I was once lucky enough to share a lunch table with the elegant Eugenie Scott and the very cuddly P. Z. Myers. We were talking about science and religion, you know, as you do, and I asked Paul why his anti-religion rhetoric was quite so strident. His answer was salutary – in the good ol’ U. S. and A., he said (though not in so many words), one’s admission of atheism effectively rules you out as a candidate for any elected office whatsoever. This, I have to say, was a surprise, especially given that in the U. S. and A., church and state are formally separate. (Here in the U. of K., Her Majesty the Queen, Lor’ bless ‘er and all who sail in her, is the Head of the Church as well as the State, but these days, nobody could give a tinker’s cuss whether one’s elected representative believes in anything or nothing.) I could at once understand why Paul was so very cross about everything, but I remained ignorant about just how – there’s no easy way to say this – Right Wing politics is in the Land of the Free (For A Small Fee).
Until the day before yesterday, when I saw, on the news, how vocal and militant was the opposition to President Obama’s healthcare bill – quite revolting in many cases, even nakedly racist. Which isn’t nice. That’s when I posted an innocent update on Facebook expressing my pleasure at the safe passage of the said bill and the declaration that its opponents were simply wrong.
Whereupon I was deluged by trenchant commentary from Carl F. Hofstetter, a citizen of the U. S. and A., who opposed the bill on moral, social, philosophical and constitutional grounds. Mr Hofstetter says that it is the right of every human being (not just every American) to bear arms, and believes passionately in self-determination as opposed to statist intervention. Now, I know Mr Hofstetter is no redneck – he is a noted Tolkienist who’s probably forgotten more about The Lord Of The Rings than anyone will ever know. He even said, somewhere in the long comments thread, that he was a Democrat. But what surprised me most – and this is the reason why I am posting this – is his view that anyone who supports the funding of health care from taxation was ipso facto a socialist.
This engendered in my soul an aggressive disconnect. Newspapers in the U. of K. such as the Economist (whose line is pro-free-market) and the Spectator (which makes most Tories look like commies) have given Obamacare a qualified welcome. Many members of the Tory party, including Boris Johnson, whom posterity will mark as the greatest statesman of this or any other age, went on record as welcoming the Obama presidency (well, anyone but Mr Obama’s predecessor would have done, but still).
And as for me? I am a card-carrying Tory. I am working actively to promote our local Tory candidate, as I feel that everyone should do their bit to displace the current dreadful statist government. I believe in sound money, self-determination and small government. I am opposed to Britain’s membership of the European Union. I practically worship at the shrine of Margaret Thatcher, arguably the greatest Prime Minister Britain has had since Disraeli. And yet when President Obama was inaugurated, Mrs Crox and I sat the younger Croxii down in front of the TV to ensure they witnessed this great, historic occasion in which America might have the opportunity to witness the light of justice and civilization. To us, the National Health Service is not a political issue – it is a mark of civilization that a society forks out to ensure the health and well-being of all, irrespective of their ability to pay.
Most of my friends in the U. of K. and elsewhere think of me as pretty right wing. Against most Tory policy, I guess I am. I think taxation and government should be cut, not extended. (On the other hand, I also believe in fairly unrestricted immigration, which most Tories wouldn’t). But a socialist?
If I am a socialist, then Hitler is a campaigner for equal opportunities; Stalin spends most of his time in peace camps; Saddam Hussein works in child protection; Genghis Khan is a Transgender and Ethnic Diversity Compliance Officer for the Borough of Islington, and Mahmoud Ahmedinajad works for CND, and all of them meet regularly in a trendy vegan brasserie to eat organic tofu (hand-knitted in a lesbian commune in Nicaragua), and discuss the Guardian society supplement.
Now, if people such as Mr Hofstetter can think of me as a socialist and yet declare himself a Democrat, where does it leave the rest of the Democrats and the entire edifice of the GOP? Are they fascists? No, they’re not. Their mindset, is, however, something alien to me, but is of a flavor that has been cropping up in Europe a lot lately. I’d class them as ‘nationalists’, a grouping that holds to religion, the family, and concepts such as ‘manifest destiny’. This nationalism is, in its way, much more respectable than the kinds of ‘nationalism’ we see in Europe, but perhaps that’s because the U. S. of A. is a prosperous and still a relatively new nation, and has hardly been scarred by the wounds that nationalism can cause. Yes, they might have their Valley Forges and their Gettysburgs, but these bear little comparison with – oh, just to choose a couple – Guernica, or Srebrenica. Were I to stand for office in the U. S. and A. (which, being an atheist, albeit of the Jewish wing, I wouldn’t stand a globule of superfluid Helium-3′s chance in a stellar interior), I’d find myself not just a Democrat, but a fairly left-wing one at that. Weird. Weird weird weird. As one of my FB friends put it - you are the worst. Socialist. EVAH. Guilty as charged. Would anyone like a watercress sandwich?
