RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

What Do Health-Care Reform, the 40-Hour Work Week, Unemployment Insurance, the Minimum Wage, etc., Have in Common?

by Chuck Gutenson 11-25-2009

Well, they were all brought to you be political progressives, they were all opposed by political conservatives, and they all are now viewed as fundamental presuppositions of a healthy society by virtually everyone.  Okay, all but health-care reform, but trust me, if it passes, in no time at all it will be viewed so positively that we will no longer be able to remember why it took us so long to implement it.  And, of course, the list actually includes many, many more initiatives—child labor laws, basic workplace safety rules, social security, Medicare, and so on.

In each case, the vast majority of political conservatives opposed them.  They told us that businesses would be ruined, that the problems resulting from implementing the initiatives would be worse than if we left things as they were, that implementing them would make us non-competitive, or, more generally, that the good life as we know it would be gone if we were so foolish as to pass these pieces of legislation.  One would think that after being wrong sooo many times, political conservatives would speak with a bit more humility, but alas, not so.  If one took some of the speeches in opposition to health-care reform, one could substitute “minimum wage laws” or “child labor laws” in place of “health-care reform” and it would be déjà vu all over again—to quote Yogi Berra.

So, it is not at all surprising to find that, as we are on the verge of possibly the most significant reform in American politics in the last 40 years, political conservatives are united against it.  We have the highest health care cost “per unit” than anyone else in the world, we are below the countries with universal coverage as far as customer satisfaction is concerned, we are somewhere near 40th in infant mortality (you’d think the pro-life forces would notice this), and it goes on.  Yet, in the midst of these overwhelming evidences to the contrary, those opposed to health-care reform think things are just fine.  All that is fine, and let’s make no mistake about it, are the financial interests of those who benefit from the status quo—the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc.  These are the ones to whom far too many of our politicos are indebted.  We need more politicians indebted to the common good, to the common person, to the public good.

There is no guarantee yet that there will be health care reform, though we are closer than ever before.  If we do succeed in overcoming the monied interests and act on behalf of the common good, check back with me in three years.  We can celebrate yet another case of political progressives going against special interests to move legislation in favor of the common good.  May it be so!

Chuck Gutenson is the chief operating officer for Sojourners.

Categories: Health
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • "How is a lot of that going to be done without legislation?"
    If you think Jesus came to wield a sword and build a Kingdom, you are mistaken. If you believe in the power of the gospel of peace, you will not need a sword. And if you have no other alternatives to building for a peaceful society, or building for the kingdom of God, than to legislate morality and justice by the sword, perhaps your gospel isn't as powerful as you believe it to be.

    I don't live under the assumption that all of my ideas about compassion, justice, and morality will be the solution to society's ills. Living under the assumption that legislation will solve all of that is neither imaginative nor Christian. Libertarians do not believe complete economic freedom will "solve everything" because libertarians don't believe anything will "solve everything." We live in a world where our ideal future is pursued under the banner of hope and liberty. That doesn't negate the need for laws and boundaries of moral order (hence a civil rights movement); rather, it gives meaning to rules and regulations: free people to do that which they believe is best for their own lives, and prevent people from aggressing one's neighbor (or punish them for doing it).

    When the children of poor people are enslaved by the government to specific failing educational institutions, don't blame businesses or the "white man." When the very little money poor people have is being taken from them and given to the wealthy by way of inflationary spending and wealth redistribution by the central bank, don't blame the free market. When their children are being sent to war because that's their "only way out" (thru the military scholarship promises), don't blame anybody but the government.
  • Octoberfurst
    I was being sarcarstic. I know you didn't say "let the poor rot" but that is basically what it comes down to.
    You recently said --quote--"I believe that through the power of the gospel, true and lasting change can be and will be made as Christians seek peaceful means to building for the Kingdom." Ok but how is a lot of that going to be done without legislation? (Read government involvement.) Do you think that the civil rights struggle did not need government involvement?
    Yes individual Christians--ie. MLK---got the people motivated but LBJ played a big part by sending in the National Guard and passing civil rights legislation. Granted over time Whites would have come to see that segregation was wrong. But how long were Blacks supposed to wait? Heck we could still be discussing segregation if it weren't for what the government did back in the 60's.
    I am not a "government worshipper" as you so smugly put it. But I don't believe that government is evil as so many conservatives do & think it can accomplish great good. Libertarians seem to believe that giving people total economic freedom will solve everything but they don't take into account how corrupt people are and that big business will use its clout to run roughshod over the workers. Granted we will never have a "perfect" government but I want to have a government that helps people not a government that basically does nothing.
  • First of all, I didn't say anything of the sort. Second, I don't believe in social Darwinism.

