Compassion, Selfishness, Apathy, and Charity
Intro. To American Government and Politics
Evan Mowry
“What is wrong with American Politics today and can it be fixed? Do you agree or disagree with his argument? Why or why not?”
American society has twisted in on itself in such a way as to create a culture of have-nots and have-mores. “…how can we live in the richest, most privileged country in the world, and at the peak of its economic performance, and hear from Republicans and too many Democrats that we cannot afford to provide health security for all our citizens?”(Wellstone, Intro.) It is ludicrous to suggest that we actually cannot afford progress: the money is there, as is demonstrated every time election donations are totaled, and every time congress affirms another multi-billion dollar extension to war funds. With the money currently spent on the Iraq war, it would have been possible to completely insure over 86 million children for 1 year*. America has the greatest spending power of any one nation on this planet**, but we are the “only major industrialized nation without guaranteed health care” (Wellstone, p. 51). For a majority religious country, with a “compassionate conservative” at its head, this obliviousness to human needs does not make sense.
The Conscience of a Liberal provides much evidence about what is wrong in contemporary American politics. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone is correct in his interpretation of the governmental process: that issues such as general welfare and privileged/underprivileged democracy need to be resolved, and in a way that benefits the many instead of benefiting the few. This disparity can be evened out, but only by changing the current system.
General welfare is the combined health, education, communication between, and happiness of the American populace. This is the concern of the government: to protect and serve the people that allow it to exist.
The concept of universal health care, considered without strings, can be said to be amenable to everybody: free, quality health care and medication for whoever needs it is a noble, righteous goal. It is the responsibility of government to protect key personal rights, one of which is equality. Currently, many poor people simply cannot afford to be as healthy as their rich counterparts. This is wrong. Care for maladies, whether they are psychological or physical, should not be subjective. However, it is in the interests of Insurance Companies to charge high premiums to low-risk insurers, deny coverage to high-risk ones. Said Ted Kennedy about a single-payer health care system, “I agree this plan is the best proposal. But it does not have a chance: the insurance industry hates it” (Wellstone, p. 43). It was not opposed because it was unrealistically progressive, nor was it opposed because of its inability to serve America, but merely because an industry felt it would cut their profits. It is not right that the many should suffer so that the few can wallow in success, but the political system is set up to encourage, or at least maintain, that relationship.
Money is the motivation behind politicians, not because they are inherently evil, but because they are sequestered away from their constituents the majority of the time, surrounded by interest group lobbyists. It is akin to doing math homework in a nudie bar: you might finish, but it will take much longer and won’t be as well done due to distractions. Your own interests (women) might begin to take precedent over metaphorical interests of your constituents (the homework). George W. Bush, in his recently successful bid to remain the President, received 80% of his PAC contributions from business interests, while only receiving 1% from labor***. I think it not only indicative about his agenda: that big business would give such an incumbent so much, whereas labor would neglect to give him much money, but also telling of the lobbying power of CEOs as opposed to Labor Unions. The root problem is that candidates are being elected on mix of a social/moral and funds basis, but they are working in an environment that respects money a lot more than personal beliefs.
Not only Health Care; education is another area where America has failed itself. “We will have no real security until we are willing to invest in the health, skills, and character of our children.” (Wellstone, p. 74) The basis for independent, rational citizens and, as a result, a successful democratic state, is education. While the linchpin of democracy might be communication between the different levels of government, the linchpin of the people is a well-informed and educated public.
There is a huge disparity in lower-income school districts when compared to upper class ones. “Justice for all” is a concept that all Americans are familiar and agree with, but it is one whose actual practice has long since fallen by the wayside, if it ever truly existed at all. If justice is merely procedural equality, then where is the basis to accept the inequality being meted out in our public school systems? Once again, the funds are there to correct this injustice and, once again, the problem lies not with the people in the schools but with society as a greater whole.