I still think politics is a shit who dresses in pink.Of religion could not say that I am a Christian.
Alejandro, the shittiness of politics belies its importance.Henry, from what I've heard, the Healthcare Bill isn't a national health service in any sense we Brits would recognize. It's actually compulsory health insurance with help for the poor tacked on (and fines for the irresponsible). Which strikes me as being *exactly* American and in keeping with Republican principles. It is a huge sop to the GOP, and I don't understand the wingnuts.
The main objection seems to be that healthcare funded by taxation is somehow unconstitutional. It could be that I don't understand such matters, and this is very likely, but it sure beats me. Along with the fact that the number of wingnuts is in the hundreds of millions.
one's admission of atheism effectively rules you out as a candidate for any elected office whatsoever. This, I have to say, was a surprise, especially given that in the U. S. and A., church and state are formally separateI don't think the two are causally related. An admission of atheism rules you out because you're different from other Americans, the majority of whom are religious. Religious people continue to immigrate here, from all over the world. At least 95% of my university colleagues and students self-describe as "religious", whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Unitarian Universalist, or whatever.Until fairly recently, it was nearly impossible to be elected to public office if you were openly gay, even though there was nothing in the Constitution that excluded homosexuals from holding public office, or that separated gay and state. It would be difficult to be elected to major public office in the US right now, if you are a single and childless heterosexual. It is not, fortunately, illegal to be a single and childless heterosexual, but that lifestyle makes you "different" from the majority of adult Americans, and therefore suspect (of what, I'm not sure – let me know if you know, please). It's a good thing that I have no aspirations for public office, as I'm single, childless, and an atheist. I think racism is at the heart of the wingnut objection to healthcare reform in the US. First, there's the vile racism directed at President Obama, which extends to anything that he says or does, and second (at least) there's the disgusting racism and xenophobia directed at immigrants. Perhaps it's easy for affluent white Americans, living in predominantly white communities, to ignore, but when you live in a more diverse community, close to the southern border, it's pretty obvious. "ZOMG, Mexicans will be getting free healthcare, and our taxes will pay for it!!TEAPARTY11!ELEVENTY!!"The "socialist" label means very little in the US. It is slung around quite loosely as an insult, but there are few genuine socialists in the US. Being a social liberal does not make one a socialist, though you might get that impression in the blogosphere. When I think of American socialists, the first example that springs to mind is Pete Seeger; how many self-described left-wing pundits and bloggeurs can honestly say that their lifestyle and activism even approaches Seeger's?
The extreme skew to the right in US politics (compared to other nations with which I'm familiar) is a very interesting phenomenon. As an actual Socialist, I find it hilarious that a) someone like Henry, towards the opposite end of the UK political spectrum, is being called a Socialist and b) that the term is being thrown around as if it were the worst kind of insult, rather than a legitimate (and popular, outside the US) political position.Many Americans seem baffled as to why so many outsiders have such strong opinions about US healthcare. But as we've seen here and on Facebook, the British left and right are virtually 100% united in their support for the NHS. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in favour of abolishing our universal healthcare and setting up a US system instead, and support for such an act would be career suicide for a political candidate from any party. The same is true in Canada. So I think that a lot of the reaction from non-US citizens is simply a complete bafflement that Obama's excessively watered-down version of position that is so obviously correct to our citizens, left wingers and right wingers alike, is causing such anger and fear in otherwise reasonable and rational Americans. I know I don't get it.BTW, my favourite part of that Facebook thread was the comment "If you support nationalization of health care, you support nationalization of industry, i.e. socialism, and thus you are a leftist." LOL! I'm a socialist and proud, and even I don't support the nationalization of industry. (Not all of it, anyway). Also, (sorry, this is getting excessively long, isn't it. Hopefully not offensive though), it's an interesting contrast to US politics that Tony Blair has admitted to downplaying his religiosity while in office, because he knew it would be very off-putting to large numbers of the voting public!
