Collectivism and the myth of American Unexceptionalism may undermine American society as a whole
I read an article by Ezra Klein the other day, in the liberal American Prospect magazine (Yes, I do try to read both sides) called, "The Argument Over Inequality, The myth of individual exceptionalism may undermine society on the whole."…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dan(Miller)
Doc,
In paragraph 3, you tell us about countries number 1 and 2, number 3 and number 5. Which country is number 4, and if it has not done well, doesn't that counter the notion that the United States' "unique" position is solely due to its size and stability?
While I agree that it would be "interesting" to analyze per capita achievements, beyond that, I don't see what useful purpose it might serve. In addition, quantifying significant achievements would be a substantial obstacle, unless one decides that such advances as the hula hoop, polio vacine and the atom bomb are of equal value.
Dan(Miller)
27 - Dave Nalle
But you are ignoring the evidence at hand! On the list of countries ordered by longest life expectancy, America is in THIRTIETH place, behind Jordan and Bosnia, respectively. The TOP TWENTY-SEVEN countries ALL have universal health care of one form or another...and they ALL spend far less on health care per capita than we already do.
Reason and leftism are incompatible. B-tone. There's no causal relationship here. The overwhelming majority of the countries below the US on the life-expectancy scale ALSO have Universal Healthcare. There's zero evidence that it is Universal Healthcare which differentiates us from countries with better life expectancies.
In fact, the one causal connection which CAN be proven with the lower life expectancy in the US is the greater amount of time we spend DRIVING. That's what kills us, not the lack of universal healthcare.
Dave
28 - Clavos
You're right, Dave, and there's another:
We have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world, which medical experts attribute to the large number of single, poorly educated women who become pregnant and who are ignorant of such things as prenatal care.
In fact, the city with the highest infant mortality rate in the US ironically (because it's the home of the St. Jude Children's Hospital) is Memphis, which also has one of the highest rates of single motherhood in the US.
29 - The Obnoxious American
The whole discussion is absurd. As I said in the Obnox Loves Hillary article, since when does government do anything right?
Does anyone really believe that a single payer, government run system will be cheaper? Doubtful with 50 million more added to the rolls, whether they need it or not, whether they are citizens or not, costs are absolutely going to increase.
Well, ok, so if it's not going to be cheaper, will it be better than the private run system we have today, right? Doubtful, see Katrina, the DMV, Medicare and Social Security.
Wow, so if it's not going to be cheaper, if it's not going to be better, then why would we want government to run healthcare? Answer: We wouldn't. Welcome to the Republican party :>
30 - Ruvy
If you had even bothered to read my comment, comment #6. OA, you would have seen the following,
Mexico, the land that you Americans halved and emasculated, is sending you the latest version of Montezuma's revenge - the swine flu. It is only a matter of time before this flu, a disease that nobody has the solution for, or a mutation of it, starts killing in the thousands and finally millions. Flu season starts in October, by the way, and there is NO known antidote for swine flu.
and you would have figured out why swine flu is being discussed here. But you didn't bother, so you don't know.
If you don't want to read my comments, OA, I won't bother commenting on your articles in future.
If your are so damned informed, DD, you can write the article on the swine flu that your shit system wouldn't let me write.
As for ass-end issues going on, I've attempted three times to write an article using the new (shit) system, and three times, I have lost the damned article, with this half baked piece of shit system refusing to save my articles, refusing to give a preview or anything.
Oh, and I already let Phil Winn and Eric Olsen know that this new layout sucks, and if I can't even write a damned article (and NOT get paid for it here) I don't need to hang around. Fuck it!
31 - Clavos
The Post Office! You forgot that paragon of efficiency and low costs, the USPS, Obnox!
32 - The Obnoxious American
Ruvy,
I did read your comment. But to be honest, I didn't want to chastize you publicly, I was doing you a favor. But if you insist, here goes:
1) There is no vaccine for swine flu, but in terms of treatment, there are absolutely treatments for swine flu, such as tamiflu, which has been shown to work effectively on regular influenza as well as swine flu.
In fact, many people that work with pigs get swine flu often and often they don't even notice. Some can carry the virus and never exhibit symptoms. Moreover, for this to be a real pandemic, it will first need to mutate, which it hasn't yet. I hope to god that it doesn't happen, but we can't jump the gun yet. Remember bird flu? That also needed to mutate, and despite the hysteria at the time it never did. Let's hope the same is true in this situation
2) I don't (obviously) agree with your anti-US rant. The US is it's own ally first and that means sometimes acting against the interests of it's allies on occassion. Israel has done the same thing too, most recently in it's war on Lebanon. I supported Israel's effort understandibly, but was this action endearing to the U.S., did it help U.S.'s own diplomatic relations? No, not at all. In fact, in some (small) part, Israel attacking Lebanon further fanned the anti-Israeli sentiment here in the U.S., adding even impetus for throwing Bush and his Israel loving GOP out of power. And surprise, that's precisely what happened and now we have Obama. I'm not drawing a direct line, but there is a very thin, very faint dotted line between the two events, Israel's "warmongering" and our support of it, and the change of our political party in power.
