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:
well, America does have a lot to concede- it may have a pretty high stadard of living overall, but there is a pretty large gap between rich and poor which is widening further - and this is a global phenomenon. i think democracy has only to do with the right to choose leadership - though i could be wrong. i government can still be a democracy though it may be authoritarian in nature, provided the people give this right to the heads of state.
no system in practice still is equitable - most countries were formed on teh basis of some typr of unequal division or another, be it feudalism, racism, casteism or whatever.
i believe that socialism and democracy can exist - they do in india to some extent. acording to the country's preamble - India is a sovereign socialist, secular, democratic republic. it engaged in protectionism for a while just to totter back onto its feet. while capitalism has gained pace here, the government still subsidises a lot of industries/firms/areas that require development (there are a lot fo things its also doing wrong, but then, power corrupts).
it seems as though americans have been brainwashed over the decades into an econocentrism, if you will, besides the lack of true transparency in any process, that ultimately, involves people and politics.
Actually, Ben Barber has written a fair emoung about this, and he doesn't seem to think that there is a problem at all.
I think it probably depends on the structure of the government. In America, we've done a pretty good job of protecting civil liberties, which lend themselves to equality, but also economic liberties, which lend themselves to inequality. the combination definitely has tensions to it, but that is probably inevitable. Any system of Government is likely to have some kind of tension to it because the governed and the governers are going to be pulling in different directions.
Post a Comment
<< Home