The New McCarthyism

Much has been said over the past week or so about Speaker Pelosi's assertions about protestors at Demoncratic "Town Hall" meetings being un-American. It seems that the old dictum is true--the more things change, the more they stay the same. The ironic thing is that the new Democratic Party is now using the 1950's tactics of Senator Joseph McCarthy to advance a radical socialist agenda. Where McCarthy was staunchly against communism, the New Left is using his tactics to advance their own brand of communism.

It was before my time that McCarthy's communist witch hunts took place, in concert with the activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Un-American Activities, isn't that what the protestors are being accused of these days? The Speaker tried to explain that she was referring to the protestors' tactics of shouting down our elected officials, not implying that anyone who disagreed with socialist health care reform was un-American. But the distinction seems a little too fine; she doth protest too much. Put aside the hypocrisy of the New Left in condemning the same tactics that they used and idolize so much in the anti-war and civil rights protests of the 1960s, when they are used by the Right. Let's focus instead on whether such activities are truly "un-American."

This nation was founded on an ethic of self-reliance, and so those who would transform our economy into a socialist one are the ones going against the great traditions of this country. But they are entitled to believe what they want, just as those of us who deride socialism are entitled to believe what we want. It doesn't make us hateful or venal people; it just means we have a difference of opinion about the direction this country should take. Some conservatives may be heartless, just as some liberals may be soul-less, but the vast majority (of both groups) are not. There's nothing more American than speaking out loudly about your beliefs and letting all voices be heard. As to the drowning out of voices, the bully pulpit of the president and the Congress is a powerful thing, and the organs of government have plently of outlets to articulate their ideas. Let us not condone anyone who tries to dominate debate through intimidation or being the loudest in the room, instead of by force of reason. But let us not stigmatize them as being anti-American either, for this simple reason: they are not trying to drown out their fellow citizens, but in some cases their elected officials. Those who think we should shut up and accept whatever the party currently in power thinks is good for us miss one key point. This is a point that our elected officials sometimes forget. That is that they work for us. They are paid to listen to the people and do our will, not the other way around. If elected officials complain about not being listened to, then they need to be reminded that they are mere servants of the people.

Nothing could be more healthy or more American than the current debate; it is a crucial debate about the future direction of our country and all sides should be heard. As a free market conservative, I believe in competition in the market place, and that principle extends even further to the marketplace of ideas. Nobody should encourage debate by intimidation, but the vast majority of protestors that I have seen are guilty of being overzealous, if anything. In the pursuit of the truth over-zealousness is at best a relatively minor sin.

Only those who are lack confidence and conviction in their ideas are threatened by the ideas of others and feel the need to suppress them. The debate is healthy and necessary. Bring it on.

Our Inspiring Youth

This last week, my daughter and I spent several days down in Richmond, Virginia, for Supreme Session of the International Order of Job's Daughters (IOJD). For those of you who don't know, IOJD is a youth organization affiliated with the Masons, which teaches young girls ages 10 and up grace, virtue, and leadership. Like most masonic organizations, they have a complex ritual and are required to memorize an awful lot of formalized material.

Watching them march in, sing, and make their speeches was very inspiring. Most impressive, they even have to vote on proposed changed to their bylaws, part of which included a formal debate where three "daughters" as they are called got turns to speak on both sides of an issue. This year there were some contentious proposals, including a controversial proposal to change membership eligibility. What impressed me the most about this was (1) that those on both sides presented good, thoughtful arguments, (2) that they were very articulate in presenting their arguments, and (3) afterwards, even though there were some close votes and the issues were contentious, everyone accepted the decision with equanimity and left as friends. We adults should learn a few things from these girls, who carried themselves with poise and grace through the entire meeting.

Contrast this with what the popular culture tells us about our youth--that they are lazy, that they are uncouth, that they cannot control their hormones. Some say art is a reflection of life, and some that life is a reflection of art. In this case, I have to wonder whether what the popular culture tells us is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Is the culture just telling us the way it is, or are our youth sinking to fulfill our low expectations? There's a general rule that whatever we expect from people is what they'll true to fulfill. When we set the expectations low as we do so often in our popular culture--in movies, television, and dreadfully crude and base music--there's no wonder the youth of today so often lowballs even our low expectation of them.