“Among the twenty-six leading industrialized nations, America ranks sixteenth in living standards among the poorest one fifth of children, seventeenth in terms of low birth weights, eighteenth in income disparities between rich and poor children, and dead last in protecting its children against gun violence.” (Wellstone, p. 107) Not only is this unfortunate, it is wrong. The reason these problems exist in this, the country that tops the same list of 26 nations in terms of GDP and comes second in average income, is because the government, while respecting the poor, see no reason to listen to their complaints. The poor will not provide them with a 30 second spot during primetime television in the next election, the rich will, and the wealthy, therefore, wield the true power in politics. Individual congressmen might take it upon themselves to champion the poor, but they inevitably ask themselves whether they can do more good by making “safe” choices, appeasing those who can get them re-elected than by voting their commitments, and that manner of thinking self-perpetuates.
This manner of thinking is apparent when considering the debate around welfare reform. The arguments against welfare were not that it was too “big government”, nor that it infringed upon freedoms, but that it is merely costing tax dollars to those who do not benefit from it. Politicians themselves are not entirely to blame: if a senator promotes welfare, and his constituents disagree with him, he will be replaced with someone who supports welfare reform. This is a perfect example of people directly affecting the lives of their neighbors and co-workers in an adverse way, merely out of selfishness or ignorance. Society, and its lack of care for itself as a whole, has become its own worst enemy.
In its pursuit of capitalist ideals and personal freedoms, America has forgone utilitarianism; become a country of frivolous rights, and forsaken its commitment to the people. Recently, it has forcefully proselytized its views over other countries, forgetting about its current, domestic problems. America has stuck to what it was, and has ignored what it must become: a country of true equality and opportunity.
I agree wholeheartedly with Paul Wellstone and his view of American society and what needs to change, and I emphatically agree that it can change; it requires very little sacrifice other than the enormous sacrifice of accepting that the good of the many is the good of the few.
Bibliography
Directly Quoted Sources
The Conscience of a Liberal: reclaiming the compassionate agenda, by Paul Wellstone
*http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html
**http://www.cylist.com/List/400300719/
***http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00008072
Sources of Interest/Related Topics
http://www.fec.gov/
Intro. To American Government and Politics
Evan Mowry
“What is wrong with American Politics today and can it be fixed? Do you agree or disagree with his argument? Why or why not?”
American society has twisted in on itself in such a way as to create a culture of have-nots and have-mores. “…how can we live in the richest, most privileged country in the world, and at the peak of its economic performance, and hear from Republicans and too many Democrats that we cannot afford to provide health security for all our citizens?”(Wellstone, Intro.) It is ludicrous to suggest that we actually cannot afford progress: the money is there, as is demonstrated every time election donations are totaled, and every time congress affirms another multi-billion dollar extension to war funds. With the money currently spent on the Iraq war, it would have been possible to completely insure over 86 million children for 1 year*. America has the greatest spending power of any one nation on this planet**, but we are the “only major industrialized nation without guaranteed health care” (Wellstone, p. 51). For a majority religious country, with a “compassionate conservative” at its head, this obliviousness to human needs does not make sense.
The Conscience of a Liberal provides much evidence about what is wrong in contemporary American politics. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone is correct in his interpretation of the governmental process: that issues such as general welfare and privileged/underprivileged democracy need to be resolved, and in a way that benefits the many instead of benefiting the few. This disparity can be evened out, but only by changing the current system.
General welfare is the combined health, education, communication between, and happiness of the American populace. This is the concern of the government: to protect and serve the people that allow it to exist.
The concept of universal health care, considered without strings, can be said to be amenable to everybody: free, quality health care and medication for whoever needs it is a noble, righteous goal. It is the responsibility of government to protect key personal rights, one of which is equality. Currently, many poor people simply cannot afford to be as healthy as their rich counterparts. This is wrong. Care for maladies, whether they are psychological or physical, should not be subjective. However, it is in the interests of Insurance Companies to charge high premiums to low-risk insurers, deny coverage to high-risk ones. Said Ted Kennedy about a single-payer health care system, “I agree this plan is the best proposal. But it does not have a chance: the insurance industry hates it” (Wellstone, p. 43). It was not opposed because it was unrealistically progressive, nor was it opposed because of its inability to serve America, but merely because an industry felt it would cut their profits. It is not right that the many should suffer so that the few can wallow in success, but the political system is set up to encourage, or at least maintain, that relationship.
