Category Archives: Liberalism

Why Are Republicans So Mean? – An Exploration

Revelations this week that the Orangutan Administration is going ahead with plans to repeal the ACA, as reported by myself and Joe Paduda, as well as the announcement by Education Secretary Betsy (I have ten yachts) DeVos, that her budget calls for cutting $18 million from Special Olympics, raises the question, “why are Republicans so mean?” and why do they hate the poor and those not like them?

This article will explore this question from an economic, ideological, political and sociological perspective, citing several previously published articles asking the same question as the title above. It is certainly not definitive, but does suggest some possible explanations.

To begin with, a little history. The Republican Party was formed due to the inability of the Whig Party to deal with the question of slavery and the disappointment many Northern Democrats had with their Southern brethren over this issue, one that occupied a central focus in the second quarter of the first half of the 19th century.

While that twenty-five year period ended in 1850, it is important to note that the GOP was founded in 1854, which is still in the range of the time frame.

After the Civil War, the Republican Party was made up of two wings: the Radical Republicans who favored Reconstruction and harsh treatment of former Southern Confederates (this will have a bearing on our discussion later) and the conservatives who were aligned with the Eastern bankers and industrialists.

In fact, it was the conservatives who, as pointed out in the Spielberg motion picture, “Lincoln”, that made it possible for the passage of the 13th Amendment when they were assured by the President that there were no Southern negotiators in Washington (They were on a riverboat in Virginia being guarded by African-American Union soldiers).

However, after the election of 1876, when Rutherford Hayes became President by promising the South to end Reconstruction, the Radical Republicans were slowly replaced by more conservative Northern Republicans loyal to the industrialists who would dominate the second quarter of the second half of the 19th century, and thus lead to future calls for reform and addressing of the effects industrialization had on the working class.

So as their wealth increased, so too did the misery and poverty of the working class, and this led to the rise within the GOP of a progressive movement, and a likewise movement among the rural population in the Midwest in the form of populism.

With the ascendancy of Theodore Roosevelt to the Presidency in 1901, progressivism took off, and many Republicans led the way for political, economic, and social reform. A brief return to the past in the 1920s under three successive Republican Presidents was followed by the election of FDR and the Democrats controlling Congress for decades to come, making more reform possible, and creating the largest middle class in history.

By the mid-20th century , the Republican Party had three wings: conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Barry Goldwater’s run in 1964, and Robert Taft’s in 1952 sort to change the dynamics in favor of the conservatives, but only meant they lost the battle, but won the war.

Then came Reagan, the first celebrity President. He brought victory to the conservatives and into government. Remember, he said that government was not the solution, government was the problem, and thus, that is how the GOP would operate when they took over.

Turning to the economic aspect of why Republicans are mean, let us look at something written a hundred years ago, Max Weber’s essay, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

According to Wikipedia,

“capitalism in Northern Europe evolved when the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words, the Protestant work ethic was an important force behind the unplanned and uncoordinated emergence of modern capitalism.

So in this context, Protestantism, or rather its Calvinist form, which influenced the Puritans of New England, formed the moral and ethical basis for the rise of modern capitalism, and while the descendants of the Puritans today in New England are decidedly more liberal than in the past, due to evangelical missionaries in the late 18th and throughout the 19th centuries, in what historians call the Great Awakenings, these values were transmitted to people in the South and Midwest, or were carried with them during western expansion.

As for the South, as mentioned earlier, the debate over slavery has some bearing on why many of today’s Republican leaders in Congress are Southerners, and what that means for the country’s direction these past thirty years or so.

Sara Robinson’s article in Salon.com, attempts to answer why this is so, and sheds light on the difference between North and South. To begin with, despite the rise of Capitalism from Calvinist Protestantism, seen originally among the Puritan settlers, Robinson states that,

For most of our history, American economics, culture and politics have been dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was rooted in Puritan communitarian values, educated at the Ivies and marinated in an ethic of noblesse oblige (the conviction that those who possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the betterment of society).”

On the other hand, Robinson relates that the New England-based aristocracy is opposed by,

…the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God.

Robinson cites David Hackett Fisher who,

described just how deeply undemocratic the Southern aristocracy was, and still is. He documents how these elites have always feared and opposed universal literacy, public schools and libraries, and a free press.

In addition, Robinson cites Colin Woodward, who wrote that,

…From the outset, Deep Southern culture was based on radical disparities in wealth and power, with a tiny elite commanding total obedience and enforcing it with state-sponsored terror. Its expansionist ambitions would put it on a collision course with its Yankee rivals, triggering military, social, and political conflicts that continue to plague the United States to this day.

