Saturday, July 22, 2006
I Hope to Live to See the Day
In my previous post I proposed that one thing that seems to distinguish conservatives is a common sense of morality. That is, conservatives seem to evaluate policies on their morality rather than on their practical effects. The recent veto of the stem cell research bill is a case in point. The practical effect of the bill would be to use discarded embryos to provide stem cells for researchers to study rather than to allow the embryos to be destroyed. The moral justification for the veto is that it is “wrong to take human life to save other human life.”
There are arguments that tend to discredit the moral argument advanced in support of the veto. For example, one could argue that the embryos were going to be destroyed anyway, so why not use them for a good end? Another example, one could argue that the embryos are not yet “human,” in that they have not developed any special organs, especially brain cells, that enable them to have thoughts and experience pain and suffering. An embryo is no more or no less human than a drop of blood that falls from my thumb when I cut it with a sharp knife. Although many conservatives voted for the bill and expressed regret that the President vetoed it, I haven’t heard any such arguments from them to challenge the moral position taken by the President.
This conservative dedication to morality attracts religious fundamentalists to the Republican Party. Never mind that religious folk, even fundamentalists, take seriously the teachings of Jesus about caring for the poor and the unfortunate. The Republican Party doesn’t care about the poor; very few poor people vote and few of them vote for Republicans. The Republican Party can advocate all sorts of policies that favor the rich and powerful. As long as conservatives in the Party continue to give lip service to the “moral” issues that the fundamentalists cherish, such as punishing women who seek to have abortions and punishing, harassing, and persecuting gay men, the fundamentalists will remain loyal to the Party.
A result of this marriage between religious and political conservatives has led to the frustration of many liberal and progressive reform attempts. We Americans have not been able to adopt a reform that would provide adequate medical care to all of us, regardless of income. Every other industrialized nation in the world has such a system; we Americans are unique in our refusal or inability to adopt such a system.
Not all conservatives are dead set against any system of universal health care or health insurance. Some States are undertaking to set up such systems on their own. Maine and Massachusetts are experimenting with two plans. A bill to create a system in California is making its way through the State legislature. Some of these plans, particular the Massachusetts plan, have the support of many Republicans as well as most Democrats.
Although I’ve lived a long time, I hope to live enough longer to see the day when this nation finally gets around to adopting a plan to provide affordable health care to every American. I know that there is no chance of adopting such a plan except with a consensus, or support from members of both major political parties in the federal Congress. Presidents Truman and Nixon both proposed such plans. In both cases, the plan was rejected by a hostile Congress. President Clinton and his wife spent a year or more trying to develop a plan. In the end, the plan had only Democratic support and could not be enacted. In addition, the Clinton plan was so complicated that no one could properly understand it or explain it to a public that became increasingly skeptical.
As a progressive liberal, I hope to see the break-up of the present ruling coalition of political conservatives and religious fundamentalists. We need many progressive and liberal reforms. To enact them, we need the support of the more “reasonable” conservatives. This support is not available at present. The ruling Republican-conservative coalition has razor-thin majorities in Congress and a thin majority among the public at large. Staying in power has caused the leadership of the coalition to cater to the whims of the most extremely conservative members of the coalition. I don’t expect the coalition to break up as long as the present thin majority persists. If the Democrats take control of either House after the next election, I hope that the new leadership has the sense and the generosity to include some of the more moderate Republicans in their plans. In this way, we may be able to put together a coalition that can enact some of the progressive legislation that I hope to live long enough to see.
There are arguments that tend to discredit the moral argument advanced in support of the veto. For example, one could argue that the embryos were going to be destroyed anyway, so why not use them for a good end? Another example, one could argue that the embryos are not yet “human,” in that they have not developed any special organs, especially brain cells, that enable them to have thoughts and experience pain and suffering. An embryo is no more or no less human than a drop of blood that falls from my thumb when I cut it with a sharp knife. Although many conservatives voted for the bill and expressed regret that the President vetoed it, I haven’t heard any such arguments from them to challenge the moral position taken by the President.
This conservative dedication to morality attracts religious fundamentalists to the Republican Party. Never mind that religious folk, even fundamentalists, take seriously the teachings of Jesus about caring for the poor and the unfortunate. The Republican Party doesn’t care about the poor; very few poor people vote and few of them vote for Republicans. The Republican Party can advocate all sorts of policies that favor the rich and powerful. As long as conservatives in the Party continue to give lip service to the “moral” issues that the fundamentalists cherish, such as punishing women who seek to have abortions and punishing, harassing, and persecuting gay men, the fundamentalists will remain loyal to the Party.
A result of this marriage between religious and political conservatives has led to the frustration of many liberal and progressive reform attempts. We Americans have not been able to adopt a reform that would provide adequate medical care to all of us, regardless of income. Every other industrialized nation in the world has such a system; we Americans are unique in our refusal or inability to adopt such a system.
Not all conservatives are dead set against any system of universal health care or health insurance. Some States are undertaking to set up such systems on their own. Maine and Massachusetts are experimenting with two plans. A bill to create a system in California is making its way through the State legislature. Some of these plans, particular the Massachusetts plan, have the support of many Republicans as well as most Democrats.
Although I’ve lived a long time, I hope to live enough longer to see the day when this nation finally gets around to adopting a plan to provide affordable health care to every American. I know that there is no chance of adopting such a plan except with a consensus, or support from members of both major political parties in the federal Congress. Presidents Truman and Nixon both proposed such plans. In both cases, the plan was rejected by a hostile Congress. President Clinton and his wife spent a year or more trying to develop a plan. In the end, the plan had only Democratic support and could not be enacted. In addition, the Clinton plan was so complicated that no one could properly understand it or explain it to a public that became increasingly skeptical.
As a progressive liberal, I hope to see the break-up of the present ruling coalition of political conservatives and religious fundamentalists. We need many progressive and liberal reforms. To enact them, we need the support of the more “reasonable” conservatives. This support is not available at present. The ruling Republican-conservative coalition has razor-thin majorities in Congress and a thin majority among the public at large. Staying in power has caused the leadership of the coalition to cater to the whims of the most extremely conservative members of the coalition. I don’t expect the coalition to break up as long as the present thin majority persists. If the Democrats take control of either House after the next election, I hope that the new leadership has the sense and the generosity to include some of the more moderate Republicans in their plans. In this way, we may be able to put together a coalition that can enact some of the progressive legislation that I hope to live long enough to see.
