Healthcare: We Have Met the Enemy, and it is Us

I’m sure that all who are following the debate over government-sponsored medical care have heard a plurality of pundits, so this post is designed to make a few points that I think need to be considered in the debate that aren’t discussed enough. There is a lot of scapegoating directed at the insurance industry by the current administration in order to sell the benefits of government-run healthcare, which is unfortunate, as it is the same old demonizing tactic used last year against the oil companies during the presidential campaign: the charge of “record profits.” In a capitalist society, profits are a good thing, with record profits being even better since it would mean the economy is growing and prosperity is spreading. In this particular case, however, health insurance companies aren’t enjoying profits that are setting any new records. And they are not the enemy even if they were. Just as with auto and home insurance policies, health insurance companies allow us to pool risk and gain access to medical care and drugs that would otherwise not be affordable except for the very wealthy. The current administration would have us believe that since the system is not perfect, it should be completely dismantled and run by government bureaucrats. Instead, I feel we should be thankful that we have a system which works well for most, but requires commonsense reforms such as those proposed by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Senator Mitch McConnell.

One problem with health insurance is that over the course of several decades a "middle man" (the insurance company) has come between the patient and the doctor, thus affecting market dynamics for better or for worse. Yet if government further gets in the middle it will only make things more complex, not less, because now you're adding a political component, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen when healthcare becomes political. Unlike house or car insurance, health insurance is highly personal and something we take advantage of on a more or less regular basis, depending on our current state of health. We have come to expect more and more things to be covered such as the latest medicines and procedures, and it has also become a game of nickel and dime things instead of just big things. Patients and doctors apply pressure to insurance companies to cover sex-enhancing pills, massages and other elective options that are probably better paid for out of pocket. Naturally, premiums rise as insurance companies cover more medicines and procedures. So insurance companies, which must have enough reserves to pay claims and make profits that allow them to invest in their businesses are in a damned if they do, damned if they don’t proposition when it comes to setting practical limits for what they can cover and what they can’t.

A huge issue is the fact that many Americans don't lead healthy lifestyles, yet expect the modern miracles of medicine to save the day. Moreover, we expect these miracles to cost nothing more and have come to feel we have a "right" to new medicines or technology simply because they are available. Yet when the insurance company won’t pay for these miracles or raises its premiums to do so they are at fault when in large part we have brought many illnesses on ourselves through our own poor choices. I am so tired of people complaining about how greedy insurance companies are, because if we didn't have them, we would have to pay these costs out of our own pockets, which most of us couldn’t (or wouldn’t) do. Yet it is us, when we abuse insurance through poor life choices, that have caused premium costs to increase since we demand more while living unhealthy lifestyles that drive up those costs. In fact, preventable illnesses are at the very core of spiraling health costs in America, most directly related to smoking and obesity (due to poor diet and lack of regular exercise). So instead of pointing the finger at insurance companies, I think we should begin pointing the finger at ourselves for living lifestyles that unnecessarily drive up healthcare costs. In large part, we have met the enemy, and it is us.

An important thing we must realize is that all of the new medicines and technologies that make us well or keep us alive cost money to develop. Pharmaceutical companies must literally invest hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to bring a drug to market, and must absorb the cost of drugs that don’t make it to market. This is not purely science as drugs must go through painstaking clinical trials in order to receive FDA approval. If pharmaceutical companies were not investing their “record” profits on breakthrough drugs, then there would be no new miracle drugs. So we shouldn’t be upset that pharmaceutical companies make big profits if we are looking forward to the next breakthrough drug to cure or treat an existing or future disease. As well, if insurance companies don't make a profit, then they can't pay claims, and since insurance is based on actuarial tables that aren't perfect, there is always the chance that some new disease comes along (such as HIV/AIDS) that causes profits to go down and premiums to possibly go up. Or there may be a new “must have” breakthrough technology that makes premiums go up further. So we have to understand that insurance companies are taking on qualified risk and are not just kicking back reaping profits. It is a tough business.

