Left-right unity

Over at the Nation, Christopher Hayes has a good piece identifying what's going wrong in the country:

There's a word for a governing philosophy that fuses the power of government and large corporations as a means of providing services and keeping the wheels of industry greased, and it's a word that has begun to pop up among critics of everything from the TARP bailout to healthcare to cap and trade: corporatism. Since corporatism often merges the worst parts of Big Government and Big Business, it's an ideal target for both the left and right. The ultimate corporatist moment, the bailout, was initially voted down in the House by an odd-bedfellows coalition of Progressive Caucus members and right-wingers. 

I've noticed this, as well.  Many commentators and voters seem to be objecting to the same things, and as Hayes writes, some leading progressive and right libertarian writers and activists have been calling for some sort of political alliance.  But it's hard to see this coming to pass, based on the sources of the two side's outrage:

I don't think that coalition is going to emerge in any meaningful form. The right's anger is born largely of identity-based alienation, a fear of socialism (whatever that means nowadays) and an age-old Bircher suspicion that "they" are trying to screw "us." Even in its most sophisticated forms, such as in Carney's Obamanomics, the basic right-wing argument against corporatism embraces a kind of fatalism about government that assumes it will always devolve into a rat's nest of rent seekers and cronies and therefore should be kept as small as possible. 

Basically, conservatives and libertarians hate government.  Period.  They see it as an irredeemable institution.  And they hate taxes.  Period.  Taxes are theft.  It's hard to see how these two sides can come to an agreement.

Still, I think this is valuable to explore.  While in general the right hates government and taxes, I think many who currently identify as conservatives could be persuaded otherwise.  I have this saying, "Many people are liberals.  They just don't know it." 

Hayes has more:

(T)he corporatism on display in Washington is itself a symptom of a broader social illness that I noted above, a democracy that is pitched precariously on the tipping point of oligarchy. In an oligarchy, the only way to get change is to convince the oligarchs that it is in their interest--and increasingly, that's the only kind of change we can get. 

 That argument could be starting point.  Sadly, paying off the oligarchs has been the story of the last year.  And it appears our Master of the Universe are still weighing in.

When I can start taking conservatives seriously on health care

I today declare that I will not take a self-described "conservative" politician seriously on health care until they introduce a bill to abolish Medicare.  Period.  Even if the bill doesn't get taken up, they can still introduce it.  Go ahead.  Make my day.  See Bob Cesca over at Huffington Post for more on that.  At least right-winger Glenn Beck is willing to admit abolishing Medicare is really what he wants.  Now let's see how that plays with voters.

"The Future of Liberalism"

I have some recommended reading: "The Future of Liberalism" by Boston College professor Alan Wolfe.

Liberalism - and by extension its politics, politicians, and causes - have been on the defensive for decades now. I believe we liberals and progressives should shoulder much of the blame for that. We've been unable, and maybe unwilling, to articulate and defend what liberalism is, what it stands for, and why it's important. We might intuitively know what it is, but that only takes us so far. It might be great to commiserate with like-minded people, but we also have to be able to explain liberalism to those who might be hostile to it at first, but remain persuadable. This is the realm of political independents, and it's the ground on which campaigns and causes are won.

Only in the last few years have I seen more books articulating and defending liberalism. I guess that's something, in a perverse way, for which we can be thankful for the Bush administration. Wolfe's book is among the best of those books that I have read.

"The core substantive principle of liberalism is this: As many people as possible should have as much say as is feasible over the direction their lives will take," he writes on page 10.

True freedom is not just freedom from interference by others. That's more libertarianism. True freedom is also having the capacities to make something of our lives in ways that we choose. That's when we get the turn into liberalism, and it's the principle from which flows many of the initiatives that libertarians and conservatives criticize, like the welfare state, health care for all, income protection, etc. (By the way, I think "welfare" state is a horrible label. "Freedom" state would be better, but more on that in another post.)

Wolfe also writes, "Equality is liberalism's second substantive goal." This dedication to equality often gets expressed elsewhere as "equality of opportunity", which is directly related to the ideas of liberty in the last paragraph. Everyone deserves to have a roughly equal shot to develop their capacities so that they can live the freely chosen life that they pick.

So, for Wolfe, those are the key propositions of liberalism. He goes on to describe some of liberalism's other features, as well. There is procedural liberalism, which is the system of rights, checks-and-balances, and democratic deliberative politics that's enshrined in our government to give us all equal protection under the law. And there is the liberal temperament - the open-minded approach to the world - that allows all to find that approach to the world that works for them.

Obviously, I could go on. As I said above, this book is well worth the read in order to understand liberalism, even if you are a liberal.

Wolfe makes clear that liberalism is truly about liberty - true liberty - and as one of the chapters is titled, "The Most Appropriate Political Philosphy for Our Times".

A Step Toward Medicare-for-All

I have to admit: I never really was a big fan of the public option in health care reform, especially because of the countless ways in which it was so constrained and complex.

That's why I'm more encouraged by what seems to be a compromise coming out the U.S. Senate - a limited form of Medicare-for-All. Obviously there are problems with this proposed system, too. For example, right now, it only will apply to people 55 and older, so more work needs to be done. But as I said, encouraging.

That said, let's remember that Medicare has its own problems. We still don't have a politically palatable way to bring down costs. The above solution might help with access, but the problem of ever-growing costs is an even bigger headache.

Response elsewhere seems to be pretty positive to the plan, too, although with all sorts of questions about details.

Paul Krugman:

If this is the final plan, it’s better than most of us were expecting — and definitely good enough to go with.

More from Ezra Klein and Howard Dean.

And here's an article answering the questions, "How can this be? Isn't it even more pinko than the public option itself?"

Life can be funny sometimes.

Let's see...there was something I was doing here...oh, yeah... #2

blogging.

Health care Germanophilia

I'll admit. I had to look that word up. It is not a disease.

From the reading I've done about other country's health care systems so far, I'm sure about this - it's incredibly difficult to understand exactly what they're like without having lived there. Acknowledging that right up front, I'll say this:

Canada's health care system gets plenty of mentions in our national health care debate - positive and negative. I don't think I would want a Canadian system.

I like the German system better. In it you get national health insurance, but you also get to choose from a couple hundred "sickness funds" so you can tailor your health care plan to your needs.

France also has an excellent system, and I could very easily have been persuaded to write a Francophilia blog post instead. But I'll go with Germany for now.

Why? I love Canada. I think it's a great country. But maybe if conservative are going to throw around a national bogeyman in Canada, progressives and liberals could respond not by defending Canada, but instead looking to Germany. First of all, it gets you around all of that nutty anti-French business here in the U.S., and hey, everybody loves German engineering, right? Think BMW, Mercedes...beer.

Now for some links:

NPR had a great series on European health care system a while back.

Here's Germany, with a bonus story from the New York Times.

Here's France, with a bonus op-ed about the French system from the Boston Globe.

Health care ironies

Nobody - not even medical personnel - are immune to our screwball health care system.

First of all, we have the story from the Peoria Journal Star about how OSF Healthcare is cutting compensation for its employees because of the swelling ranks of unemployed - and therefore uninsured - patients using its emergency room.

And then a different story on a more personal note - I've talked to a local doctor who was essentially laid off from a local health care system. The biggest concern for this doctor is finding a new job with health insurance coverage for the doctor and the family. Our employer-based health care system strikes again.