My view has always been that art should do more than reflect reality (or, more often, merely sensationalize the more salacious aspects of reality). Art should uplift and exalt the human spirit and inspire us to greatness. Watching the daughters march around and give their speeches was an inspiring reminder to me that the youth of today is capable of just as much greatness as any generation in our past. We just need to set high standards for them and challenge them to give their best.

Lessons from Dirty Harry

We rented the movie Gran Torino this weekend. This is a great movie with an uplifting message. The liberal will appeciate its message about racial tolerance, if they can get past the rather scandalous racial epithets the main character employs throughout. The conservative will appreciate its message about work and self-improvement. Either way you look at it, this is a great movie for our times.

Some people like Clint Eastwood and some don't. Personally, I've always found his tough, laconic, no-nonsense roles to be appealing. Too many people say too many things; his characters don't talk much, they just do things. In Gran Torino, Clint's character, Walter Kowalski, is a Korean War veteran who's having trouble overcoming the demons of his past and the things he had to do in wartime. Because of this he's very hostile about the Asian family who moves in next door. He doesn't like the Asian and Latino gangs, or the immigrants who've changed the character of his neighborhood. The boy next door is cajoled by an Asian gang into trying to steal his vintage car (the movie's namesake), which leads to an angry confrontation. But gradually the boy's sister wins him over with kindness, and he gradually opens up to them and even comes to become a mentor to the timid boy who tried to steal his car. The boy wants revenge after the gang riddles his house with bullets, but Walter doesn't allow his to take revenge, knowing how much it will poison the boy's soul, just as his was by the blood he was forced to shed in wartime. Instead, he ends up making the supreme sacrifice in order to get the gang that has been harassing his neighbors off the streets. And he wills the car to the boy, rather than to the family that just seemed concerned with getting their hands on his house and putting him in a nursing home.

Watching this movie with my kids, I was struck by several important lessons it has for us today. There are those I know who avoid Hollywood and anything it produces like the plague, and though there is a lot of poisonous junk in popular culture there are also gems along the way. Some of the inspiring lessons we can glean from this movie are--

(1) The way the Hmong family continued to reach out to him, despite his spewing of racist epithets and outward hostility. By small acts of kindness they eventually broke through his tough exterior and bitterness.

(2) The way his own family shamefully showed they were only concerned with their inheritance (which they did not get) after his wife died--how his granddaughter asked what he would do with the car "after he died," and how his son and daughter-in-law brought him brochures for an old folks home on his birthday. They felt a sense of entitlement because they were blood, but in the end it was those who truly befriended and cared about him who received the car, a symbol of his legacy.

(3) Finally, how he befriended the boy and taught him the duty and honor of hard work, buying him tools and exhorting him to resist being dragged into the maelstrom of the gangs. This family showed a lot of soul and a lot of guts lifting themselves up when everything around them was trying to drag them down. As the Hmong girl said, in her culture, "the girls go to college and the boys go to jail." They strugged heroically to break that cycle.

This resonates with a number of things from my philosophy--how we should not judge people or circumstances by appearances (the hero's gruff exterior and rough talk, the differences of culture), how we have a duty to rise about circumstance and the spiral of self-destruction, and how learning and self-improvement are the key to rising above.

A Tale of Two Neighbors

To continue the health care debate--first of all, let me get something off my chest. This is not a debate about health care reform. This is a debate about health care financing. There's nothing wrong with health care in the US; we have some of the finest in the world.

I'm totally opposed to socialized medicine like they have in Europe. The main problem with socialized medicine--and why all communist and socialist plans must fail--is that they diffuse personal responsibility. We learn maturity and responsible behavior when we are responsible for the consequences of our own actions. We learn irresponsibility when we make everyone pay for everyone else's mistakes. (This is the subject of Chapter 22 in my book, which can be ordered from my main website.)

To see a concrete example of this, let's consider two neighbors--the A's and the B's. Mr. A watches what he eats, because he tends towards being overweight and has high cholesterol. He runs a mile every morning, doesn't smoke, and doesn't drink except for the occasional single glass of red wine. Mrs. A is a diabetic but takes her insulin and avoids sugar, so she's fit enough to take yoga and kickboxing down at the local gym. The kids eat their vegetables, brush their teeth, and are limited to two hours of TV a day.

Right next door are the B's. Mr. and Mrs. B are chain smokers and couch potatoes. Their kids are overweight and sedentary. Mr. B drinks heavily every weekend. The kids don't take vitamins or eat anything green. Their dinner is usually macaroni and cheese, cheeseburgers and fries, or takeout buckets of fried chicken, with lots of ice cream for dessert.