In general, healthcare access and cost presents a very complex problem that requires sensible, yet imperfect, reform. More competition between insurance providers and sensible regulation is what is needed (such as not allowing insurance companies to simply “drop” existing customers because they contract a disease that is expensive to treat, when the whole purpose of actuarial tables was to account for this risk). I am deeply conflicted about forcing insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions since these can "break the bank" actuarially and affect others in the insured pool adversely. If the government takes on healthcare, then taxpayers will pick up huge costs as there will be no practical limit to the care that people will lobby the government for since they see their fellow taxpayers as a bottomless pool of money. Of course, the government would have to ration care based on decisions from bureaucrats in Washington, instead of actuarial tables and competition in the open market. So this is all the more reason for the federal government to keep away from becoming an insurance provider beyond the current tax-funded Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP programs (in fact, it should get out of these programs altogether and remand to the states since this is not the proper function of the federal government in the first place).

Fundamentally, I think insurers should stop covering unnecessary things such as sex-enhancing pills and massages, to name just a couple. Insurers should offer a basic, catastrophic package for anyone, which would be attractive to young people that don't use healthcare very much and who are also willing to pay if they do need something other than catastrophic care. Yet these same people that can afford healthcare should not be able to simply go to an ER when they get sick and expect someone else to pay for it. It is a grossly inefficient way to receive care. So I would be open to an individual mandate such as that for car insurance, where you set the deductible level with a private insurer that provides some level of reasonable options based on risk profile. Those at certain poverty levels should be eligible for government assistance with premiums (where they would pay something, and never nothing), while those who are unemployed should keep their existing policy with government assistance, possibly at a lower level of coverage. The idea is that everyone gets covered and stays covered.

Finally, I believe that once someone is in an insurance pool, they should be able to stay in that pool without worry of being dropped, but still have the opportunity to move to another pool if it is more cost effective for them. This would at least set a baseline for moving forward so we can get everyone on some type of coverage without a government takeover. For those not covered with pre-existing conditions, possibly we could expand the Medicare and Medicaid pool on a one-time basis as a part of the baseline, instead of forcing them on insurers. Beyond that, as citizens we will be responsible for gaining access to health care among the private and existing public options available depending on the personal situation. Existing employer-provided plans should be portable, so that when one leaves the company their insurance goes with them at the same cost, and an option would be provided to move down to a more affordable level if the person cannot afford it, or whose next employer cannot provide the same level of benefit. Now I am realistic, as I don’t expect an ideal solution since humans are involved, but I do expect a better free market solution than the one currently available. Those who listen to the siren song of government are unfortunately, I believe, looking for perfection, but will only find disappointment when they find that what they’re hoping for won’t live up to expectations.

share on: facebook

Closer to Truth?

This past week I had a married couple as guests at my home, and as usual when they come to visit we invariably get around to discussing religion since Philosophy of Religion & Ethics is my current course of study. I’m not sure if they are agnostics or simply skeptics, though my guess is that it is more the latter. Both are highly intelligent and moral folks who are concerned with living good lives, being kind to others, donating to good causes, and being loving, attentive parents to their young children. But they tend to look strongly askance at anything of a religious nature, though they admit there are some good things that come out of religion that are beneficial to society. Fundamentally, John and Sharon (not their real names), are skeptical that any of my efforts in studying religion necessarily allow me to get any closer to truth than anyone else, no matter how much I may study. Why do they conclude this, and am I simply wasting precious time and energy studying philosophy? Since they both feel there are other people who study as much as I do yet come to different conclusions, their logic is that we cannot get to truth since everyone doesn’t necessarily come to the same conclusions concerning the existence of God, or further that Christ is indeed the Son of God who died on a cross and resurrected on the third day.