    Next time you want to comment on my thoughts, maybe address what I actually say, rather than your angry government-worshipping rhetoric.
  • Octoberfurst
    How true Xfree9, government shouldn't do anything to help the poor right? Just let them rot. After all, if they need money they just need to get a job. Same with healthcare. It's all so simple in your world isn't it?
    I find it ironic that someone who calls himself a Christian has such a social Darwinistic worldview. But I am sure you will say let charities take care of the poor. But the fact is, they can't. Only the government can really make a big difference. Hey. since you hate government so much I am sure you are all for cutting our enormous defense budget. That would free up a lot of money for healthcare!
  • Octoberfurst
    Conservatives brought "decent wages"? Surely you jest. Conservatives fought decent wages for employees for decades! It was the liberal Unions that made decent wages possible. Conservative CEOs used to bring in strike-breaking goons to bash in the heads of those workers who demanded better wages.
  • SamHamilton
    And what do eugenics, prohibition and leftist strongmen in developing countries have in common? They were all supported by progressives. As were forced sterilization, economically harmful price controls (ironically, the price controls during WWII were the genesis of today's archaic employer-based health care system), the internment of the Japanese, Western dictators in pre- and post-war Europe, and the modern-day European cap and trade system that has cost billions of dollars while not reducing emission at all.

    Perhaps the worst thing that progressives have inflicted on American society is the belief, as John Dewey put it, "Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology." Progressives altered the standard view held by Americans for generations that natural rights are a gift of God or nature. Instead they insisted that rights are derived from the government. The meaning of "freedom" was not something with which everyone was endowed and that the government was created to protect, but a gift from the state; freedom is a condition created by the government so that people can "effectively realize the potentialities that are theirs" (Dewey again). This belief relegated the idea of limited government to the dustbin and endowed the state with any power it needs to allow people to fully achieve their potential.

    Of course, this silly game can go 'round and 'round. We can all name things that "progressives" and "conservatives" have supported or opposed throughout history that were beneficial or detrimental to our society. None of them are reason enough to support or dismiss something that a contemporary progressive or conservative is supporting or opposing. Writing that because progressives supported some things in the past that we generally view as favorable today doesn't mean we should support every idea progressives come up with.
  • eschaming
    As a Canadian, I am following this debate with interest. A few years ago, Canadians were asked to vote for the "Greatest Canadian" and the one who came out on top was Tommy Douglas, a believer in the social gospel who brought universal healthcare to Canada.
    If you are interested in his story, it can be found here:
    http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/top_ten/nominee/doug...
    This is a legacy that will never be forgotten in our country and I am excited that you now have the opportunity for the same. No one should have to choose between bankruptcy and death.
  • NC77
    Thanks Justintime,

    If you read the table correctly in the Wilipedia link you sent you will see that there was an increase in debt both terms of Clinton.

    See the column - Increase debt ($T). It has positve numbers, indicating an increase in debt.

    You might be referring to the percentage of debt ratio to GDP. Which was reduced from the start of the term to the end of the term, so there was a decrease in - Increase debt/GDP.
    This is a ratio of debt compared to GDP, not gross or net national debt.

    Your own information contradicts your claim.

    No one is denying that Social Security has been raided for yearsto support general funding. Both sides do it, and so far only Bush II has tried to refrom Social Security.
  • NC77
    Unless I missed something. Clinton didn't pay down the debt. And wasn't Social Security raided to balance the budget that one year (was it 1999?). Remember Al Gore running on the "lock box" for Social Security in 2000?
  • NC77
    "Okay, all but health-care reform, but trust me, if it passes, in no time at all it will be viewed so positively that we will no longer be able to remember why it took us so long to implement it."

    I wonder how you justify saying this in light of the current bills in the house and senate. Do you know what will happen if those bills pass in their present state?
  • letjusticerolldown
    Beyond the Veteran's/Military system, the government delivers very little healthcare in the United States. What it does run is lots of insurance and regulation.
  • gideonpieters
    Hi,
    I think you miss a few points with the analogy you start of with. By stopping slavery or child labour, the government did not take over that particular sector of the economy. As I understand it right the Health care debate is around the government 'running it' the so called "public option". Whilst I am a new zealander I do not think there is anything in the constitution that authorises the government to do so. Different then in any other country of the world were Freedom is not loved at much, it is 'We the people' of the USA that need to regulate the government not the other way round. The government serves the people.
    At this stage I do not think 'the people' belief that the cost estimates of this plan will be kept, neither do they have confidence in the government running it. So get over it, and come to grips with how American do stuff.

    An opinion from an outsider I might offer is, that if the Americans stop sueing each other they would be able to make things a lot cheaper.
  • DHFabian
    Political conservatives did win the war against America's poor, not only through horrendous social policies (about which few have bothered to learn), but through a media that taught a generation not to care, or to understand that what we do to one chunk of the population has a powerful impact on the next.