At the end of the day, if you listen to the way the left tells it, of all of the special interest groups, the Israeli one is the most powerful, the most influencial. I happen to think that our support of Israel has more to do with the fact that Israel is an important ally, as opposed to some tin foil hat conspiracy against lobbyists. But in either case, the U.S. spends an awful lot of capital on it's support of Israel.
More over, if it were not for the U.S., where would Israel be? Nowhere, it would still be called the Palestinian territories. Where would the Jews be? In Manhattan. At least we could have done lunch.
3) Last but not least, I am Jewish, and proud of it, but I am also American, and proud of it. These are not seperate pieces that I can disconnect from that which is me. They are part and parcel of what makes up The Obnoxious American. To deny one is as arbitrary as denying the other, and I won't do that.
33 - The Obnoxious American
Clavos,
Lolll, that's right. Honestly, I think we are a little hard on those postal guys though. Or maybe I am just afraid of getting shot.
Ruvy,
I would advise you to write the article outside of the admin interface, and when ready, just paste it in, so any issues won't cause you to lose work.
34 - Ruvy
OA,
You read the comment? If you are so dumb as to think Tamilflu will save your ass, then if, G-d forbid, the swine flu hits you, take it and find out otherwise. I feel sorry for you if you buy your government's propaganda. I did the research on a swine flu article, and I know differently, and I know why as well, but until I get proper answers as to how to work the shitty article writing system that Olsen and Co. have stuck in here, I won't bother publishing anything here.
As for my "anti-American rant" you just read the facts without a varnish of patriotic bullshit. I knew a lot of this stuff long before I considered moving here, but I did not know or realize how duplicitous the American government had been towards countless peoples, starting with the Filipinos and Cubans in 1898 (google up "Kill, Kill Kill the Filipino"), working our way down through the years to the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein and many others. You didn't answer me about American bombers never bombing the tracks to the concentration camps, by the way. And just to remind you, I did not mention Israel in my comment at all.
But since you raised the topic, do you want me to detail the record of American betrayal of your own people, the Jewish people, the way I did for Jon Huie? Let's start here - Arutz Sheva; US General: Fatah Soldiers are 'Founders of Palestinian State', 29 April 2009.
Finally, the big enchilada is the fact that you are broke. You didn't answer that either - you know I'm right, and like most intelligent people, you are scared shitless of what you realize in your gut is coming your way.
35 - Dr Dreadful
Dan @ #27:
Country number 4 is the US. I was speaking in terms of population size. I agree that I could have phrased it better, so perhaps the powers that be could also agree that we need our comment previewing facility back. :-)
(I can't remember at the moment if the US has a larger or smaller population than Russia. If larger, modify the above comment accordingly.)
I agree with you that significant achievements are difficult to quantify. That's mostly the point.
36 - The Obnoxious American
Ruvy,
I'm not a medical professional nor did I sleep in a holiday in express. But based on what they are saying on the news, tamiflu will help with swine flu. If you know different then so be it, and what a shame. But in this globalized world, this isn't an American or Mexican problem, it's the problem of the 200+ countries of the world, Israel included.
You can bring up all sorts of sordid past history, it does not change the reality of what I said about Israel and the U.S. Nor do the ignorant comments of any one person in our government, many of whom do not agree with our support of Israel.
All that said, I do agree that the friendship with Israel will be tested over the next four years. With Obama running around shaking hands with the likes of Chavez and making overtures to Ahmedinejad, meanwhile alienating Israel, this is a pretty sad time. And I don't agree with it, and have been writing blogs to that effect, basically campaigning against the left, for the last year. Not sure what you want me to say other than I told you so.
We're broke? Agreed. Did I suggest otherwise? In fact, this is why I wrote my last several articles, lambasting and pointing out the misguided policies of Obama, and how his spending spree and his repositioning of America as not exceptional will lead us to a position of subordinance in world affairs.
37 - The Obnoxious American
Here's the list of countries by population. We're # 3 behind china and india, and russia is actually #9...
38 - Clavos
Ruvy,
Despite your protestations to the contrary, the editing interface's problems are only intermittent and temporary; otherwise, it's not significantly different in principle from the old interface.
OA's advice to write your article in notebook, and then copy-and-paste it, transferring it complete, is good. That way, if an outage occurs at the moment of transfer or publication, you'll have the original, and won't lose your work.
FYI, I have already edited and published several stories in this interface, and found it to be not very different from the old one; mostly only in appearance.
Give it a try. I'll be glad to help and work with you to get it published.
You may as well get used to it, it's here to stay.