At core, John and Sharon have the view that what may be true for me, and others that accept Christ, may not be true for others who accept some other religion such as Islam or Hinduism, or who simply conclude that all religions are false. But it’s okay if it’s true for me and provides some benefit, and I shouldn’t be naive in believing that my truth might actually apply to them or others. I didn’t explain that this view is the typical postmodern thinking that Americans have gradually accepted over the past 40-50 years, which posits that there are no overarching, universal truths. Truth, according to postmodern thought is simply a social construct and a creation of the human mind. Yet John and Sharon admit that in their everyday lives, they behave as if there are universal truths. They feel that stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, and that it is not okay to abuse children. But if there is no such thing as objective truth, then why would they live their lives as if it is so, even asserting there are indeed some moral imperatives as just described? It is wholly inconsistent to on the one hand believe that everything is relative and evolving, while at the same time making statements as to how a certain state of affairs ought or should be when things are constantly undergoing change. If everything is relative and truth is what you make it, then the words ought or should are in effect meaningless when used in communication.

While John and Sharon are skeptical there is objective truth, and that Christianity could even accord with truth, it is an interesting thing we all agreed that the moral sense of right and wrong are fairly universal within the human race. Even those who choose to do wrong (presuming they are normally functioning) know implicitly what is the good or right thing to do, but simply choose not to do the good or right thing because they have the free will to reject it. This sense of moral order in the universe is, in theological terms, called common grace, since it may be apprehended by all and is common to all humankind. So herein we may reasonably conclude that even though there is nothing we can know exhaustively, common grace can be reasonably construed (in an epistemic sense) as an objective truth, and is true wholly independent of whether we give it cognitive assent or not. In essence, I’m arguing that on this basis, John and Sharon would be wise to conclude that there are indeed some objective moral truths that are not just true for some, but true for all, including them. In other words, truth is truth, and truth has no dependency on them, yet it is there for them to ascertain should they choose to accept it. I feel they sense this, but are somehow afraid of the consequences of accepting this view.

Now as this pertains to Christianity specifically, as John stated, the truth of a tangerine resting on the kitchen island was readily apparent to him as some form of objective truth, since he could see it, but he has no way to verify there is salvation in Christ, and further since Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other scholars have concluded that there is indeed no salvation in Christ, then all I am offering is a biased opinion based on personal inclinations instead of some degree of objective knowledge based on diligent study and reflection. Where I believe John’s logic fails is that he doesn’t understand that all of these religions make fundamentally conflicting truth claims in a number of areas, with the possibility that all are false, or one is true. John, Sharon, and I all agreed that there is adequate testimony, both internal to the bible and external to it, that Christ walked the earth 2000 years ago and was crucified on a cross. They both acknowledged that the Bible, as a book of history, has been proven to be amazingly accurate with respect to archaeological finds. So the only point of contention was whether Christ actually raised from dead as eyewitness testimony reported. If he did not, then this naturally lends more credence to the Jewish and Muslim religions (though Islam borrows heavily from Christianity). Since Hinduism is entirely based on myth, there is no particular reason to believe it is true to begin with. So I believe I’m on firm ground that Christianity is at least a reasonable position though I don’t have exhaustive truth of its veracity. Yet I’m open to contrary evidence.

“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” – 1 Corinthians 12-18 (ESV)

The bottom line for me is when I weigh the philosophical, historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence for Christianity (for which I have done prodigious research, particularly in the scientific arena), I believe I have done my best in terms of epistemic duty. I conclude that Christianity most closely aligns with reality given the alternatives, and that my belief is thus warranted. Of course, this entirely rests on the resurrection of Christ, which is very difficult to prove conclusively, but again, I believe I have done my epistemic best based on the eyewitness testimonial as recorded in the Bible. Now I don’t believe that someone has to become a biblical scholar such as myself in order to have a warranted belief in Christ, as the Bible takes a clear position that God has made his existence plain:

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” - Romans 1:19-20 (ESV)

So I assert the proper function of humankind is to ascertain that there is a God based on common grace, nature itself, and finally, special revelation through the gospel of Jesus Christ. If this is indeed the truth then anyone who hears the message may respond to it whether they are currently an atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim, or of any other religious persuasion. It is an act of their cognitive abilities and their will, again, presuming their mental faculties are properly functioning . As well, they have full freedom to reject the gospel. Regarding John and Sharon, my hope is they will both give serious reflection to the worldview they have adopted, considering the full impact of their chosen philosophy in their lives and in the lives of those they touch.

share on: facebook

Maureen Dowd: “White Man’s Last Stand”?

