Schmaltzing with Schwarzenegger
Okay, so I don't even know what "schmaltzing" means, but really, how much can you do with a name like Schwarzenegger?
Apparently, during his speech at the Republican National Convention, Arnold described being inspired by Nixon's Republican rhetoric upon his arrival in the US. By contrasat, the Democrats sounded too much like the Socialists he'd left behind in Austria. For the record, my aunt and her family in Vienna do pay exorbitant taxes, but their health care and education (maybe up to the collegiate level) are taken care of by the government -- two of the very policies endorsed by some Democrats on the basis that they are the prerogative of every American.
To oversimplify, the U.S. is a capitalist economy governed by a democratic system. Capitalism theoretically offers equal opportunity for social mobility, and we are accustomed to thinking of Socialism and Capitalism as incompatible. "Democracy" seems to imply equal distribution, although I think it's only meant to imply equal access, which is not quite the same thing. (It may not even mean that. Suddenly I'm not at all sure what it means.) While we arguably don't even have that, the question stands in my mind: Can democracy and socialism coexist in a single governmental framework? Can American democracy support such policies?
Proffering bills for universal health care and education suggests the system is inequitable, an accusation that flies in the face of the founding precepts of this country (i.e., the Protestant work ethic, Horatio Algiers, and minimal government meddling in private lives and businesses). To vote such bills into law would be to concede that there are people who do not have access to such things through no fault of their own, to deny the Calvinist/capitalist/ American belief that if you're not succeeding, you're doing something wrong.
Now, although it is distinctly possible that these questions are born of a failure to grasp something fundamental about American government and economy, I ask anyway: Is our great nation capable of integrating both sets of values? How much freedom/democratic process -- if any -- must be sacrificed to ensure universal health care and education? Or must we choose only one at any given time? Can we pass such bills without drastically reevaluating ourselves as a nation? And are we -- is any nation -- capable of conducting such a profound reexamination of its ideals, values, and development without imploding?
Apparently, during his speech at the Republican National Convention, Arnold described being inspired by Nixon's Republican rhetoric upon his arrival in the US. By contrasat, the Democrats sounded too much like the Socialists he'd left behind in Austria. For the record, my aunt and her family in Vienna do pay exorbitant taxes, but their health care and education (maybe up to the collegiate level) are taken care of by the government -- two of the very policies endorsed by some Democrats on the basis that they are the prerogative of every American.
To oversimplify, the U.S. is a capitalist economy governed by a democratic system. Capitalism theoretically offers equal opportunity for social mobility, and we are accustomed to thinking of Socialism and Capitalism as incompatible. "Democracy" seems to imply equal distribution, although I think it's only meant to imply equal access, which is not quite the same thing. (It may not even mean that. Suddenly I'm not at all sure what it means.) While we arguably don't even have that, the question stands in my mind: Can democracy and socialism coexist in a single governmental framework? Can American democracy support such policies?
Proffering bills for universal health care and education suggests the system is inequitable, an accusation that flies in the face of the founding precepts of this country (i.e., the Protestant work ethic, Horatio Algiers, and minimal government meddling in private lives and businesses). To vote such bills into law would be to concede that there are people who do not have access to such things through no fault of their own, to deny the Calvinist/capitalist/ American belief that if you're not succeeding, you're doing something wrong.
Now, although it is distinctly possible that these questions are born of a failure to grasp something fundamental about American government and economy, I ask anyway: Is our great nation capable of integrating both sets of values? How much freedom/democratic process -- if any -- must be sacrificed to ensure universal health care and education? Or must we choose only one at any given time? Can we pass such bills without drastically reevaluating ourselves as a nation? And are we -- is any nation -- capable of conducting such a profound reexamination of its ideals, values, and development without imploding?
posted by Erosopher at 1:49 AM
2 comments