Henry> It is an interesting phenomena. As a person from Scandinavia the move to the sounth of US has been very interesting and scary at the same time. Let's go with that the commie word was thrown at me very early since I clearly come from a country where all parties are left of the Democrats here (sort of really, since even the most right ones belive in "taxes for health care, school and care for elderly").The notion that all taxes are evil, even when they go to roads and health care (especially health care for someone else) is shared by many. The idea is that the governemnt are not equipped to handle MY money and therefore taxes is bad. I still haven't got it explained to me how the roads and other infrastructure should get their funding – but then I look at the infrastructure in place and think maybe they don't belive it since it is fairly bad so far?!It's truly a mess at times…[my wv is 'cress'. I'd love a sandwish thank you
]
Would you like the crusts removed? While you decide, I'll just put on another pot of Darjeeling.
Cath – is "religiosity" a real word? Really? Yikes.The whole socialized I-mean-government-funded healthcare thing is a moot point here in Canuckistan, but for years Americans (of the US kind) have been pointing up here and saying things like "look at that gawdawful communistical medicine they have up there, it takes months to get an MRI" [etc.].Which, truth be told, is truth being told. The counter argument, that everyone gets one eventually, is seldom expressed in such diatribes. But for added fun and games, people here who do have money can simply cross the border, pay, and get one quickly – at a private clinic.Two-tiered healthcare works, see? You just need an international border, and money.
Cath – sorry, this is getting excessively long, isn't it. Hopefully not offensive thoughI'm not sure whether to be flattered or worried that you've confused me with NN. … and yours was a Pimms, wasn't it? The Drink of Socialists.
Ricardipus, I'm afraid it is!Henry, don't all socialists drink champagne?Don't worry, I hadn't confused you with NN, I was just conscious of waffling on too long
The Obama bill was pivotal not so much because of what is or isn't in it, but for the principle.It is probably the most important moment in US politics – a massive victory for principle over pork-barelling. America becomes a civilised nation.As to some of the rest of this post – I am neither tory nor labour, right wing nor left wing. I believe in common sense, independence, the christian ethic (lower case c), expecially tolerance and doing the best you can for your fellow man, woman and child. I began as a Thatcher supporter and ended up pretty disillusioned and even disgusted on occasion with her after being a voting-age adult in her administration for its entirety. I find Boris Johnson risible. I respect your right to your views about them just as I expect you to respect mine
So, it's a champagne for Cath, and presumably for Ricardipus. Chall was a Darjeeling. That leaves Barn Owl and Alejandro. Maxine, what's your poison? The sun is setting over Cromer so I guess gin is acceptable.
Hand-knit, sustainably harvested, fair trade organic herbal tea for me, please, cromercrox. I'm still at work. I can haz cress sandwiches and more hand-knitting later.
Oh, and I completely agree with Maxine. I experienced a bit of the Thatcher era when I lived in London; don't know much about Boris Johnson, however, except that I saw him on Top Gear. He wasn't as funny as most of the other Stars in the Reasonably Priced Car.*runs away*
Come back! Come back! Your hand-knitted herbal tea's getting cold!
Oh! look, there's Kristi in _Cromexilandia_, the Barn Owl?
Sorry Cromercroxilandia.
Thank you, Alejandro – 'Cromer' is quite sufficient!
Henry – Ok!, sounds very imperialist (Cromercroxilandia) or infantile?
I am so pleased to learn that my nation has finally become civilized. Unfortunately, the bill that I am familiar with – in so far as it is possible to be familiar with something that has not been made fully public – is packed with pork (i.e., funding for localized projects that bring money to compliant representatives' districts). So I am not sure just how much benefit will actually come of our new-found civilization.
See you Croxopix and you will be happy!
Grah! I remember pull up a girrafe chair, and wear comfortable, please.You're going to answer, patience.
Thank you, I will politely decline the champagne but gladly accept a cup of owl-friendly, organically traded, fairly havested tea if there is a spare one available.I must also apologize for not meeting the eminent Dr. Crox in person today – just not possible to get from downtown Torontonia to Outer Mississauga and still get anything like a full day's work done. Next time, I hope.
[/somewhat OT re: owl-friendly] Jeremy Clarkson recently referred to certain automotive "carnivores" (such as the Murcielago) as "running on brimstone and baby owls". Now as an owl-lover, I should be outraged by that statement, but in fact it was so funny that I spat out my herbal tea.