39 - Dr Dreadful
Obnox, Russia probably was #3 when it was the USSR. Sic transit gloria russki.
Ruvy, I don't know what your sources are, but with your track record I wouldn't mind betting that you researched until you found the most alarmist material on swine flu and then worked from that.
I've read the opinions of a number of bacteriologists, epidemiologists and other experts in disease management and the general consensus is that this strain is far less agressive than the bird flu of a few years back. So far, most of those outside Mexico who've contracted it have suffered only mild symptoms and have made or are making a full recovery - something is clearly happening in that country which is making the effects far more virulent.
What worries the scientists is that this is the same virus which caused the 1918 pandemic. It's still a mystery as to why a previously innocuous strain suddenly got so nasty and then just as suddenly vanished, so the world is vigilant. In fact, health organizations have been expecting this for the past 40 years and are better prepared than they've ever been.
The problem is that as usual you're assuming the worst, and your warnings of wolves are getting rather faint. You tend to jump on every disaster from bird flu to Katrina to the confrontation in Georgia to the Red Sox losing in the playoffs as being the straw that will break the eagle's back.
With any one of these you may be right, but don't count on it.
40 - Dan(Miller)
Ruvy,
The advice is good. I have for a long time written my stuff in WP, made multiple edits there and then saved it in rich text format to get back to later. It is best not to use some of the fancy WP goodies, such as "smart quotes" and the like -- they caused some bad problems, particularly in HTML tags -- for a while so I have disabled them.
If and when I am reasonably happy with what I have written in WP, I copy the WP document and paste it into the BC interface and preview it. This helps to find bad tags, determine whether I need to add or remove paragraph breaks, etc. Sometimes, I copy the text in preview into WP and print hard copy for ease of review and in editing the HTML text. Otherwise, I often find the preview text difficult to compare with the HTML text.
I don't use the BC rich text editor, only the text entry and preview functions. I don't like the BC rich text editor, probably because I don't know how to use it. It does seem occasionally to drop stuff, though.
I do some of my longer comments in the same fashion, and am very hopeful that one fine day the very useful preview function will be revived for comments.
The show must go on!
Dan(Miller)
41 - Ruvy
OA,
I'll not further argue with you. You haven't a clue as to the facts of your country's history, or who runs your country, or what dangers you face as a Jew living there. Apparently, I understand better than you do! What is worse, you do not even want to know. You do not want to face the fact that the Jew-hatred in America was the reason the Army Air Force was never ordered to attack concentration camps, even though it did attack factories right near by. I cannot tear the blinders from your face, OA.
So, I bid you a good evening....
42 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave: There's zero evidence that it is Universal Healthcare which differentiates us from countries with better life expectancies.
Incredible. Absolutely freaking incredible.
That's just like saying that there's no causal evidence that strong pitching staffs do more for winning pennants than do strong batting lineups!
Dave, if you were running a baseball team and you've got the biggest payroll in the league but your team is nowhere near first place in the division, your bosses - the owners - are going to be asking you what you are doing wrong that everyone else is doing right!
Is your reply going to be "there's no causal evidence..."?
In UHC, Dave, people don't have to make choices between paying the mortgage and paying hospital bills! If you'll remember, in '06 health care costs were the single biggest cause of bankruptcies in America!
With UHC, you get to go see the doctor and take care of the little things BEFORE they become big things - remember the old oil commercial, "You can pay me now, or pay me later"? SAME principle!
And how many families can afford $1,000 bucks a month for BASIC health care coverage for their families? That's BEFORE 'co-pay' costs are taken care of! Maybe YOU can afford that extra grand a month, but that's not so easy for most people! Again, pay the mortgage, or pay for the surgery - very few in ANY of the rest of the Free World have to make such a choice....
AND let's not forget that our car companies pay MORE in employee health care coverage PER CAR than they do for the steel put into those cars! Do you not see that while YES, we'd pay more taxes for UHC, but our manufactured products - both for domestic and exports - would be FAR cheaper and FAR more competitive?
'No causal evidence' indeed! Dave, you did more than just drink the Kool-Aid...you're helping to fix the next batch for those not able to see past the BS on Faux News....
43 - STM
OA: "Just consider what the last 100 years would have looked like if the U.S. was not on the scene. America is nothing short of exceptional".
That takes us back to 1909. What was the US doing on the world stage at that point, apart from pursuing its own exapnsionist aims in the Pacific and the Americas?
Let's not fool ourselves about WWI either. The US actually had a very small role to play in that conflict, and certainly if it helped swing the balance by 1918 when its tropps were entering the front line, its contribution was negligable in the final victory and the war was pretty close to being won anyway. That is not to take away from their sacrifice. Americans did arrive in numbers (not huge numbers though) but, at the same time large numbers of fresh British troops arrived in equal numbers on the western front from the victory over Turkey in the middle-east.