Money is the motivation behind politicians, not because they are inherently evil, but because they are sequestered away from their constituents the majority of the time, surrounded by interest group lobbyists. It is akin to doing math homework in a nudie bar: you might finish, but it will take much longer and won’t be as well done due to distractions. Your own interests (women) might begin to take precedent over metaphorical interests of your constituents (the homework). George W. Bush, in his recently successful bid to remain the President, received 80% of his PAC contributions from business interests, while only receiving 1% from labor***. I think it not only indicative about his agenda: that big business would give such an incumbent so much, whereas labor would neglect to give him much money, but also telling of the lobbying power of CEOs as opposed to Labor Unions. The root problem is that candidates are being elected on mix of a social/moral and funds basis, but they are working in an environment that respects money a lot more than personal beliefs.
Not only Health Care; education is another area where America has failed itself. “We will have no real security until we are willing to invest in the health, skills, and character of our children.” (Wellstone, p. 74) The basis for independent, rational citizens and, as a result, a successful democratic state, is education. While the linchpin of democracy might be communication between the different levels of government, the linchpin of the people is a well-informed and educated public.
There is a huge disparity in lower-income school districts when compared to upper class ones. “Justice for all” is a concept that all Americans are familiar and agree with, but it is one whose actual practice has long since fallen by the wayside, if it ever truly existed at all. If justice is merely procedural equality, then where is the basis to accept the inequality being meted out in our public school systems? Once again, the funds are there to correct this injustice and, once again, the problem lies not with the people in the schools but with society as a greater whole.
“Among the twenty-six leading industrialized nations, America ranks sixteenth in living standards among the poorest one fifth of children, seventeenth in terms of low birth weights, eighteenth in income disparities between rich and poor children, and dead last in protecting its children against gun violence.” (Wellstone, p. 107) Not only is this unfortunate, it is wrong. The reason these problems exist in this, the country that tops the same list of 26 nations in terms of GDP and comes second in average income, is because the government, while respecting the poor, see no reason to listen to their complaints. The poor will not provide them with a 30 second spot during primetime television in the next election, the rich will, and the wealthy, therefore, wield the true power in politics. Individual congressmen might take it upon themselves to champion the poor, but they inevitably ask themselves whether they can do more good by making “safe” choices, appeasing those who can get them re-elected than by voting their commitments, and that manner of thinking self-perpetuates.
This manner of thinking is apparent when considering the debate around welfare reform. The arguments against welfare were not that it was too “big government”, nor that it infringed upon freedoms, but that it is merely costing tax dollars to those who do not benefit from it. Politicians themselves are not entirely to blame: if a senator promotes welfare, and his constituents disagree with him, he will be replaced with someone who supports welfare reform. This is a perfect example of people directly affecting the lives of their neighbors and co-workers in an adverse way, merely out of selfishness or ignorance. Society, and its lack of care for itself as a whole, has become its own worst enemy.
In its pursuit of capitalist ideals and personal freedoms, America has forgone utilitarianism; become a country of frivolous rights, and forsaken its commitment to the people. Recently, it has forcefully proselytized its views over other countries, forgetting about its current, domestic problems. America has stuck to what it was, and has ignored what it must become: a country of true equality and opportunity.
I agree wholeheartedly with Paul Wellstone and his view of American society and what needs to change, and I emphatically agree that it can change; it requires very little sacrifice other than the enormous sacrifice of accepting that the good of the many is the good of the few.
Bibliography
Directly Quoted Sources
The Conscience of a Liberal: reclaiming the compassionate agenda, by Paul Wellstone
*http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html
**http://www.cylist.com/List/400300719/
***http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00008072
Sources of Interest/Related Topics
http://www.fec.gov/
posted by evan at 4:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home