A few weeks ago, while at my local library, I saw a
discussion group assembling for their monthly meeting. One of the leaders of
the group, recognizing me from another discussion group that I have attended,
invited me to participate. Often, these
discussions can be mind-numbing philosophical ones. But when she said the discussion would be about
healthcare, I just couldn’t resist. And
knowing that many in my area are of a conservative persuasion, I thought it
would be interesting to hear things from their perspective. And I must say that I wasn’t disappointed.
So the moderator asked an open-ended question to get things
started. How is healthcare working in
America? An elderly 80-something woman
said that her healthcare was just fine, thank you and that healthcare works
just fine as long as the government isn’t involved. I gently reminded her that her insurance
comes from Medicare which is a government program. Nonplussed, she said that the government
didn’t give her that insurance; she paid for it. Not wanting to rock the boat, especially as a
first time invited guest, I backed off.
But wanting to make a point, I then argued that if Medicare,
while not perfect, if it seems to work for our oldest population in the worst
health, couldn’t it work at least as well if we included all of the younger,
healthier people in the risk pool? This
predictably got lots of grumbling from many about what they see as the “government
takeover of healthcare” by the dreaded Obamacare.
Then to try and drive my point home, I said that the
overhead for Medicare is at about 3% which is far lower that the overhead for
private insurance companies that can be around 15 or 20%. This was too much for them to hear and they
let me have it with both barrels. What I
said couldn’t possibly be true because in their minds government is always
more wasteful and less efficient than private companies. With the majority there strongly believing this,
it was difficult to argue further. I
just wish that I had an Internet article like this one or this one at my disposal
to try and support this vital point I was trying to make.
Once the group got really riled up, they started talking
about how they don’t want government to make them pay for somebody else’s
insurance. And then another person
sitting across from me said he didn’t want to pay for food stamps so others
could use them to buy filet mignon and lobster.
What I wanted to say was that while someone could indeed buy these with
food stamps, their monthly allotment for food would run out well before when it
would be due to be replenished. But
clearly, this was about emotion and not logic.
More specifically, it was about their emotional frenzy against just
about anything the government does.
There’s a lot of government hating out there – which
would make sense if we had a dictatorship we didn’t elect in control of
us. But as much as we may not like some
of those who lead us, they did have to legitimately win an election to get
where they are. Doesn’t that count
for something?
Big government is taking away our freedom, they say. If government can’t be cut down enough to
suit some, shut it down. And then there
is the wish of conservative anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist who has stated
that he wants to see the government so small that we can "drown it in the bathtub". So what’s really feeding all of this
relentless anti-government sentiment? I think I know. Let me explain.
While we all know that a government that is too strong is
bad because it is repressive to its citizens, it is less intuitive that a
government that is too weak is just as bad but for a different reason.
A civilized society needs not only rules and regulations,
but also somebody to enforce them. And
that’s government. Among many other
needs we have, we need to know that the air we breathe, the food we eat, and
the water we drink is safe. We need to
know that our workplaces are safe and free of exploitation. We want to be assured that people or
businesses who make money from us do it without ripping us off through unfair
or deceptive practices.
When government power is weakened too much, it creates a
power vacuum. One that is gladly filled
by corporate and moneyed interests. To use the examples above, it is a
political environment where companies don’t have to worry so much about
pollution, or whether their workplaces are dangerous or their employees are
being exploited or whether they can get away with the abuses like those in the
financial sector that largely brought on the financial crash of 2008.
So when we see that a weakened government means more
wealth and power for big business and big money, maybe there is indeed a hidden
agenda behind all of the anti-government rhetoric. But nobody can get far by saying that their
agenda is to make more money, pay less taxes, have less regulation – and then use
the additional money they make to buy even more power through lobbying and
campaign contributions. So they have to
argue that it’s all about freedom from big government. And for those in the Tea Party and likeminded
people who already have an inherent dislike of government, this is an easy
sell.
While it can be argued that these people simply want smaller
government, their actions are rife with hypocrisy. When it comes to food stamps to help the
hungry, unemployment benefits to help the jobless, or health insurance to help
those without access to healthcare, that’s too much big government and has
to end! But when it comes to more government
handouts to the wealthy and to already highly profitable
corporations, they make much less of a fuss.
Perhaps it’s as simple as not wanting to bite the hand that is feeding (or
in this case financing) them. Having said this, the marriage between the Tea
Party and corporate America has not always been a smooth one. Shutting down the government or even the
threat of it was not at all appreciated by the business community.
So the result of all of this has been an economy that in the
last decade or so has been dreary for many of us in the middle and lower
classes while meanwhile, large corporations and the wealthy have prospered
handsomely. And with the economy still
hurting many people, it is easy for those on the right to say that we need a
Republican president since the one we have now hasn’t been able to do much –
ignoring the fact that much of his ineffectiveness has been due to the
obstructionism by Republicans in Congress, all under the pretense of promoting small
government.
While many political observers question whether a Republican
will be able to carry a presidential election anytime soon considering the
growing minority population, the party will still exert a significant amount of
power in Congress and in many state governments. With many congressional districts
gerrymandered so that most Republicans are in safe districts, they are expected
to remain in control of the House after the 2014 midterm elections. And with many Democratic seats up for
election in so-called “red states” which are often known for their strong
anti-government sentiments, Republicans have a decent chance of gaining a
Senate majority, too.
It was liberal commentator and comedian Bill Maher who said
that he can understand why rich people vote Republican since that is whose
interests they look out for. It’s the
others who aren’t rich and vote Republican that are more difficult to
understand. In my view, what is saddest
is that many of the middle class and poor who have endured the most economic
struggles in these down times will enthusiastically continue to vote Republican
because they still believe fighting what they see as “big government” or
“socialism” is the way to improve their lot in life – while those pulling the
strings behind the scenes will continue to be laughing – all the way to the
bank!