The initial breaking of the hindenburg line at St Quentin canal which smashed the German will to fight and sent them in to headlong retreat was not done in the American sector, which was actually a small area to the south in the Argonne forest near Sedan.
Even American historians readily admit this, although American input doubtless made the Germans think their cause was unwinnable.
Then there was the league of nations ... Wilson's great idea, but he never had the guts to push it through Congress.
That is a different picture to WWII, however, where America undoubtedly won the war in the Pacific (we haven't forgotten that down here as we struggled in our own war against the Japanese, and are never likely to) and was a major contributor everywhere else as it became a Superpower by 1945. When Americans describe these men as the greatest American generation, they are very, very close to the truth.
So I say the world would look vastly different without American input from about 1942 onwards. Not quite 100 years.
Plus, in that period, with all the good stuff, there's been some debacles: Vietnam being the major one.
Close but no cigar.
America is great, but exceptional implies it has done more than others, and achieved more than others, and overall has consistently been better than others - and if you knows your history, history doesn't back that up.
Remember, it's only in the years since the end of WWII that the US has been the only western, democratic superpower. That little island on the other side of the pond still had the world's largest navy at the outbreak of WWII and wasn't far behind the US at the end of it.
The US has risen to greatness - true historical greatness - in the 70-year period since, but it's unlikely that historians of the future will discuss it any other terms than those I've mentioned beyoind studying how it came to grow the way it did.
Over-exaggeration, jingoism and chest beating coupled with a lack of knowledge about the reality of history being a common failing of many Americans, I don't blame them for their navel-gazing as it seems to me that it's obviously learned somewhere, probably at school.
But unless it's backed by facts, it's important to point out that the truth remains shrouded in jingoistic myth.
And I don't care what anyone on that side of the other big pond thinks, especially from those who perpetuate this nonsense ... my argument is based on study of fact, not myth.
In the meantime OA, for that ridiculous statement about the US being the greatest country in the history of manjind, give yourself an uppercut.
As for UHC, well, we've got it here, and it's the best thing since sliced bread ... even if it ain't perfect.
44 - STM
Plus OA, in the period between the two World Wars, America was so isolationist on the world stage, beyond the export of its movie culture and its growing manufacturing prowess (largely geared to internal consumption in the US), it might as well not have existed in the global political sense.
Its military forces were very small by the outbreak of WWII, although the description of grabbing a sleeping tiger by the tail is probably a pretty apt description.
And the real game-breaker of Germany in WWI was the extended war over four years on the western front, and the Royal Navy blockade of Germany that stopped it from feeding itself and which led to growing discontent and pacifist sentiment in Germany by the end of 1917.
I will add to all this, however, that if there hadn't been a US in the period since WWII, the world would be a far worse place.
In fact I'd hate to think what it would be like,
People who criticise American foreign policy, and I'll agree it's not perfect, should be mindful that the ledger is still heavily in favour, not against.
You still need UHC though :)
Speaking from experience, in a place where there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over its introduction here in the 1970s much like there is now in the US, I can say if its anything like our experience, you'll never look back if you do it. You'll be asking yourselves why you didn't do it earlier.
45 - STM
The secret to America's greatness and its stability (for a country of its size, discounting a couple of unpleasant episodes - War of 1812, Civil War) is in rule of law, the real protector of perosnal and political freedoms.
Doc's right there too ... the founding fathers didn't just pluck that out of thin air either; they got it from the liberal democratic tradition they'd already inherited prior to the revolution.
They took the best of it, and added to it, but the schools of thought already existed (ie, Locke, and even in the political style of William Pitt, the 1st Earl of Chatham, who spoke in favour of reconciliation - also sought by Washington - and the granting of Americans what they wanted prior to the revolution).
Definitely IMO the US has been an extension of the western european experience of democratic liberalism (I don't mean that in the American vernacular).
It is only recently that those places and others now find themselves drawing on the American experience of liberal democracy.
We have here, for sure, moving closer to America and away from Britain to the point where we look like a little America in virtually every, way shape and form. Apart from UHC :)
46 - Doug Hunter
"Does anyone really believe that a single payer, government run system will be cheaper?"
Probably, if we move from the leader to the follower model. We can cut down expenses by rationing care, cutting back on expensive end of life treatment, and diverting resources from R&D. To those people who would have been saved by future medical technology who won't have a chance, you're not important becuase that would require a thought exercise not just a here and now emotional victim story that is so appealing to our liberal friends.
US medical research stats:
Medical Nobel Prizes (10 year period)
US born 12
Foreign working in US 3
All others 7
Medical Research Expenditures
US (all sources) 98 B
US government 35 B
EU Govts (combined) 8 B
Our medical research not only helps here but it's products spread (and indeed are bought cheaply in bulk or simply copied) overseas. Those with universal healthcare do something for their citizens but they can afford to give little back to the global knowledge pool.
