Confession: I Am Misunderstanding Something About Government

Perhaps I have this wrong. 

I swear I remember a time when novelists portrayed the life of the bureaucrat, politician, or prison guard as the bleakest of all vocations; barren, grey, full of the tedium of rules, regulations; of capricious changes in protocol. I swear such jobs were described as the very acme of inefficiency, laziness, and meaninglessness. And I swear that other storytellers talked about the dreariness of those bureaus that were indeed incredibly efficient, portraying them as mindless, soulless assembly lines of conformity, warning us all that the perfectly efficient world was a dead one. Like a concentration camp, full of mechanical, dehumanizing harmony. 

But perhaps I have this wrong. 

I swear I remember a time when being an employee of the state was something one admitted with reluctance, fearing embarrassment. Unless one was a governor, or some other such personage of apparent import (like a foreign diplomat), a person did not generally flaunt that he or she was on the public payrolls. After all, state workers were not just seen as poorly compensated. They were seen as somewhat incompetent.  Saying one worked in the public sector was not the sort of thing one boasted about at a dinner party, unless one simply meant to boast about job security or some other banality. 

But perhaps I have this wrong.

I have this vague but haunting recollection of teachers, singers, poets, rock stars and filmmakers, all warning me about the vapidity, the soul-stripping vapidity, of work in government, of employment in the wastelands of civil service where conformity is tantamount -- for the collective "good." I thought I was weaned on rebelling against this soul-robbing collectivization. Wasn't I? Wasn't I told that the public sector, that world encased in red-tape and regulations and reforms and agendas and referendums and motions and amendments, was a black hole of creativity? Wasn't I warned to flee such places? Weren't these places and jobs always portrayed as eternally dull and insipid, inspiring nothing but listlessness and ennui? What about "estrangement" and "alienation"? Weren't these the offspring of the government complexes epitomized in the flat cement of the Berlin Wall? Wasn't I told to dream big dreams, to be my own person, to find my own way, to be a free spirit creating my own meaning, my own value and art? Wasn't I told to cultivate my own sense of the beautiful? I swear I was told these things, and that the state, the enemy of beauty, was death, just like the state hospitals were death: that if you wanted the worst humanity had to offer, just turn to the government for a job, or real help, or some cure.  

But perhaps I have this wrong.

I can't tell you where these images come from, the ones I have in my head, of drab and pitted hallways, of neighborhoods and projects -- often the same thing -- stretched out in grotesque repetition, cut in perfect egalitarian geometry: of impersonal streets on which one could only see blank-eyed pedestrians, or bicyclists rolling toward some government factory. I don't know where I heard comics mock "Gubmint cheese" and other sub-standard "charitable" handouts. I don't know where I heard satirists sneering at military housing, or condemning the projects I saw as a kid in the south Bronx, Newark, Jersey City, or the fringes of Philly. And I swear I was told that a government-made vehicle was a "shit box," especially if it came from those places where government was at its most-controlling best. 

But perhaps I have this wrong. 

Where, I wonder, did I learn to cringe when that huge family in upstate Wherever -- where all of them were employed by the prison or state college -- told me that I ought to get a "real" job and "work for the state?" Somewhere I must have learned to recoil when I heard of some poor sap who had to go to the state hospital for surgery, but I don't know where. Surely I must have been told by someone that having a public defender instead of a private defense lawyer was for losers, that everyone knew great lawyers didn't defend the lower primates in district or county court. Somewhere along the way someone must have told me that the county nursing home was not where I wanted to live out my days. Didn't someone tell me these things? 

Where, oh, where did I learn to equate the state with mediocrity, and far worse? And where did I get the idea that the private sector was where the achievers were, where talent flourished, where the best of the best were allowed to innovate, to explore and create and create and create, and were then challenged to innovate even more? (Oh, yes, I am aware of the dehumanizing potential of the free market and unfettered industry, but I am not suggesting these are lovely, either. But I may be suggesting that they are lovelier.)

All I can conclude is that I invented this all by myself. This is my doing. I am just dreaming that school -- and art and music and film and literature and church and nature -- taught me that the labors of the state, when made the highest good of society, are hell on earth.