However, Robinson writes that the most destructive aspect of the Southern’s worldview,

is the extremely anti-democratic way it defined the very idea of liberty. In Yankee Puritan culture, both liberty and authority resided mostly with the community, and not so much with individuals. Communities had both the freedom and the duty to govern themselves as they wished (through town meetings and so on), to invest in their collective good, and to favor or punish individuals whose behavior enhanced or threatened the whole (historically, through community rewards such as elevation to positions of public authority and trust; or community punishments like shaming, shunning or banishing).”

Robinson continues,

Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires against the greater good of the collective — and, occasionally, to make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy — the kind of support that maximizes each person’s liberty to live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.”

Conversely, Robinson states,

In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more “liberty” you could exercise — which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more “liberties” with the lives, rights and property of other people.”

Anytime a Southern conservative talks about “losing his liberty”, Robinson follows with, the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control — and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from — is what he’s really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can’t help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point where they’re willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule.”

This would appear to not only apply to the justification for the South’s secession from the Union in the 19th century, but for the way Southern politicians, both Democrats (remember, many were Southerners who were promised committee chairmanships by FDR to get the New Deal passed) and Republicans after passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 led to Southerners fleeing the Democratic Party for what LBJ said would be for a generation, have acted towards any legislation that would cause them to lose their liberty. Today, we call that White Privilege.

For an ideological perspective, Marc-William Palen, in Foreign Policy in Focus, provides us with a clear understanding that the Republican Party is not merely a party of classical liberalism, but something different from what it was when it was founded.

According to Palen,

From its mid-nineteenth-century founding, the Republican Party was the party of big government, high tariffs, and government-subsidized internal improvements. The exceptions to this rule were the Gilded Age Liberal Republicans. In their vocal calls for laissez faire principles, these Liberal Republicans quickly became the independent thorns in the side of the Republican elephant throughout the first decades following the Civil War. When the big-government Republican majority continued to prove intractable, these Liberal Republicans became known as the “Mugwumps” when they ultimately switched their support to the Democrats in 1884.

Palen writes that classical liberalism was founded on moral sentiments, and that these moral sentiments, “are almost non-existent within the Republican rank and file, especially since the ultra-nationalist party draped itself in the red, white, and blue following 9-11, and led the jingoistic charge into Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nor is morality to be found amid the incessant Republican demands to cut social spending,” he says, pointing out what Grover Norquist, the driving force behind the GOP’s anti-tax, small government ideology when he said in 2001,  he wanted to

shrink government to the point where he “could drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

Palen suggests that if the Republicans current ideology is not found in classical liberalism, then where does it come from? Palen says, Ayn Rand’s pronounced atheism and intellectual elitism certainly does not align with the ideological outlook of most Republicans. And, he says, there is perhaps an element of a Social Darwinian “survival of the fittest” ethos—although no Republican politician is likely to admit to subscribing to anything associated with the theory of evolution.

So where does it come from?

…a large part of Republican ideological inspiration stems from fear. In particular, it is a reactionary ideological response to the turbulent upheavals inherent in an increasingly globalizing world. Such fears—let’s call it “globaphobia”—are frequently expressed on issues such as immigration, global terrorism, global warming, and American participation in international institutions like the United Nations. The massive federal intervention in the so-called free market following the global financial meltdown invariably exacerbated Republican fears that government intrusion in the market— and Keynesian economics more generally—would eventually undermine American individualism, citing Douglas LaBier.

However, Palen says it is not entirely satisfactory. According to Palen,

their fear-driven ideological inspiration dovetails with the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, who predated Adam Smith by a century and who expounded on an amoral philosophy of self-interested individualism, counterbalanced by acquiescence to authoritarianism. Hobbes believed that a strong state prevented “war of every man against every man,” a chaotic type of warfare that Republicans believe is contained within al-Qaeda’s radical philosophy.

As we have seen, there is no one answer to why Republicans are mean. It seems to be a combination of factors all valid and relevant to today’s political climate in Washington and in the nation at large.

But nothing ever is just as simple as being mean. since we are dealing with human beings and not machines.

For our purposes, health care is just one more “liberty” conservatives are afraid of losing, so therefore, they will deny it to others, so that they can have more of it. Any discussion of universal coverage in a single payer health care system is a threat to their liberty, and therefore must be opposed. Add to that, the economic loss of profit and gain by those in the medical-industrial complex, and you get a clearer picture of the problem.

But to answer the question raised at the beginning, why are the Republicans so mean? It’s because it is in their DNA passed on from one generation of conservatives to another like our genes are passed down from our parents, grandparents, and so on.

