Let me go out on a limb here. Those who are most vociferous against a safety net are those who, because of their socio-economic place, HAVE a safety net. What they oppose is the taxation necessary to provide such a safety net to others, especially others not like them. Safety net for me = good, being my brother's keeper = bad. The question is why should I have to care about others, the whole dependence line is a red herring.
SteveG--
I definitely think that is part of it. And, yet, what kills me is that we have wedded an awful moralizing view to this anti-taxation view. Somehow it is morally bad to rely on welfare. This was really well illustrated in the movie, Cinderella Man. Eek.
Well, we can be a little more generous to the opposition than that. There are people (and will always be) who abuse the system. There are some who make their living out of screwing over the tax payer. These are the people who are able to get along well enough that they see no need to otherwise better their situation. There is a problem there. However, this only gets us so far as saying we need to be more careful, demand better verification, etc., so as to make the system as effective as possible, so that funds and resources are going where they are meant to be utilized, and not to people of this sort.
I think there is something else going on here though. It's not just wanting to escape responsibility for others. All those in privileged positions realize (on some level) that they are only there because of the work of others, and to some degree the exploitation of others. But to assist not only admits an obligation, but tethers them to that vein of guilt in an obvious way. A way which they can avoid if they shift the blame to laziness or greed, etc. instead.
Of course, unions make the obligation to the worker rather obvious. But they can only do so much. The government has to step in to make such options available for all. And perhaps that's where the problem arises? "I obviously owe X people, because they work for me, but how do I owe Y people?" There's some sort of blinder they put up, as if the economic affairs of the world somehow exist in neatly vacuum-sealed, compartmentalized containers. Convenient for the mentality, sure, but ultimately a naive view and pernicious lie.
Of course, perhaps the union analogy holds? We, as citizens, contribute to the government. Indeed, how does a government exist without its citizens? And as such, it owes us. Just as we pay our taxes, obey the law, etc., doesn't it owe us something in kind? And certainly, being healthy is an interest we have, and is ultimately better for the government as well. Healthy citizens are happier citizens and more productive citizens. Doesn't everyone win at that point? This is precisely what many corporations have realized. A nice benefits package can compensate for a lower salary, especially for people with families. This is effectively what the government does with taxation. We get lower pay, but a benefits package we could never maneuver on our own. Where's the harm? Where's the foul? People cheat on their taxes, just as people will abuse whatever benefits are tossed their way. But why should I suffer just because some other chump is going to abuse the system? How do you justify wronging me, because someone else misbehaved? There's that side of it as well.
This was way longer than intended. Feel free to skim through it for the good stuff (assuming there is some good stuff in there).
Following up on C. Ewing: There's also a progressive hesitancy (objection is too strong) when it comes to safety net models: namely, that focusing too zealously on them tends to distract analysis and creation of a just society in which safety nets like the ones you're talking abut, Aspazia, aren't necessary. This isn't to say that we ought not to legislate safety nets until that society arrives, but only that safety nets should be recognized as stopgaps rather than ends.
Obviously, some fortuitously bad things (accidents, heartbreaks, etc) happening to good people can't be prevented by either just societies or safety nets. But more just economic and social structures reduce the possibility of there being huge cracks through which the least privileged fall and thereby need safety nets. (And that's why I think your Maddie analogy both works and doesn't work here.)
"Couldn't we see the state the same way? , i.e. nurturing and protecting us when we are young, caring for us when we are ill and elderly?"
Isn't that what CHIP, Medicare and Medicaid do?
Aspazia--just curious: did you get a chance to talk US politics with the Scandinavians? What's their read on Bush? Obama and Clinton? Global warming? Iraq?
Hey Kerry--
I am adjusting from jet lag hell! Anyway. I don't think it is possible to find a Norwegian who would support Bush. He is antithetical to their cultural values. I sort of want to write a post on how interesting it was to have some political conversations with folks who are unquestioningly supportive of a welfare state and most progressive social policies. I will try to work on that today.
I was amazed by how invested every Norwegian was in the democratic race. Even a woman at a yarn shop I frequented more than once was asking me what I thought of Obama.
My guess is that Norwegians are horrified that we are not doing everything we can to undue the damage from global warming. They bike, walk, recycle like crazy. There are so many incentives to recycle as well. Just recycling my cans got me about 20 kr back a week (like 4 bucks).
I think I will try to write more about this today.
It's kind of funny. A little while ago my Dad and I were watching TV and as he was flipping through the channels, he stopped on Fox News as they were talking about "socialized health care." They, of course, were using the same arguments that have been used against social health care since Reagan (and I believe Nixon as well): that the government would have complete control over our treatment, such which doctors we could see or what the doctors could treat us for, etc etc. At this point I thought to myself, "How is that any different than what the insurance companies do now?" With the insurance we've had over the last decade (and it's changed more than once), the insurance companies decided for us which doctors we could see and what we could be treated for. Not to mention that I needed a referral every time I needed to see a specialist and since I have asthma, I had to see an asthma and allergy specialist on a regular basis. I also had to get special permission to be treated for my asthma. It's funny how Fox News doesn't talk about these little details in their criticisms.
The analogy to children is great. The government should treat all of us like children since only elected officials have the mental capacity to not only determine how they should live, but to also have the grand knowledge of how to best control my life and your life. How could I ever get by without my friendly neighborhood governor or legislator there to hold my hand and make sure I don’t skin my knee?
Nets are insurance against bad luck and incidental bad practice. Nothing can be done about luck, but we can net or not according to our tolerance for bad practice in whatever activity we're talking about netting. Tolerating a bad team member makes it likelier that everybody loses, so to the extent a loss means extermination, a team can't afford to be tolerant. It's unlikely Inuit people were less moral that they allowed each other to die of exposure when they became old and feeble. More likely the society couldn't afford to operate otherwise. I don't think our intuitions about what's affordable within a post-industrial national economy are nearly as reliable the Inuit's were about there vastly simpler traditional one. I personally would be willing to bet that we can afford universal health care, just as we have bet that we can afford ourselves in the U.S. (or at least our corporations) generous protections against bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the House and Senate run a table in which we seem only allowed to bet everything, because seemingly every policy choice becomes irrevocably entrenched and inadequately monitored and policed in it implementation. Given a system about which Nobel-winning experts disagree, on how many changes are we willing to bet everything? Many, if you're what we call "a liberal," few if you're "a conservative." The devil is in the details.
Commenting by HaloScan