    While too complex to detail here, the bottom line is that America -- most progressives included -- merely shrugged its shoulders when welfare funds were raided to cover the costs of annual corporate welfare. The campaign that brought us to this point taught us that under our flawless capitalist system, people are poor only because they're lazy, that they lose their jobs only because they didn't work hard enough, and that enabling people to survive only takes away their incentive to provide for themselves. Anything, repeated often enough, will be accepted as truth by the public -- especially a public that isn't inclined to care in the first place. (Note: Americans are big on theoretical compassion, the sort that requires nothing from them.) Remember that the attack zeroed in on AFDC because it was "draining the budget," "bringing us to our knees," "straining our generosity to the breaking point," etc. How many bothered to check, seeing that AFDC used a mere 6% of the federal budget? Who doesn't know about our "overly generous" welfare allotments that enabled people to bask in lazy luxury? But how many know that, with the exception of a very brief time in the 1970's, welfare allotments remained well below the poverty line?
  • DHFabian
    Political conservatives did win their war against America's poor, to the degree that even progressives consider those suffering in poverty here today to be "so yesterday". Too bad. Our welfare "reform"/workfare policies have been a tremendously powerful tool for breaking unions, pulling down wages and workers' protections while dramatically increasing the wealth of the Corporate Chosen. We now have stunning economic disparities, and an overall weakening of the country itself.
  • Nathan Bedford
    Mr. Chuck Gutenson,

    Please allow me to add one more item to your list of legislation that was sponsored by progressives and opposed by conservatives:
    Civil Rights Laws.

    The transformation in the Democratic Party has its roots to the convention in 1948 when Hubert Humphrey started advocating for racial justice and Strom Thurmond formed his own "Dixiecrat" party and ran for the presidency. Real reform did not come until the 1960s and that triggered the massive political shift in the South which the Republicans gladly embraced. Having consistently opposing racial justice in this country, conservatives also opposed efforts to influence the end of apartheid in South Africa. And they are surprised by the lack of support of their party from African Americans???
  • With all due respect, I do not live in a fantasy world. I don't have any beliefs that if a free society existed, everything would be perfect. But it would be better than a totalitarian state, and it would be better than a democratic socialist state. The non-existence of a desired future society does not negate principles of liberty and moral boundaries.

    Even so, what is wrong to seek out what we believe is a "fantasy world"? Isn't that in part why Christians look forward to the Kingdom fully realized in the future? Does that not qualify as "fantasy"? Or have you no Christian hope?

    Let me be clear again (since you enjoy putting words and ideas in my mouth): a "libertarian world" would not be free from sin, free from evil, and free from strife. But neither would whatever world you would rather shape. I simply believe that all humans deserve equal respect, equal dignity, and equal liberty. No exceptions. Somehow you seem to believe that some human beings aren't worthy or valuable enough to be free from the controls and power of others. In my book, it is Christian dignity that respect others, even when we don't agree with their own actions. It's one thing to protect somebody from the harmful actions of another. It's quite another to tell others how to live.
  • justintime
    I've heard a lot of stories about the first thanksgiving, xfree.
    But the political screed you linked to at the von Mises libertarian website is a total crock of libertarian hogwash.

    What really happened was the Pilgrims were rescued from starvation by a merciful, socialist native American tribe.

    It appears the next wave of immigrants to America learned from the example of the Pilgrims:

    Although Indians and Pilgrims joined together for a meal of thanksgiving in 1621, the Indians didn't fare so well at other thanksgiving observances. Many towns in New England held thanksgiving days to celebrate victories over the Natives. In 1641, a raid against the members of the Pequot tribe in Connecticut was very successful, and the churches declared a day of "thanksgiving" to celebrate. During this feast, the decapitated heads of Natives were kicked through the streets of Manhattan.

    Was this the sordid beginning of Wall Street capitalism?
  • justintime
    I've heard a lot of stories about the first thanksgiving, xfree.
    But the political screed you linked to at the von Mises libertarian website is a total crock of libertarian hogwash.

    What really happened was the Pilgrims were rescued from starvation by a merciful, socialist native American tribe.

    It appears the next wave of immigrants to America learned from the example of the Pilgrims:

    Although Indians and Pilgrims joined together for a meal of thanksgiving in 1621, the Indians didn't fare so well at other thanksgiving observances. Many towns in New England held thanksgiving days to celebrate victories over the Natives. In 1641, a raid against the members of the Pequot tribe in Connecticut was very successful, and the churches declared a day of "thanksgiving" to celebrate. During this feast, the decapitated heads of Natives were kicked through the streets of Manhattan.

    Was this the sordid beginning of Wall Street capitalism?
  • justintime
    the devil gave me the idea to take what was not mine , blame him

    Would you run that by us modern moral liberals again, please?
    And have a Happy Thanksgiving, too!
  • justintime
    Looking for a job?
    Weekly Standard circulation is in the tank right now.
    If you buy a Sarah Palin book for $4.97, you get Weekly Standard for FREE!
    They could sure use some new talent.

    But you're joking, no?
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008