On Tuesday, July 14, Maureen Dowd posted a rambling piece of hate speech posing as an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled “White Man’s Last Stand.” Not much of a surprise, but I do wonder why this woman holds such a deep revulsion for white men, particularly when she is the product of a white man and woman. The world may never know. Let’s hope she doesn’t follow up with a piece attacking white women, though she did manage to get in a jab at Sarah Palin towards the end of the piece, which had nothing to with the title or topic, so maybe she has it out for white people in general or was simply unable to stay on point. Anyway, the piece was ostensibly about white Republican men, who as a “last stand,” took unwarranted swipes at Sonia Sotomayor during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week. In this piece she calls out Republican senators Jon Kyl, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham as objects of her derision. Apparently Dowd was unhappy with the nature of their questions, which, to Dowd, appeared patronizing and mean-spirited, yet were deftly answered by the wise Latina Sotomayor who drew on the richness of her experiences to thwart this gaggle of white Republican men, “afraid of extinction,” whose only purpose was to trip her up. Interestingly, Dowd wasn’t particularly thrilled with Democratic senator Chuck Schumer’s line of questioning either, but since he’s a Democrat he escaped her deepest hatred since white men who are Democrats are either not afraid of extinction or don’t know that they too may be headed towards it.

What truly angers me about this piece is that in order to build Sotomayor up, it was not necessary to tear down white men in the process. Indeed, Dowd extends her invective by spouting off a litany of “bad decisions” made by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that were wholly unrelated to the Sotomayor confirmation. So perhaps Sotomayor was simply the launching point for all of the things Dowd wanted to get off her chest, as the next thing you know she’s informing us of just a small sample of Sarah Palin’s bad qualities, such as being an irrational, volatile, and “country-music queen without the music.” Though I hardly understand what value there is to this bombastic tirade, it’s a good thing to know the thoughts of a true liberal who’s not afraid to make her feelings known. Perhaps it’s a bit of self-loathing, white guilt, or possibly the woman has gone stark raving mad. I simply can’t think of a good reason to use the confirmation hearings as a launching pad to express her contempt for a whole group of people by viciously assailing honorable, upstanding public servants. And what specifically does the title “White Man’s Last Stand” imply? Is Dowd personally ushering in a new era of government by serving notice to white men, particularly of the Republican stripe, that they are no longer welcome? As the only two people deemed rational in the whole piece were Obama and Sotomayor, it appears that is the case.

I have no idea who Dowd is looking to curry favor with, or if she is looking to curry favor at all. What I will tell you, Miss Dowd, is that you have curried none with this black man if that was your intent. Like Sotomayor, you would deny a group of people their constitutional right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, presumably due to the actions of their ancestors and not their own. The very fact that we have a black president who was able to nominate a Hispanic woman is because of the mostly faceless white men and women who risked their reputations and often their lives to stand with blacks during the days of slavery and Jim Crow that ultimately led to us achieving our long-deserved civil rights in 1964. We could not have achieved this without those whites who respected their fellow man and respected the Constitution. Yes, it was a long struggle and many whites oppressed us as for as long as they possibly could. I personally grew up at the tail end of the civil rights period and was all too often called a “nigger,” as well as being denied access to swimming pools that didn’t allow blacks. Vestiges of this still exist in some places, but for the most part those days are over and I believe few whites today would want to go back. The few that mistreated me during my formative years are most likely still alive, yet I have forgiven them because their mistreatment only encouraged me to work hard with the faith that civil rights gains would yield fruit over the coming years. And they did.

