Democrats are not buying black votes with welfare benefits. Democrats appeal to blacks, to other minority groups, and — most significant — to women with rhetoric and policies that promise the mitigation of risk. (Never mind that these policies don’t work — voters never sort that out.) Conservatives routinely generalize our own economic confidence, assuming that it is shared by the general public, with catastrophic political consequences. The health-care debate represented the most notable instance of this faulty assumption in recent years; every Republican politician who could get near a microphone was harrumphing about how we had the greatest health-care system in the world, but they all failed to appreciate the anxiety inherent in being tied to an employer-based insurance plan during times of economic uncertainty. (In the 21st century, all times are times of economic uncertainty.)
Is it safe?
Kevin D. Williamson explains why he thinks conservative rhetoric falls flat with many voters:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I was noticing the other day Rep. Pelosi's conference at which she announced that she was putting forward 'a Democratic economic agenda for women.'
It plays into the trend highlighted by the first two paragraphs here: you can convince people that these government programs are making them independent. You're on welfare, housing assistance and food stamps -- and that's exactly equal to living free, on your own, with no debts to anybody.
That said, what do you propose (or do you think he proposes) as a counterweight? Explaining that you're not really independent? That we despise you as a leech and a bad person if you live like Julia? That's not going to win their votes either. :)
It's an old dilemma, persuading people that perfect security is inconsistent with liberty, and that once they give up their liberty they won't have the security, either. Some people don't want to grow up. They can even persuade themselves that living off the government is the same as independence. They'll find out differently when they try defying the government.
What I found most interesting about the "Defying Hitler" book was how easy it was for the Nazis to bully people who depended on the government for their living. Having to scramble for a living is always perilous, but at least if you're in the private sector, no one employer can force you to your knees; there's always another employer out there somewhere.
Maybe nothing's likely to change until the people who like the risk-free life get tired enough of being bullied and get tired of the economy going further and further into the tank. The Soviet Union did break up eventually, after all.
"...The Soviet Union did break up eventually, after all."
Thanks, Tex. That's really reassuring.
Maybe nothing's likely to change until the people who like the risk-free life get tired enough of being bullied and get tired of the economy going further and further into the tank. The Soviet Union did break up eventually, after all.
Not reassuring at all. The only thing that changed with the breakup was the geographic reach of the central tyranny.
Eric Hines
Well, you know, I grew up reading "1984" and internalized the conviction that once a system like that got going, it couldn't be overturned from within. It turns out I was too pessimistic. That's not to say I think the Soviet Union was replaced with a free-market paradise devoted to unshakeable principles of human dignity and independence, but many of its former dominions are in much better shape now.
"every Republican politician who could get near a microphone was harrumphing about how we had the greatest health-care system in the world"
I'd say anxiety over access to that system was completely rational and fair, considering that today "all times are times of economic uncertainty". There was also some pretty shaky slander of the NHS occurring by those harrumphters, which was displeasing.
It's worth noting that your opinion is echoed by my other British friends, most of whom are fans of the NHS. It's not a system I would want to live under, but it does have its fans among those who do.
I can't even tolerate having to rely on my employer for my health insurance. The idea of relying on the government not only for my health insurance but for my actual healthcare! The mind boggles.
I suppose I'm risk-averse, too, but I have a wildly different notion of what's risky.
If I remember our earlier conversations about risk, Tex, you and I run very similar risks in the health-insurance game. I also have a catastrophe-only policy with a $6,500 annual deductible. Given the uncertainty of illness or injury, that represents a real risk.
However, I purchase it independently, so I'm not reliant on anyone at all for it (except the insurance company keeping its bargains, of course). There is no more-powerful partner who can "alter the deal," in the manner of Darth Vader.
Right -- the risk-abatement approach we have in common is very different from the NHS setup, is what I meant. What NHS enthusiasts are doing to abate their own risks is just the sort of thing that makes me feel incredibly insecure.
Eric, I was being sarcastic (pardon my lack of close tag). It's a terrifying thought that it might take that level of dysfunction and loss of liberty to rouse people to action. This used to be America.
Sparkle, no doubt you're aware there are plenty of disgruntled users of the NHS as well, right? It makes sense you would think it's alright- you're young and healthy. IT's those who need more than check-ups and vaccinations who start finding problems with the system. Systems like that do the 'assembly line' type tasks very well, they just don't do complex medical issues well. Perhaps some think that's a fair trade-off, but I'll not count myself among them.
Douglas, I knew you were being sarcastic. I've just been getting a bellyful of folks who think government is the answer and demand to inflict that dysfunction on me.
Even sarcasm starts to push that button. My problem, not yours. Sorry.
Eric Hines
Douglas said "you're aware there are plenty of disgruntled users of the NHS as well, right?"
Absolutely. Every system has its flaws and the NHS has plenty. The dichotomy you will see from Britons is most will defend and damn the NHS at the same time, and our media never spares them. However the case can be overstated. Too often it comes down to this anecdote vs. another. Although everyone pays into the NHS, you are free to take out further private cover, and many do.
But the NHS is a good, acceptable standard, that everyone here has access to whatever age (I know a lot of young healthy people in the US take a risk with zero cover), whether they have flu or the shit has hit the fan. And I think (not having crunched the numbers) generally speaking unless you are relatively well off it works out good (personal) value.
It seems to me, MrSparkle, that what you're saying are the strengths of the system are that it gets people who might not take care of themselves to do so. So does having cheap catastrophic insurance available, and paying for the routine stuff yourself (it really isn't that expensive if you cut the paperwork overhead- doctors here routinely give 50-60% cash discounts). Problem is places like California legislate that insurance policies must include all sorts of stuff and then there's no such thing as a 'cheap catastrophic policy'. You create a market for government health care by getting government's nose in the tent, and then make the argument that they should run healthcare (and government runs nothing well). If the USDA can't prevent upwards of 60% of the fish people buy from being mislabelled, what good are they? Underwriters Labs is a much more reliable model for oversight.
Tell me, aren't most of the people you chat with about NHS relatively young, as you are? Might be a skewed sample.
Post a Comment