When examining the government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis, most assume that Obamacare is the main point of concern. Obamacare is the current topic of concern, since a resolution of the policy between the two parties would temporarily alleviate the government shutdown. However the belief that Obamacare is the issue holding the U.S. back from having a prosperous economy and that when a resolution is passed we can forget about the debt crisis is rather naïve. I think something much more fundamental must change before real, long lasting improvements can occur in economy, politics, and the debt situation.
More importantly than Obamacare, the obnoxiously partisan mindset in politics, more specifically the Legislative branch needs to drastically change. United States' politics is more polarized and more partisan than ever before. Members of congress worry more about scoring points with their extremely partisan campaign donors rather than helping improve the state of the country. Since reelection is always the main concern of a congressmen, they vote in a manner that will appease their donors (very extremely to the left or right). I recommend looking up members of congress voting histories. You'll find that "Republicans" essentially vote conservatively 100% of the time and "Democrats" 100% for the left. Voting action like this ruins the two party system, and is why nothing can get done at the Legislative branch, and in the political world in general. It is all a big pissing contest. Of course Adams and Washington warned of the very situation we find ourselves in today, a fight between two political factions, constantly trying to get back at one another. The founding fathers are certainly rolling over in their graves. In fact a change in policy or issue stance is frowned upon in the current political culture. Campaign ads are filled with accusations of "not staying true to the party" or "flip flopping on stances", politicians love to brag that they "haven't changed their stances on the issues EVER". Why would close mindedness like this be a point of pride? Why is changing a stance inherently bad? I think a major reform in political thinking needs to occur in the U.S., maybe a movement away from the two party system, maybe an emergence of more parties (like Germany), maybe some alternative option. The culture of picking either "Team Conservative" or "Team Democrat" and then fighting for your chosen narrow beliefs to the death is ridiculous. In what other aspect of life is their only two restrictive, with no room for variation stances to choose from? If you watch the NBA, you do not have to choose between being either a Lakers fan or a Celtics fan, with no other possibilities, there are dozens of teams in which you can support. Once you pick your favorite team, you are not forever bound to the team til death. If your team doesn't make it to the Finals, when it is time to decide a champion, you pick whichever team you dislike the least to cheer for (I hope you understand the point I am trying to make with this vague analogy). The point being, government and politics must be more free thinking and breakaway from partisan restraints.
On the topic of Obamacare, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to meddle with an individual's health. It increases everyone's premiums and decreases quality of care. Healthcare should be privatized, which would make care more affordable and quality increase. I don't think a completely privatized healthcare system would leave the poor and disadvantaged out on the streets to suffer because they cannot afford care, I have more faith in humanity than this. More than likely doctors (who I think it is safe to say possess a general care and interest for people's health) would charitable help these disadvantaged.
I can see how one could think this post is rather hypocritical, at one moment I bash partisanship, then proceed to express what could be viewed as a very partisan stance. I suppose the difference is I don't consider myself absolutist in my position and would be open to hearing evidence for opposition stances. If evidence or statistics or a valid constitutional interpretation would present itself, I would be more than glad to alter my stance to better it. I have no blinding emotional or indoctrinated association with my beliefs and always open to change. I think leaving emotional attachment to your "Team" is probably the best way to think about things in politics and life, be a free thinker.
I agree with much of what you said here. I think the addition of another party would certainly shake things up in Washington for the better. Both parties seem to have lost their ways. An added party with the people put first in their mind and agendas could really get a lot accomplished in Washington I believe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stance against Obamacare. The reason why the healthcare system is flawed now is due to too much government intervention. I agree with you also that nobody in America would allow someone to die in the streets without helping them out. That is not what we are about here. I still believe that we are a much better people than that, but the government obviously doesn't feel the same about the goodness of our hearts and thinks they have to tell us what to do. It has been shown that when government stays out of things, charity always steps in and does what government would do and much more.
The issue you are getting at is polarization: the tendency for each party to be increasingly ideologically coherent and disciplined. This is not a problem per se, but it is a problem for the Presidential system of government we have which allows for divided rule. If the parties are very divided, it makes compromise much harder, and makes government more unstable. The US, though, has seemed to manage the system quite well all things considered. We will see how that happens.
ReplyDeleteAs you note, Obamacare is a secondary issue to the current impasse, in the sense that it is not what is preventing the government from reopening in any direct sense. I think the very language you use about it shows just how deep polarization runs. Democrats would point out that Obamacare does consist of private plans. They are simply funded, in some cases, by subsidies through the tax code. The whole point was supposed to be that this plan could be a third way between the current system and a government run system. But it seems like nonetheless, the debate still treats it in terms of the free market v. government. Many would dispute that the current system covers all needs through charity, of course. There's no guarantee for treatment, and that's part of the rationale behind the reform. The idea was to increase coverage through helping people buy private insurance, but somehow along the way polarized framing mechanisms have intervened.