All beverages served here are guaranteed owl-friendly. Ricardipus, sorry to have missed you. The talk was fun… And also webcast to other campuses in Greater Torontoniana, as it happened.
I can take a large white cup of tea?
crust or no crust… I have to admit that I love when the crust is removed
makes them more "British" and upper class (I might be more Tory at heart?!?) Thanks a lot! On another side note, the health care reform, I wonder if news have reached that several states (yes, mostly the from the south) have gathered and are suing the government (the Federal evils) for stealing their money and giving them to others…. ?
See Croxipedia please!. Always those who are in power (government) are corrupt and seek fortunes….
For example in my country say that there is no prosecutor who treasure just being that until earlier this year (2010) is say who had loose fiscal heritage (he had the surplus copper were millionaires, MILLIONAIRES!, you understand?There was this earthquake that affection the country and now say no money. Where are the FISCAL funds!.And the bastards have the gall to ask for help in money outside (OUTSIDE) is such a shame!.
In Chile, where fiscal surpluses go to the Economic Stabilization Fund, which became a sovereign fund, with savings of U.S. $ 20.000 billion at the end of 2008. He was very clear how much money there.
Sit down relax pull up a girrafe chair. Make yourself comfortable and see Croxipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile
Is the night,by.
Having lived in the US for almost six years, I still cannot figure out the politics. Most arguments seem to happen on a very emotional level… which is usually not very constructive. The other thing that bothers me is that, if you're a Democrat, you're expected to support a, b and c, and if you're a Republican, you support x, y and z. Not sure what you're supposed to do if you're in favour of, say, a, c and y.Anyway, having been involved in a related thread on facebook too, the big argument I've heard from Republicans against the bill is that health care is a 'commodity', so people should expect to pay for it themselves. Absolutely no mention of what happens to people who simply cannot afford this 'commodity'.
¿What happened to the resources of copper in Chile?http://www.hacienda.gov.cl/downloadF…=clfPshpu.4THkNobody ever knew. While chilean poor people die.
Better not mention the health system in Chile, which is a shame. It is a system for those with money, ie. people who have good resources choose health plans. Those without resources have health systems of poor quality (90% of the people).I must go now! bye!.
Like many others in the British blogosphere, and being in addition a lifelong leftie from a family of Old Leftie CND-Marching Academics, I would be more than happy to testify to Henry's unimpeachable right-wing credentials. Unless Henry wants us to welcome him to The Left. Which would be pretty funny. It does show, though, just how reflexly right-wing American politics are. And remember that the entire British political spectrum shifted noticeably to the right during the late 80s and 90s. Yet despite that, all the US political parties are well to the right of anything current in the UK – or in Western Europe, really, with possibly the odd exception.I sometimes think that the only place left in the USA where you might find a left-winger is in the blogopshere, or in some of the larger Universities. Though there the leftism seems to manifest itself as rather little beyond a kind of weirdly obsessive political correctness.Ricardipus: In the UK you can get the private scan without even crossing a border. You just take out "add on" private health insurance, like most of the middle class have done.
If I may inject my Canadian two cents (worth 1.8 US cents):The irony of the reaction on the right is that many of these people who strenuously object to this healthcare bill, which is very much pro-market, are either on a. Medicare (health care for the elderly), b. Medicaid (healthcare for poor people), or c. unemployment insurance (beer money for the lazy…ooops). The first two are socialized medicine by definition, and yet they don't object to that. My understanding of the objection is that the govt is forcing the people to do something (egads), and to do something with their money (get healthcare with it, or in the case of the rich people, give a bit more of it away). I see how some people would object to that.But really, really? Do these people with families not think that it's a GOOD idea to have their children insured, to not be refused coverage because they have a chronic condition, or to see their coverage run out because they've exhausted their "lifetime max"? That's the part I don't get.
Here I discuss of the health system in Chile is very one-sided as the one with health depending on the money you can afford to access X. plan so then if a person has been paying for K years and wants to withdraw the plan is not returned the money of those k years and if a person has gone only one ocassion in the year at the doctor, this person has to pay all month the specified amount not less than 600 dollars (sum Q per month) and if you choose to withdraw from these ISAPRES (so called in Chile's private health foresight), did not return any weight to the summatory of the Q of the K years accumulated. It's a shame that the health system, for private gain.ReferenceMr. Murpphy lawyer's
If they had elephants in Chile and they flew would happen Cloudy.