Now the question is, what to do about it?

 

Now It’s Personal

Last week, some of my LinkedIn connections, as well as several other connections, learned of my recent hospitalization. The reason for this was not mentioned at the time, but I will tell you now.

Not having health insurance through an employer, and being denied renewal of a local county health care program, led to my going from Stage 4 to End Stage Kidney Disease.

The hospitalization last week was to place a catheter in me for peritoneal dialysis, and to repair an umbilical hernia.

My hospitalization was brought to light quite unexpectedly by my friend, Maria Todd. Maria’s sending best wishes for my speedy recovery and quick discharge from the hospital was much appreciated, and the warm words by others in response, and the thirty plus “likes” made me feel that people cared. For that. I am grateful.

But the events of the past month have brought home to me one very important point, given the current activity surrounding the so-called “repeal and replace” of the ACA, and the two Congressional bills that many consider doing more harm than good.

This nation needs Medicare for All.

There, I said it.

I know in the past, I have advocated single payer for others, but my illness has shown that anyone who loses health care for any amount of time, once they have reached adulthood, cannot go without health insurance.

This is what happens when men and women are removed prematurely from the workforce, for whatever reason, employer decides you are no longer wanted, economic downturn or just to eliminate positions that affect the bottom-line of the company, and are generally targeted to individuals in their 40’s, 50’s and early 60’s so that the company can save on health care costs for those employees, and so that younger workers can be hired to replace them.

This is not something new, and not related to automation and artificial intelligence disrupting whole industries, which is inevitable.

My initial view on single-payer was that if employers were no longer responsible for the health insurance of their employees, and they were guaranteed full coverage by the government, some of the job losses of the past decades would not have happened, and many talented men and women out of the workforce would be employed until their retirement.

If you don’t believe me, go to LinkedIn and read the many posts from such individuals who are still unemployed. One fellow in Texas even got turned down from jobs at fast food restaurants.

So, now it is personal for me.

I also know that many of you make your living from the health care system we currently have, and that some of you have expounded on why you think a single payer system is unrealistic.

I get it that your financial outlook depends on working in a broken, free-market system because it pays your salary, but healthcare was not supposed to be a business, nor was it supposed to marketed like any other commodity.

If you don’t believe me, read what Pope Francis said: “health is not a consumer good, but rather a universal right, and therefore access to health care services cannot be a privilege.”

But try telling that to Messrs. McConnell, Ryan, Paul, et al in Congress, and the current POTUS, all of whom want to eliminate medical coverage for millions of Americans they received under the ACA, cut back Medicare and Medicaid, and destroy Social Security.

Now that I will be receiving dialysis, and quite likely will qualify for disability, the prospect of not having those resources is very personal to me, and could literally mean my life.

Look in the mirror, then look at your spouse, your children, your parents, your neighbors, friends, etc. What do you think would happen to them if these programs were eliminated? Would you have enough money to care for them? Would you have money to pay for private insurance?

I lost my mother last month to dementia. She died on her 85th birthday in a nursing home some miles from my home (the home she and my father bought), but if the Republicans in Congress had gotten their way, and she had lived longer, I feared she would have been forced out of that nursing home, with no place to go, and would have been an even bigger burden to me.

So, I really don’t care if you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Socialist, Liberal, or Conservative, we all need health care at some point in our lives.

One of the friends I met here in Florida back in the 90’s died last July of a stroke. He was 73. He worked out, never smoked, had a good life, three kids, and like many of you, worked in Risk Management, as well as Human Resources, the legal profession, and served in Vietnam. But despite all that, he died prematurely, and went into involuntary retirement because he was in his 60’s. Luckily, his wife worked. But you get the picture.

We must all do our part to see that every American can get health care. Not just access to care, which is a Republican euphemism for being able to afford it, and if you can’t, too bad. But actual health insurance. Medicare for All.

One More Thing on Health Reform

Could not ignore Joe Paduda’s first post this morning, which is also covered on the Health Wonk Review blog.

He lays out in great detail who would be affected by passage of this zombie legislation, and who would come out ahead,

It’s enough to make you sick, that such people exist who will take away health care from the very people who put them in office, and don’t care that many of them will die because they can no longer get health care.

Comedian Jimmy Kimmel went on his show the other night and confessed to the entire country about his newborn son’s heart disease. What was the response from the Nazi right? Attacks.

Why do these people continue to vote against their own economic interests? There are many reasons for this. The first one is simply, they don’t believe Democrats. And why? Because for far too long, Democrats have engaged in Identity Politics, and have ignored the heartland.