But perhaps I have this wrong, too. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Failing The Lemon Test

It will be interesting to see if the health care reform projects passed by Barack Obama and his colleagues in Congress will now pass the Lemon Test. 

Mandatory health insurance is touted a great thing among the more liberally inclined folks dwelling among us. It is especially great since it reaches those unfortunate folks -- 30 million of them -- who do not currently have coverage. 

Of course, no one likes to talk about that 30 million, who they are, and what they want. Some of that 30 million includes people who hate medicine, who want nothing to do with doctors; who know that medicine and doctors are not infallible, that doctors often misdiagnose, poison, maim, wound or even kill people. Some people are just plain phobic: sadly, they MUST pay for something they not only don't want, but fear.

Another subset of the American public is that group, like some if not many members of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, who do not want health insurance simply because practitioners of Christian Science seek help in different ways. Is the United States government going to force certain religiously-driven people to comply with something that stands against their religious beliefs? Is the United States government going to subsidize alternative forms of care that are religiously- and not medically-based? Is the United States going to fund care at a Christian Science facility? Is it going to force adult Jehovah's Witnesses to receive blood transfusions if needed, though such transfusions are against the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses' church? 

Seriously, the religious and therefore legal implications of the new reforms are dizzying. If certain religious people can be exempted from such insurance, then all religious people can. If the federal government is going to pay for Christian Science-based care (for example), such will be denounced as excessive entanglement in religion (which means, it fails the Lemon Test). And if religious people who DO NOT WANT HEALTH INSURANCE are FORCED to do so, the state, then, will be acting as "Theologian-in-chief," telling its citizens that the cult of the state trumps the cult of any particular church, synagogue or mosque. 

These issues are an obvious result of poorly formed, poorly planned legislation that was passed with nary a debate. This is the result of taking advantage of a manufactured crisis and its resultant fears, of ramming through something not because it was good for the country, but because it was good for a man and his party. And it is just further evidence of the Democrats' "Legislate now, think later" behavior. It is, sadly, a behavior that looks more like addiction than anything else. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Why I Can't Vote For Democrats in '08 (And Neither Should You) -- Part 1: Health Care Hypocrisy

Let me begin this essay with a concession I've made before: Let it be conceded that only one major political party in America cares about the poor, and that party is the Democratic Party.

With that sweeping concession made, let me ask a question. Barack Obama has raised $450,000,000 this election cycle; he has spent nearly $400,000,000 thus far. I ask without flinching: Why isn't this money going to the poor?

What follows in part comes from an argument I presented in a lengthy series of essays published under the title of "Making Poverty History."

____________

In 2005, I wrote the following, and it is crucial to my own polemic against my voting for a Democrat this year:

I want to make one point about someone who remains arguably the figurehead of the Democratic Party, John Kerry. Mr. Kerry, in case you have forgotten, is a member of that class aptly called the super-rich, with he and his wife, Tereza Heinz, worth at least $500,000,000. (That Ms. Heinz' fortunes came through her previous marriage to a Republican is not really germane to this point, though it is curious in a gossipy sort of way.) And we will recall with ease that Mr. Kerry stood for political values that included rolling back the Bush tax cuts. To Mr. Kerry, the tax cuts did nothing to benefit the poor or middle classes.…

I am wondering if you knew that Mr. Kerry and his wife chose, in 2004, NOT to pay Massachusetts state income tax at an optional higher rate offered by the tax commission for those with high incomes. That this made a few New England papers, and the talkshow circuit in Boston, is about the broadest audience this tid-bit reached. Mr. Kerry and his wife, no doubt with the shrewdest of accountants at hand, chose to keep some of their earnings to themselves, choosing not to give extra money to the state coffers, money which could have been used, in part, to fund programs for the needy or less fortunate.

Mr. Kerry's actions, or inactions, are applauded by me as actions well within his right. I am glad that he was free to do with his money as he saw fit. But I can't help but note a bit of irony here: The super-rich gave themselves a tax cut though they appear to oppose cuts in government funding.