The benefits of universal healthcare for us here and now would be something, the future losses to the entire globe because of our failure to innovate and create will cost much, much more.
That's one of the issues with socialism. The more you have of it, the less innovation and progress you can continue to make. When taken to extreme it almost locks you into the present. Some regimes that had revolutions in the 50's are still stuck with 50's technology and 50's standards of living. Europe has balanced slower growth with mixed systems. The US has favored freedom and been the driver of innovation and progress.... the question is will it continue to be.
I believe socialism is here to stick and the US is about to take a backseat. I don't think anyone is prepared to take a lead though so the world will just simply not live up to it's potential. Really, that's not a bad problem to have. People don't get emotional over hypothetical coulda beens, and they can't be proven anyway.
Freedom always was a difficult thing to defend and I'm just happy to enjoy a bit of it in it's waning days. The world is getting small and crowded, we're packed in like sardines so everything we do effects everyone else therefore it is necessary that we should be forced to do the 'right' things.
The problem is, freedom to do only the right things isn't really freedom at all.
47 - Baronius
STM, Doc, what are we arguing about? I don't think anyone said that the US emerged from the ocean a fully intact superpower.
48 - STM
DH: "That's one of the issues with socialism."
I'd hardly describe UHC as socialism. It's no more socialism than having everyone pay their taxes, get a driver's licence or compulsory eduction.
It's a legitimate and fair use of everyone's own taxes.
Plus those stats you quote, do you think that might be because US drug and medical corporations are among the richest in the world - because of the size of the US and its former manufacturing prowess - and are funding all the research so they can sell to their global markets?
Why would universal health care for Americans change that one iota.
If anything, they'd probably be getting more funding through the government as well.
49 - STM
Baron: "STM, Doc, what are we arguing about?"
We're arguing about OA's contention and that expressed elsewhere on the site that the US is the greatest country in the history of mankind, that if it wasn't for the US in the past 100 years, the world would be - what? I don't know - and that because of these things and more, America is exceptional.
We're arguing that it's not. We DO agree it's great, though, and historically great at that.
I'm arguing from points of history, Doc's presenting more rational arguments.
But we're here to argue our points whatever the case.
Perhaps what we're really doing is trying to inject a touch of reality into the "exceptional" debate.
Not being American, and having Americans belt us over the head with this stuff constantly, perhaps we feel that we're men on a mission.
Can't speak on that score for Doc, though ... but I suspect he gets as tired of it as I do.
50 - Doug Hunter
STM, you're absolutely right there, the problem is not universal healthcare (which believe it or not I think we're ready to have some form of) it's the general attitude in this country right now. We're setting up to knee jerk too far the other way because of a bust in the free market. Socialism is a very relative thing anyway.
I've always held that free markets were the engine of the economy and social spending was a drag or load on it. As our economies get stronger we are able to carry more load with us (what good is all that money anyway if you don't do something good with it?) Alot of people have witnessed this and have kind of put the cart before the horse. Social spending is not a driver of progress it's one of the signs of it. We shouldn't forget that.
51 - Clavos
Doug writes:
...if we move from the leader to the follower model. We can cut down expenses by rationing care, cutting back on expensive end of life treatment, and diverting resources from R&D. T
52 - Clavos
Addendum to #53:
All of those are widespread practices in single payer UHC schemes.
53 - STM
DH: I agree with everything you've said there. I guess one of the things I love about my own country is that some of what I'd call social engineering - UHC, federally set collective wages and work conditions (through courtrrom arbiration if necessary) - all go hand in hand with a very robust free market capitalist system.
True, we pay higher taxes for our UHC, but somehow wages tend to settle around all these things and rise anyway if the rest of the economy is doing well.
I choose to have private health cover too, which for a very, very reasonable $65 a week gives me TOP family hospital cover (for the three of us), ambulance, and also pays the gaps between the government's Medicare payment to a surgeon and a private surgeon's rate if there's a difference.
Medicare, which I pay through my taxes, covers things like trips to a GP, x-rays, etc.
There's also a tax break for me for topping up with private cover.
No jobs were lost when we went to this .... but many were created.
There is much medical research going on, nd Australia has been for some years a pioneer in heart/lung transplant surgery - through the hospital where my wife works.
I have a feeling though that size is everything - good things come in small packages.
This is a country of 20 million people, not 300 million, and so the bureacracy may not be as unwieldy as it might be should this happen in the US.
However, my experience of Americans is: "Can do".
If Americans put their minds to something, it gets done and it generally gets done properly. Imagine what a good system you could have with that kind of attitude.
54 - roger nowosielski
I'm afraid the "can do" spirit is on the way to extinction, unless your want to include our financial geniuses in the fold.
55 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
"Liberalism and all the writers and people who inspired the movement, celebrated the individual and individual accomplishment. Surely some on the modern left must realize how incompatible the current dominant ideology is with actual liberalism."