Second, the Democrats have generally avoided campaigning in, or developing their local or state parties in those states most likely to vote Republican, but would benefit from Democratic policies in education, job creation, health care, etc.

Third, Republicans have done a great job of convincing people of an “us versus them” mentality. Republicans sound like “us”, act like “us”, enjoy the same activities as “us”, where “they” do not. You hear the words, “elite”, or “elitist” thrown around, as was done yesterday in response to Kimmel’s plea by an alt-rightist.

Forth, Republicans know how to frame an argument by using simple words and phrases, where Democrats go into long, drawn out lectures on policy. They talk to Americans as if every American has a college degree in political science or sociology. Yex, polls do so that many Americans agree with Democratic policies, but we know that polls are not always accurate.

The last election proved that.

Lastly, the Democrats have been late to the party as to what is happening to working people, both blue collar and white collar workers. In fact, the Republicans know all too well what is happening, as they are responsible for the prolongation of their misery, and will do nothing to stop what is about to happen when jobs are replaced by automation.

Universal Basic Income (UBI)? Not from this crowd of neo-fascist, libertaritards. (Take that, Rush Limbaugh!) Want some more Oxycodone?

As we are witnessing day by day, the US is going backwards. All the way back to the 19th century, the very century the GOP is most comfortable with, because that is when they had complete control of the entire government, and their friends in industry were getting richer and richer, and there were no government programs or laws protecting workers and the poor.

So if this zombie health care law gets passed, look out…there will be more zombies where that came from.

Disaster Averted

Yesterday’s crushing defeat of the so-called “American Health Care Act” or AHCA, signals the end of the seven-year long attempt by the Republican Party to legislatively kill the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Yet, as was pointed out on one cable news network last night, it won’t stop the health insurance industry from getting the Republicans in Congress to kill parts of the law slowly by eliminating the taxes that go to pay for the coverage.

Call it “genocide by stealth”, since millions of Americans will die, as per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO’s) scoring of AHCA. If they can’t kill the law outright, the so-called “Freedom Caucus”, actually the Congressional version of the Tea Party, will kill it slowly.

Why do you think they keep saying it is a disaster and it is crumbling? It’s because they are dead set against anyone getting health care unless someone else can make a profit from selling a policy.

Then there is the other question, the one usually raised by liberals and progressives, especially those who supported Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders last year in the primaries, as to why we are the only Western country without universal coverage.

The answer is complex, but not complicated (“who knew health care was so complicated?). First, everything the government of the US has ever implemented for the benefit of people has had to pass muster with the Constitution. It either has to be covered by the Constitution directly, or implied through the taxing mechanism.

Second, the Founding Fathers never mentioned or promoted the right to health care, as the prevailing political and social philosophy of the day was concerned with freedom, liberty, and private property. It has been unclear what, if anything, was meant by the phrase, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, let alone, the phrase, “promote the general welfare.”

Why they never mentioned health care and why other nations have it, is due to the fact that the US was founded during the first half of the period historians call, “the Enlightenment”, when the right to private property, liberty, and freedom were the topics of discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. Basically, the difference between Classical Liberalism (Conservatism) and Modern Liberalism (Liberalism) is between negative rights (the right not to be killed) versus positive rights (the right to a job, education, housing, health care, etc.)

Canada gained its limited independence from Britain nearly a hundred years after we did, and therefore was influenced by the philosophy of the second half of the Enlightenment, which stressed involvement by government in the economy.

The only time the Founders cared about providing some kind of health care plan was directed towards a particular group of citizens in the late eighteenth century, as I wrote about in this post.

What is now called the Public Health Service began as a government-sponsored, health plan for merchant sailors on ships entering and leaving US ports and on inland waterways. It was never challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, nor was it ever attacked by members of the opposition party. In fact, it was supported by both Federalists and Anti-Federalist politicians of the day.

The third reason why we don’t have universal, single-payer is because the government allowed employers to provide coverage during WWII to attract women into the workplace when the men went overseas. The UK is often cited as an example for single-payer, but what most supporters of this type of plan do not realize is that because of the devastation the UK suffered at the hands of German bombs, their health care system needed to be re-built from scratch, so the government stepped in with the NHS. Even Churchill supported it.

Fourth, we have always provided health care to certain at risk groups like the poor (Medicaid), the elderly (Medicare), and to children (CHIP), as well as to former service persons and their families (Tricare), etc. Perhaps the way to begin to get universal coverage is to merge all of these programs into one, then expand it to cover everyone else.

But for the time being, a major disaster was averted, but we should not think this is the end of the debate, nor is there victory. The battle lines are drawn, and the enemy is not surrendering. This is not a time for congratulation, but for vigilance and resolve.