Family A takes care of themselves and has low medical expenses, save the annual checkups and periodic sports injuries. Family B has no pre-existing health issues but the kids are constantly sick and the adults are both on heart medicine.

Under the current free-market system, the A's would have lower health care premiums on account of being non-smokers and being in good general health. As smokers and heavy drinkers, the B's would have higher premiums. While currently premiums are set to amortize risks and costs over the whole population, they make some differentiation so there's at least some element of personal responsibility.

Now...consider what would happen under socialized medicine, where (1) everyone theoretically has coverage, and (2) medical care is free (free meaning we all pay for it through taxes, because ultimately somebody has to pay). One family has low health care costs and the other has many prescriptions and doctor visits every month. Then Mr. B develops lung cancer. Who get to pay for this? Both households see their taxes rise to pay for the treatment of him and many others like him.

Is this fair? Under socialized medicine, we would all have to pay for the consequences of each other's poor choices. Clearly, the B's are not really getting away with anything--their human suffering is its own cost. But equally clear is the fact that individual consequences are not enough to dissuade people from harmful or self-destructive behavior. What will the government do to keep health care costs down under such a system? Will it mandate that we all quit smoking, set limits on the food we eat, or dictate how much exercise we get? What if we don't follow those guidelines--will we still get free health care?

The current system isn't perfect. But it's better than what they're contemplating right now.

Health Care Rationing?

Here, we dive right into controversial topics--first up, Obama's health care plans and socialized medicine. The main problem with this is, as with all well-meaning but misguided socialist plans, how to pay for it. What I want to focus on here is the philosophy behind the current health care debate...is health care a right? And how should we ration it?

Those on the left are fond of saying that health care is a right. What I want to know is where did this right come from? The practice of medicine evolved over thousands of years. The science of medicine evolved through trial and error, painstaking pharmaceutical experimentation, and even grave robbing. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, died on operating tables for our acquisition of this knowledge. Now, if health care is a fundamental right, how it is that it took so long for us to get to this point in medical science? And when exactly in human history did it become a right?

You might protest that just because something is a right doesn't mean we don't have to fight and sacrifice for it. After all, our freedoms have been hard won on the battlefield. Fair enough. But what the liberals don't seem to appreciate is that health care has to be provided by someone, and those who provide it have families to support. They deserve to be paid. And that which has to be paid for is not a right. Our freedom of speech, our freedom of worship, and the right to bear arms, are all things we are freely entitled to without paying for them. The poll tax--making people pay to exercise their constitutional right to vote--was declared unconstituational by the Supreme Court.

Conservatives have taken to saying that any government-run health care program would need to involve rationing of health care. They are absolutely correct on this. But they're a little bit disingenuous as well, because whether it's government run or privately financed, health care would still need to be rationed. The only question is who is going to ration it--the government? The insurance companies? Doctors? Currently, health care is rationed according the people's ability to pay. If you cannot pay for health care (or don't qualify for government support), then you don't get it. That favors the rich and the very poor. But though the system is imperfect, the act of rationing is not necessarily bad. We should not all be forever entitled to whatever heroic measures exist to prolong our lives. Note that I said prolong our lives, not save our lives, because all life must eventually end. Death is a natural and inevitable part of life. That's hard to accept when you're staring into the face of death, and even harder when you're trying to climg onto a dying loved one. Yet death is part of life, and our resources to extend it and postpone the inevitable are limited. So let's not pretend that rationing will not take place under either kind of system.

The only question is, as stated above, who's going to ration it. Are you comfortable trusting the government with the power of making this life-and-death decision? That just gives government too much power. That's the main reason--other than all the economic failings of socialism--why we must reject socialized medicine.

Welcome!

I will be posting my thoughts about our strange existence on this rock in my blog. What about? Anything and everything that interests me--politics, religion (everything my mother warned me not to discuss in mixed company), my philosophical ramblings, modern culture, humorous little stories, items of local interest...whatever. Why would I do this, you might ask? Well, in one sense, all writers are exhibitionists, so think of this as therapeutic for me. You can read or not, depending on whatever mood strikes you.

What you will get is irreverent and hopefully witty me in the raw, without the benefit of revision or retraction. That may be good or bad. See you around.