So Miss Dowd, whatever has caused you to be so bitter and filled with hatred for white people, I sincerely hope you will come to grips with it. It is wholly unbecoming of a beautiful and talented woman such as yourself, as you are doing no good service in lashing out at a whole segment of fellow Americans for no legitimate reason by making a caricature of a few white politicians who don’t ascribe to your worldview. As a white woman, I can’t say that your life has necessarily been any more privileged than mine, but you have certainly not had to face what any black person has, which is indeed fortunate for you. Yet, even if you were black, there would be no excuse for this piece. I am highly disappointed in you, but even more disappointed in the New York Times for printing such an ugly and divisive article while purportedly positioning itself as a champion for “tolerance” and equal rights (apparently, this courtesy is only extended to those who agree with your worldview, thereby making the position moot). I certainly honor your First Amendment rights, Miss Dowd, but believe you have demonstrated a reckless degree of irresponsibility, as this piece is little more than hate speech directed at white Americans. You owe them, and all Americans, a most sincere apology.

share on: facebook

The Dangers of Progressivism

This post is the last in a three-part series tracing the roots of the progressive movement. In Part 1, The Damaging Effects of Philosophical Pragmatism, I discussed the philosophical underpinnings of progressivism. In Part 2, Progressivism, Obama, and You, I fleshed out progressivism as a system of thought and its progression during various presidencies leading up to Obama. This final post will discuss the dangers of progressivism, based on Glenn Beck’s new book titled Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine. From the outset, Beck notes that though many people hear the word “progressive” they immediately think of liberals or Democrats, but the truth is they’re not synonymous. Progressivism has less to do with parties and more to do with individuals who “seek to redefine, reshape, and rebuild America into a country where individual liberties and personal property mean nothing if they conflict with the plans and goals of the State.” Beck calls progressivism a cancer because it is not limited to political systems, but has infiltrated both political parties and the entire political class, which includes bureaucrats, lobbyists, trade unions, and corporations that “all look to government as their own personal ATM machine.”

Progressivism is why, according to Beck, Americans feel as though the candidates they get to choose from are pretty much the same. In other words, do you elect progressive candidate A, or really progressive candidate B? We need look no further than the last presidential election between John McCain, who would be candidate A, and Barack Obama, who has clearly demonstrated that he is candidate B. One of the hallmarks of progressive thought is the concept of redistribution: the idea that your money and property are only yours if the State doesn’t determine there is a higher or better use for it. Teddy Roosevelt made this view clear in his speech on the “New Nationalism” in 1910, and I believe most of us recall Obama echoing this modern-day Robin Hood sentiment in his exchange with Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher during the last presidential campaign. Roosevelt said that personal property is “subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” Roosevelt’s thoughts on accumulated wealth were equally illuminating. In the same speech he said, “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.” Theodore Roosevelt was also the first president to call for national health insurance. See a pattern here?

Beck goes on to note how Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was the next president to further the progressive agenda. Like Roosevelt, he didn’t believe there were any restrictions on government power. These two presidents serve as the idols and philosophical foundations for their respective parties, which perhaps explains why both parties seem to continually produce the same results. Like today, the early twentieth-century progressives loved to rely on “experts,” and used them as an excuse to expand their power. George W. Bush presided over a massive redistribution of wealth with his Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Plan. Even “conservative” presidential candidate John McCain cited Theodore Roosevelt as one of his favorite presidents. Beck argues that the presidential election of 2008 was truly a repeat of the presidential election of 1912, in which America was really only offered a progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat as candidates. Over the last century, progressives have successfully moved our country toward more government control and less personal freedom—and they’re still pushing the envelope according to Beck. He doesn’t believe progressives have a master plan to take down America, as he thinks they genuinely believe their view is the best way forward. However, the problem is that fewer and fewer people are able to stand in their way because we don’t teach real American history any more, let alone the real history and vision of the progressive movement. The principles of freedom and liberty and the beliefs of the founding fathers have basically been whitewashed from the curriculum.