I would take exception to the last part of your statement (remark #1). It's the idealism of the Left that wishes to extend equal rights and justice not just to the Americans but the world at large. And in my book, this is to celebrate the individual, not to shackle him.
56 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
I think the left wants more than equal rights, or rather, they have a pretty weird view of what a right is.
For example, there is a difference between giving the people the right to do something, like for example, live in any neighborhood they choose (something I support), versus the automatic right to housing (which I don't support).
An enabling right, versus a right to something tangible that the person is not paying for.
We here in the US already have equal rights, it's when the left demands that we also have equal pay and equal benefits that I start to have a problem. People need to be responsible for themselves, and when things are merely given to them, it ceases to be liberating, and in fact becomes confining for the more productive elements in society.
57 - The Obnoxious American
Let me also say that to your comment about the left's desire to help the world at large - that's all nice and everything, but charity begins in the home. I would like to see a more America first viewpoint coming from America's left.
58 - roger nowosielski
OA,
All the advances in terms of Civil Rights, sexual harassment at work, gay rights - you name it - they haven't been granted by benevolent businesses but all were very hard fought for and won by activists - whether feminists, or environmentalists, you name it. So don't be pushing on me your naive ideas about the benevolence of unsupervised corporations. They'll push as far as they can and as far as they can get away with it. Peddle those ideas elsewhere. I'm sorry, but I will have to assume an adversarial tone with you in spite an earlier expressed desire to the contrary. We do have diametrically opposed views on this. And no, I don't believe anyone's gonna give you anything unless you fight for it. All those rights have been fought for and won - none were bequeathed out of the goodness of the human heart.
59 - Glenn Contrarian
OA and Clavos -
If UHC is socialism, then the military health care system for all military retirees (the VAST majority of whom are conservatives) is socialist...and my personal experience with the military health care system (as opposed to my experience with profit-driven civilian sector health care) is nothing short of superior.
Socialized medicine - also called the American military health care system - saved my life, and the lives of my wife and youngest son. Profit-driven medicine - also called 'normal American health care' by most Americans - cost me a child.
Even NOW, we just saw a civilian doctor about a problem with my wife...and we compared notes with what a military doctor had told us last year. It was obvious (to those with a real clue about health and medicine) that the civilian doctor was out-of-date and flat wrong. Back to the military hospital we will go.
The socialized medicine that I (and every retired military person and spouse) have is by and large better than anything else out there. Why? I've never heard of ANYone being denied care because "we don't cover that one" or "that's a pre-existing condition"...
...and the military health care system does it FAR more cheaply per capita than anyone else in America does!
Ah, but I guess I'm an eeeeeevil Socialist for suggesting that something more effective, cheaper, and already accessible by our retired military would be better for all of America....
STM -
What America did that no one else could have done is that (as you pointed out) we won the Cold War. Other than that, (as you pointed out) WWI was in its closing phases by the time we arrived on the scene, and Germany's defeat in WWII was assured with the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union...for it has become apparent that even without all the vast amount of Lend-Lease aid we gave the Soviets, they would have won anyway. I don't want to in any way belittle what we did on the Western Front, but compared to the gargantuan hell of the Eastern Front, the Western Front was - relatively speaking - a minor front, a sideshow.
What's more, if we had never entered the war (don't get me wrong - I'm doggone glad we did!), even if Japan had decided to open up a second front in Siberia, the Soviets still would have won. Why? Because of two old generals that have protected Russia since time immemorial: General Winter, and General Mud. No army in history (other than the Russians themselves) has ever been properly prepared to face those two generals.
I should note that Patton's desire to continue the fight on to the Soviets would have been disastrous. Other than that one moment of sheer lunacy, he was a great general.
BUT IF WE HAD NOT ENTERED THE WAR, then the Soviet Union would have been in a FAR stronger position.
And to give the diggers their due, if it hadn't been for them, the Japanese would have been able to send a great deal more naval power to Pearl Harbor, and particularly to Midway. I really don't think it's much of a stretch to say that without Australia, our unlikely victory at Midway would have been next to impossible. If they'd had even one more carrier....
Yes, I know that sounds like patronization - but all our nations did their part, and honorably so.
60 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
First off, I'm not sure what adversarialness has to do with anything. I'm not attacking any person here, this is a discussion of ideas. I don't understand why you think that if I do not agree with you, our interations must then be adversarial. Realize, my own dad is a liberal, and I love him anyway.
Back to the topic...
Advocating civil rights is great, and I support it. But when rights mean that now I am responsible for paying for someone elses something, it no longer is a right we are talking about, but rather an entitlement, and entitlements need to be paid for by someone. So then, the question becomes one of the rights of the payees of these entitlements.
And this starts to get to the heart of the article. If because a bunch of advocates for a cause start piling on entitlements that I have to pay for, my right to my pursuit of happiness (such as spending the money I worked for on what makes me happy, whether that be buying my family a nicer house or something more frivolous) starts to get infringed. Rights are not only for the poor and needy, ALL Americans, even the successful ones have rights too.