I hope you get the point: John Kerry ran a presidential campaign in 2004 which was critical of the Bush tax cuts and opposed to gross cuts in government spending. But privately, when offered a chance to actually increase government coffers, Mr. Kerry abstained during tax time. It is really a rather telling fact.

Readers attentive to the political hankerings over the last several election cycles know that universal health care coverage is a key item in the Democrat Party's legislative agenda. Hillary Clinton attempted to develop a health care plan during her husband's presidency; John Edwards was quite passionate about health care reform during this latest election cycle. It is a wildly popular idea: just last month, New York Times columnist and Democrat celebrant Paul Krugman waxed on giddily about the prospects of universal health coverage in the United States.

But let me make this point, one which to some will seem utterly vapid: the Democrats have themselves done nothing to provide health insurance for the uninsured, or coverage for the uncovered. And they have had every chance to; like John Kerry at tax time, Democrats have chosen to keep their money to themselves. Let me explain.

After John Kerry lost his presidential bid in 2004, there was much harumphing about the callousness of America, particularly toward the 40 million souls who had no health insurance.

In the wake of Kerry's failed bid, I wrote the following:

Please recall with me two things from the 2004 election. First, that the Democratic Party ran on a platform that included federally-funded health care for the 40 million Americans without any health insurance. That these 40,000,000 include 18-28 year-olds who generally don't even think about health care; the very rich who choose to finance their own medical care; and those folks who simply do not want such insurance is interesting to note: the 40,000,000 is not necessarily replete with ONLY poor people.

Second, recall that John Kerry received over 59,000,000 votes by Americans who shared his views about health care for "the poorest among us." Recall too, that as a result of Mr. Kerry's defeat by George W. Bush in that election, many Democratic leaders and pundits rebuked the pro-Bush electorate for being uncompassionate, "un-Christian", and uncaring vis-á-vis the less fortunate. There was from coast-to-coast, from C-Span to lowly newspaper editorial pages, an outrage and disgust at the moral callousness of the Bush administration and the Republicans' cold-heartedness. Many expressed that they wanted to leave America, as it was no longer a kind or generous place: America had closed its doors on the poor. (New Hampshire bumper sticker: Bush/Cheney '04 - Leave No Billionaire Behind.)

Let me ask: What has prevented the 59 MILLION Americans who voted for John Kerry from pooling their own resources together in a brilliant 501(c) and creating a health insurance program for the needy? What has hindered the 59 MILLION Americans who believe health insurance is of primary importance from creating even a temporary and private fund for health care? Surely the 59 MILLION Americans who voted for John Kerry and universal coverage could have donated at least $1 each; but knowing that most if not at all could donate $10 apiece, why did no one see that a $590 million private program to insure 40 million folks meant that there was a safety net of more than $10 million per uninsured person? Where is the Democratic Party compassion I so often hear touted?

Let us note that Barack Obama and his party are poised to raise and spend MORE than half a BILLION dollars on getting him elected, but have not raised a single penny in the last 15 years to help care for those without health insurance. Apparently the desperate needs of so many vulnerable souls is not all that desperate. No, no. The Democrats are only compassionate when they can, by FORCE OF LAW, have every wage earner pay for health care for others. The urgency is not particularly urgent; but what is urgent is grabbing by legislative fiat the wealth of others so the "desperate needy," that group ignored by Democrats during the off-season, can be treated "justly" and "compassionately."

This is one reason why I am not a Democrat. That the Democratic Party can raise and spend an obscene amount of money merely to promote the PROMISE of health care, without ANY guarantees that such promises will be kept or the election even secured, proves two damning things: The party does not REALLY believe in health care, or else it would offer it via private funding, which it could easily do (even if only temporary); and the party is really only interested in one truly urgent need -- gaining power. The uninsured poor? the vulnerable? the desperate? Well, they will just have to wait until the Democrats win the White House and procure sovereignty over the Congress. In the meantime, those who do not have what they so desperately need can comfort and console themselves by blaming those callous Republicans.

As an aside, how odd to see the "compassionate" squirm when they learn that conservatives actually give more to charity than liberals.

Food for thought, or not.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.