As I discussed in previous posts, progressives view the Constitution as a living organism that evolves with time and changes depending on the circumstances. As Beck notes, both the progressives and the founding fathers view the Constitution as a set of handcuffs—but the difference is the founders believed it was the power of the State that was to be cuffed, while progressives believed it was individuals who were cuffed to the greater good of the group. One of these two positions will win out and that will dictate how future generations live their lives. The battle is taking place now between these two philosophies right now in all aspects of our lives, with a few key issues outlined by Beck that the progressives are using to drive their agenda forward: the environment, gun control, education, and religion. I would add to this list healthcare, while as I write this Democrats are ramming through massively expensive, sweeping legislation to nationalize the healthcare system with little thought as to its true costs and its effects on an already weak economy. How could Congress completely redo the healthcare system representing 16% of our economy in just a matter of weeks, without considering that the present system simply needs to be improved? This alone demonstrates that progressives do not represent the people, but represent their own private agendas under the guise of the will of the people, as they gradually remake America in their own image.

References:

Beck, Glenn, Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine, New York: Mercury Radio Arts, 2009.

share on: facebook

Obama and Czar-mania: The Change We’ve Been Waiting For?

As of this writing, President Obama’s czar count has reached the tidy sum of 34 (not to be outdone by the first lady, who has 20 servants assistants, but that’s another story). Czars are public officials that are unelected yet have sweeping powers the same as Congress, with no accountability to Congress or a Cabinet secretary (or you, the taxpayer, for that matter). There are currently czars for climate change, executive pay, drugs, health care reform, urban affairs, domestic violence, energy, and so on ad nauseam. Czars are nothing new, as many Presidents have had them, but no President has had this many unelected officials with the tools and resources to make policy while being accountable to no one except the administration. The worst thing is these czar's don't have to undergo Senate Confirmation Hearings, as they are simply appointed by the President. Obama’s use of czars is just one tool in the progressivist toolbox used to build a bureaucratic apparatus that will circumvent the Constitution toward its own ends. It is, quite frankly, a power grab by Obama to advance his utopian agenda with impunity through unelected “experts” that answer to no one but him. Again, this is nothing new, but is entirely consistent with the goals of the progressive movement that began in the late nineteenth century. So perhaps a little history might illuminate the actions of the Obama administration today.

At its inception, the progressive movement’s agenda, in addition to its push for social reform, included a wide array of legislative proposals to regulate business and property. Yet the Constitution, undergirded by the principle of individual property rights, provided an obstacle to these legislative programs. State constitutions were also resistant to progressive legislative programs, noting that the new programs extended the power of government well beyond its constitutional limits. The problem though, as progressives saw it, was a failure of the courts to see the Constitution as a “living” organism, one whose limitations on government ought not be read strictly or literally, but instead interpreted to fit the demands of a new age. For Woodrow Wilson, the structure of the Constitution itself made it nearly impossible for progressively minded interpreters to adapt it to their new agenda. The Constitution rested on a system of divided powers, both between federal and state levels of government, which thwarted Wilson’s efforts to bring about a unity of the “popular will.” Thus, he detested the separation of powers, and was highly critical of this system of government. The ideal model for Wilson was the parliamentary one, where the legislative and executive are essentially united, both rising and falling on the evolving popular will.

Wilson believed government was a living thing that falls under the theory of organic life, which is modified by its environment and shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. Thus it needed to be reformed to reflect the unity of the public mind that progressives believed had been brought about by history. Separation of powers, therefore, had to be discarded and replaced by a system that separated politics and administration. The most contentious political questions had been resolved by historical development (such as the Civil War), so the real work of the government was not in politics, but in administration. Thus the plan for reforming national institutions was to democratize and unify national political institutions while separating and insulating administrative agencies. Wilson believed the original intention of separation of powers could be circumvented by an enhanced presidency that could energize an active national government. To the extent that Wilson could claim to embody the people’s will, he would move institutions of national government by the force of that popularity. These national administrative institutions would then translate that broad will into specific policy.

