health insurance are poor white people with low-wage jobs and contract work. They live in remote rural areas where manufacturing plants have decamped for other shores and family farms have been bought up by developers.
They -- like their urban counterparts -- are far from even the most well-intentioned doctors who might do pro bono work (and those doctors, contrary to your Rand Paul example, are few and far between.)
And, you'd like to know what civilized countries have universal health care? Try The United Kingdom, France,Canada, Germany, Japan, Norway, South Korea, Sweden,and the list goes on, man. Try stepping away from Fox News and reading a bit to broaden your perspect.
Have you ever actually looked at a health insurance rates for people who do not belong to group plans (which the government subsidizes by way of tax breaks for employers)? Again, I suggest that before you write on this topic again, you actually do some research in this regard so that you can offer a more informed opinion.
Universal health care isn't about a paternalistic society teaching people lessons. It's about fixing a broken health care system marred by unequal access and devastating costs. It's about creating a cost-efficient, equitable system of health care delivery that ensures that even those with minimum wage jobs have access to dependable care (do not have to rely on being lucky enough to be in Rand Paul's sight lines.)
Finally, I am not biblical scholar, but the last time I looked in the Bible, it was silent on the issue of universal health care, nor do I find anything about the concept contrary to "God's word."
I promise that this is my very last word on this subject.
God bless,
Charles
Charles,
ReplyDeleteNo, I don’t believe the vast majority of people in this country are choosing to forego health insurance in favor of consumer electronics. Only roughly 15 percent of Americans are uninsured.
Here's the bottom line - we both agree that some of those people truly need help and should be helped. Where we disagree is on who should help them.
I believe it is the responsibility of individuals in the communities. I also believe those individuals WOULD help the needy if government would get out of the way. I believe in people's goodness and willingness to help. I see it every day.
You believe it is a government responsibility. I don't know where you get your trust in the government - it has proven to be an inefficient failure. Would you have agreed with that statement four years ago? Government does not inherently have the financial means or the authority to take on the responsibility. Government has NO money without stealing it from those it chooses to take from, and redistributing it to others.
Americans in general are good people. They understand that God teaches us to help those in need, and I have met very few who are unwilling to help – without government coercion.