61 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
First off, I'm not sure what adversarialness has to do with anything. I'm not attacking any person here, this is a discussion of ideas. I don't understand why you think that if I do not agree with you, our interations must then be adversarial. Realize, my own dad is a liberal, and I love him anyway.
Back to the topic...
Advocating civil rights is great, and I support it. But when rights mean that now I am responsible for paying for someone elses something, it no longer is a right we are talking about, but rather an entitlement, and entitlements need to be paid for by someone. So then, the question becomes one of the rights of the payees of these entitlements.
And this starts to get to the heart of the article. If because a bunch of advocates for a cause start piling on entitlements that I have to pay for, my right to my pursuit of happiness (such as spending the money I worked for on what makes me happy, whether that be buying my family a nicer house or something more frivolous) starts to get infringed. Rights are not only for the poor and needy, ALL Americans, even the successful ones have rights too.
62 - roger nowosielski
We're talking about civil and human rights, not the rights to dispossess you. In every just society, there is some redistribution of income - through taxation. Fact of life. The right to equal protection - under the law - are also guaranteed to all citizens, and that's regardless of less than equal ability to pay. So yes, in that sense justice is a distributive concept.
Rights and entitlements aren't the same, and you know I wasn't addressing the latter.
You can post your response later. I'm due for a chess session.
63 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
You're confusing a few ideas here. The military are in effect employees of the national government. They are providing a service of government for the American people, and as a result, they should be offered health care as any employer (and this level of care should be exceptional given the risk to life and limb our military faces).
If the government feels that they should do this directly via a publicly owned system of hospitals, rather than using the existing private health care system then so be it, but in either case the government, the people should be paying for the healthcare of the military while they serve, as well as continue to pay for health care for the military for health issues incurred while in service that might still exist after completing their service.
That said, and while your life has been saved by the care the military offers (BTW, thank you for serving this country and protecting my freedoms), we've heard about Walter Reed, and some part of me feels that the average military man isn't getting as good of a level of care that I may be able to get here in Manhattan's hospital row (on our upper east side). Perhaps the military should be cared for in the private health care sector, paid for by the government, so as to ensure the best care possible. Perhaps there is a constitutional reason why this isn't possible.
But here is another thought about this. There are roughly one million Americans serving in our military. And the system as it is has it's flaws (Walter Reed to wit). Now, imagine expanding that system fully 300 fold. I sure hope you're healthy!
64 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
We're talking about civil and human rights, not the rights to dispossess you. In every just society, there is some redistribution of income - through taxation. Fact of life.
Wrong, it is actually completely unjust to redistribute income of hard workers to give to those who aren't putting forth their best effort. Not only wrong but leads to the unexceptional America I speak about in this article.
Should there be a social safety net? Sure. I definitely see the value in things like unemployment and even welfare. People lose their jobs or homes and there should be a system to help them through the storm. But what you're talking about seems a lot more intrusive than a mere safety net.
The right to equal protection - under the law - are also guaranteed to all citizens, and that's regardless of less than equal ability to pay. So yes, in that sense justice is a distributive concept.
Well last I checked, equal protection under the law already existed. Not sure what you are talking about when you say "regardless of the ability to pay." The law is the law. Based on this (and correct me if I am wrong) seems like you are talking about entitlements rather than rights. Perhaps you can give a specific example here.
Rights and entitlements aren't the same, and you know I wasn't addressing the latter.
Sounds like it. What rights are you talking about specifically? Usually when people start throwing the term Justice around not in regards to the law, such as Social justice, it's a alias for the real term they are using, socialism.
65 - Clavos
Ah, but I guess I'm an eeeeeevil Socialist for suggesting that something more effective, cheaper, and already accessible by our retired military would be better for all of America....
No, but you are making the mistake of thinking that the civilian branches of the federal government are anywhere near as efficient and good at what they do as the military, which is frankly, one of the very few parts (NASA and NOAA are two others)of the fed that are well run, well staffed and actually accomplish what they are supposed to.
66 - roger nowosielski
OA - don't start living up to your name. You know what rights we are talking about. A civil society throughout its progress expands rights that previously weren't accorded to all (and only to some) because either it becomes of age or is forced to. I don't have to be giving you a lesson in American history to show that it has been so. I don't know what kind of a dream world you're living in, but taxation is already a certain redistribution of income and wealth. Get used to it rather than keep on crying over spilled milk. Do I like it? Yes - to some extent I believe tax should be progressive; to what extent, I'm not ready to tell. But a civil society (and its members) do have some (at least moral) obligations to all members. Am I absolving therefore all members of responsibility for their all actions? Of course not. And there will definitely be some inequalities - which is perfectly fine with me because not everyone is equal with respect to their genes, abilities, and so forth. The touchy question is which should be rights and which should not.