Though the idea was to democratize national political institutions, the exact opposite was done through administrative agencies made up of a substantial bureaucratic apparatus, shielded from political influence, staffed by educated “experts” who would become the means for facilitating government through regulatory activity. This was clearly at odds with the Constitution, because whereas administration was supposed to be confined to the executive branch, a progressive administration engaged itself not only in executive action, but legislative and judicial action as well. These administrative agencies could superintend the activities of private businesses, and on the basis of their expertise, could make rules and regulations, enforce them, and adjudicate violations of them. Since these administrators were unlike ordinary politicians, they could, ostensibly, be objective and could focus on the good of the whole people. Yet the irony here is that this administrative model called for shifting policymaking power away from popular institutions and giving it to educated elites. Since they were “free” from political or electoral control, in actuality what Wilson was proposing was a distinctly elitist model under a democratic veneer.

Between Wilson and Roosevelt, progressives of both parties played a significant role in national, state, and local politics throughout the first two decades of the twentieth century. Roosevelt and Wilson reformed politics through federal regulation of numerous aspects of public life, which became commonplace. They inaugurated a new era in American government that, as I discussed in the last blog, was continued by other progressive presidents, with Obama simply being the latest torchbearer of the progressive movement. While Wilson’s concept of government was concerned with shielding administrative agencies from political influence so administrators could run rampant in making policy, Obama’s chosen method to circumvent the Constitution is to appoint a small army of czars reporting directly to him to accomplish the same end. Is this the change we’ve been waiting for? For me, indeed not.

Note: I realize that according to the previous post this post was supposed to discuss the dangers of progressivism, but I couldn’t resist getting in a “jab” about czar-mania. The next post will address that topic.

* References

Pestritto, Ronald J. and William J. Atto, eds. American Progressivism: A Reader. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008.

share on: facebook

Progressivism, Obama, and You

This is the second installment in a series on political philosophy and its practical implications in America. In the first installment, I discussed the damaging effects of philosophical pragmatism, which may appear to be an “ivory tower” topic, but as I will show in this post, directly affects you in the arena of your government. The point I most want to get across is that all of our political leaders have adopted some system of thought, and that system of thought will have direct affects on how they lead this country. This fact cannot be more salient than at the federal level, where each and every citizen is affected, whereas at the state level, if you don’t like the way your state is governed, you always have the option to move to another state. Take note that in the states of California and Michigan, for example, there is a net outflow of people because Americans are “voting with their feet” by seeking out other states that have more opportunities and less onerous taxation. Now at the federal level, most Obama supporters see him as “change,” as if he is something new and different from those Presidents who have gone before him. But the truth is he is not a different type of politician, but the latest in a line of progressive Presidents leading back to Teddy Roosevelt. This worldview and way of governing has its basis in philosophical pragmatism, which I discussed in my previous post.

One of the central figures in developing philosophical pragmatism, according to Nancy Pearcey in Total Truth, was educator John Dewey, who was a leading representative of the progressive movement, and whose writings and speeches along with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were highly influential on democracy in America. Pragmatism, in essence, is an evolutionary logic based on a naturalized version of German historicism, particularly that of Romantic idealist philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel’s historicism taught that the material world is the outworking of an Absolute Spirit or Mind or God, where the Absolute externalizes itself over time through the historical process (history is completely contingent in that it is spontaneous, unpredictable, and open to genuine novelty). Dewey naturalized Hegelian historicism by reconciling it with Darwinism, thus offering pragmatism as a “via media,” or middle way that would overcome the dichotomy between philosophical naturalism and philosophical idealism. Essentially, pragmatists seized on the role of chance as a basis for a philosophy of indeterminacy, freedom, and innovation. The “openness” of the world takes the form of chance at lower levels of complexity, and takes the form of choice at the human level.

In the book American Progressivism: A Reader, Ronald Pestritto and William Atto note that the coupling of historical contingency with the doctrine of progress (namely, philosophical pragmatism) was shared by all progressives to one degree or another, and reveals how the progressive movement became the means by which German historicism was imported into the American political tradition. In fact, Johns Hopkins University, founded in 1876, was established for the express reason of bringing the German educational model to the United States, which produced prominent progressives that included John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, most modern liberals of today now refer to themselves as progressives, which is something of a homecoming. In general, modern liberals favor an expansive and active central government of the kind we have seen in America since the early part of the twentieth century, as opposed to classical liberalism, which saw the fundamental purpose of government as the protection of individual rights, viewing with suspicion any extension of governmental power into spheres beyond this limited purpose.

Pestritto and Atto note how Dewey complained that the founding generation lacked historic sense and interest and that it had a disregard of history. Dewey endorsed, instead, the doctrine of historical contingency, compatible with Hegelian thought. Natural rights theory, according to Dewey, blinded classical (or what Dewey called “early”) liberals to the fact that their own special interpretations of liberty, individuality and intelligence were themselves historically conditioned, and thus only relevant to their own time. They put forward their ideas as immutable truths good at all times and places, yet for Dewey, the idea of liberty was not frozen in time, but had instead a history of evolved meaning. Dewey believed the history of liberalism was progressive, which told a story of the move from more primitive to more mature conceptions of liberty. Modern liberalism, therefore, for Dewey, represented a vast improvement over classical liberalism.

Pestritto and Atto continue that American progressives took from the Germans their critique of individual rights and social compact theory, and their organic or “living” notion of the national state. Woodrow Wilson wrote of government as a “living thing,” which was to be understood according to “the theory of organic life.” The “living” notion of a constitution, Wilson contended, was far superior to the founders’ model, which had considered government a kind of “machine” that could be constantly limited through checks and balances. As a living entity, the progressives reasoned, government had to evolve and adapt in response to changing circumstances. While early American conceptions of national government had carefully circumscribed its power due to the perceived threat to individual liberties, progressives argued that history had brought about an improvement in the human condition, such that the will of the people was no longer in danger of giving in to factions. Progressives took this doctrine of progress and translated it into a call for a sharp increase in the scope of governmental power. There may be no greater example of this than Theodore Roosevelt’s speech on the New Nationalism in 1910. Roosevelt called on the state to take an active role in effecting economic equality by way of superintending the use of private property. Private property was to be respected, but only insofar as the government approved of the property’s social utility.

Roosevelt argued that new circumstances necessitated a new conception of government, and natural rights were no longer to serve as a principled boundary that the state was prohibited from crossing. Wilson had outlined a similar view of the extent of state power, even stating that he found nothing wrong with socialism in principle since no line can be drawn between public and private affairs which the state could not cross at will. Fundamentally, this view argued that rights-based theories of self-government, such as the republicanism to which the American founders subscribed and of which Wilson was sharply critical, are far less democratic than socialism. Wilson and his fellow progressives believed that rights-based theories of government limit the state’s sphere of action, thus limiting the capability of the people to implement their collective will and thus representing something less than a real democracy. So what we should see now is that a key goal of progressivism is to overcome the Constitution's limits on government and enlarge vastly the scope of government through regulation and redistribution of private property.

So whereas the founders had posited what they held to be a permanent understanding of just government, based upon a permanent account of human nature, the progressives countered that the ends and scope of government were to be defined anew in each historical epoch. Progressivism has a deep faith in historical progress, suggesting that due to historical evolution, government was becoming less of a danger to the governed and more capable of solving the great array of problems befalling the human race. These welfare-state politics of the twentieth and now twenty-first century are built upon a direct and conscious rejection of the original principles of the American Constitution, which were subsequently implemented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, extended by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and have since been maintained by the progressive polices of presidents for both major political parties. In my view, this includes George Bush’s policies, and now Barack Obama’s more radical brand of progressivism which is on par with that of presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In my next post, I will discuss the dangers of progressivism based on Glenn Beck’s new book Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine, as well as further reading of the Pestritto and Atto book.

* References:

Pestritto, Ronald J. and William J. Atto, eds. American Progressivism: A Reader. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008.

Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005.

share on: facebook