So don't reduce this discussion to the level of mindless simplicity, because then you will have lost me and I will not participate. It is not black and white as you're apparently keen on representing. These questions are deep and require a great deal of deliberation and thought. So if you want to keep at at an intelligent level, fine. Otherwise you can engage with others.
67 - Franco
Great piece OA, really substantial.
What Klein and his like minded unexceptionaists all decline to account for is that the most who benefit from individual exceptionalism are in fact the masses otherwise they would not be exceptional.
You said it best and needs repeating
"The lessons learned from communism and socialism directly refute the sorry ideas of the left and Mr. Klein. The great experiment that is America proves that individual and American exceptionalism has benefited the collective way more than any other invention in history, especially those created in the name of fairness. True fairness is freedom."
It also blows my mind how the far leftwing commenters in this thread, by there own free fill, choose not to comment on the things you said, but choose to comment on things you did not say.
Keep up the good work OA.
68 - romm
Too much emphasis given to 'leaders' like Obama, Sarkozy etc. as if somehow what these individuals think and perceive represents all or most individuals in their nation-state and there is a sort of leader worship going on here. Our leader the great helmsman will guide all of us into the sunlit uplands because he/she can.
69 - The Obnoxious American
Franco,
Thanks much for the kind words. Obviously, I totally agree with your comments.
Roger,
Not really sure what you're talking about. As I said, care to be specific? I thought that the original set of rights that our framers came up with, namely Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (not happiness itself) sums up pretty well what rights we should have. Anything else would seem to be redundant, or an entitlement. Perhaps I am misreading your comments, so any specifics and I'll be happy to discuss further.
Romm,
Totally agree. And what stinks about it is instead of the concept of America being great, instead of our principles and framework for our system of freedom being great, Obama is great and without him America is...
Obama's whole premise is that America is flawed and needs some change. What no one has been able to explain however, is what specifically is flawed, how would this be "changed" and what has Obama done to qualify as the arbiter of change? Those questions were never answered and he was still elected. I have a feeling that buyers remorse will only increase, as it has been.
70 - roger nowosielski
OA, I spoke of that already and I'm not going to do it over again - civil rights, e.g., had to be won in spite of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The present debate over Health Care is essentially a debate over rights; you may call it entitlement, but many would disagree. The pro-choice is a right, not an entitlement; and that had to be won. And so with many other things.
But basically, I just don't subscribe to what I view is a simplistic picture whereby the original documents suffice to deal with the complexity of the society we have inherited in the course of 250 or so years since they were first drafted. If you think they are sufficient other than in their capacity as guidance, then we really have nothing further to discuss.
71 - Franco
60 - roger nowosielski
Right back to you roger our liberal dodger.
All the advances in terms of freedom to work and take personal responsablity for yourself and improve your living conditions and life - you name it - they haven't been granted by benevolent Civil Rights activists - whether feminists, environmentalists, or gay rights, but all were very hard worked for and won by those taking individual responsibly for themselves. So don't be pushing on me your naive ideas about the benevolence of unsupervised activists. They'll push as far as they can and as far as they can get away with it. Peddle those ideas elsewhere. I'm sorry, but I will have to assume an adversarial tone with you in spite an earlier expressed desire to the contrary. We do have diametrically opposed views on this. And no, I don't believe anyone's should give you anything unless you work for it. All those rights have been fought for and won - all of them were bequeathed out of the goodness of the human heart.
72 - Baronius
"The pro-choice is a right."
I love watching abortion supporters contort themselves to avoid saying the word "abortion".
73 - Franco
71 - The Obnoxious American
Your welcome.
I have to correct/edit one of my comments.
"It also blows my mind how the far leftwing commenters in this thread, by there own free will, choose not to comment on the things you said, but choose to comment on things you did not say, as if you had said it.
74 - roger nowosielski
Well, maybe so, Baronius, but then again, your side had set it up with the "pro-life" agenda. So "pro-choice" is but a riposte.
I'm sure glad we're out of the Middle Ages when people of your ilk can no longer tell what women can or cannot do with their careers, lives and bodies.
It must be difficult for a good Catholic to accept - to be living in the midst of such a sinful society. I feel your pain.
75 - roger nowosielski
Franco,
You haven't done jack shit for me - nor for the women's or gay rights, nor anybody else's rights for that matter except your own miserable self, so don't be preaching to me the dogma of personal responsibility while cutting a sorry figure of a human being that you are. I bet that for all your patriotic fervor you try to display, you haven't even served in the armed forces or ran a corporation.
Well, I have done all those things, and more; and I'm certain I could teach you more of America than you can even dream of - the high and low places. So don't be spewing at me the ideas of a third-grader and think I'll be impressed with your feigned wisdom or sophistication. Save them for simpletons, of which I'm certain there are many in your inner circle.