January 15:
I've
decided to wear pearls to the protest march. Mostly because it makes me
laugh (1. who wears pearls to a protest? ME THAT'S WHO; 2. I like the
idea that even the kinds of ladies who routinely wear pearls are going
to protest this monstrosity because YES EVEN WE ARE DRIVEN TO THE
STREETS HERE; 3. it amuses me to have pearls and most emphatically *not*
clutch them, because actually we will be taking more direct action,
thanks for your concern).
But also it's worth remembering that pearls are a beauty born of deep and lasting irritation coalesced around a heart of stone. Believe them hollow at your peril.
January 14 ("Answering the Rhetoric Against Entitlement"):
But also it's worth remembering that pearls are a beauty born of deep and lasting irritation coalesced around a heart of stone. Believe them hollow at your peril.
January 14 ("Answering the Rhetoric Against Entitlement"):
Today
I want to talk a little bit about how the rhetoric against
"entitlement" undermines the common good of the American people.
I didn't realize until this election how deep the resentment against "entitlement" runs in some quarters. I also didn't realize until one of my friends sent me an article on it (I *think* it was Aaron but I don't totally remember, and sadly I've failed to find the link again) how pernicious this actually is, but once it don don'd me, it was like the hidden picture in a Magic Eye suddenly came into view.
The gist of the now-lost article was that "Bill Gates doesn't need a Social Security check, but it's important for the political viability of the Social Security program that he gets one." In other words, it's important for universal-good programs to *be* universal. To be politically enduring, they must be entitlements -- yes, that loaded word -- that every American *is entitled to* by simple virtue of citizenship.
Obamacare is what happens when a beneficial program isn't a universal entitlement. Even though Obamacare has unquestionably done a great deal of good for the country (and for all of us in it, whether we're directly in the program or not; all of us benefit from a healthier and more secure society), it's open to attack because it's *not* universal. Not everyone has access to the same benefits across the board (in part due to different states implementing the program differently), and not everyone sees it as part of your basic right as a citizen.
Because it's not universal, it can be attacked as a charity program that benefits only part of the populace. Some people don't get (or "need") it at all, and some of those who do get it receive wildly varying benefits. People have different incentives to participate in the program or not, and they're put at odds with each other instead of being united in protecting a universal good.
And charity programs are always vulnerable to attack. Charity often carries with it a whiff of begrudgment and pity; those who give it may resent the gift (especially if it's undertaken out of obligation rather than any real wish to help) and those who receive it may feel ashamed. Charity also often comes with strings: if you aren't sufficiently worthy (or if I just plain don't like you that much), then you don't deserve the help.
In the health care context, these things are poison. Everyone needs health care, and everyone deserves it. We'd be a whole lot better off if everyone in our society had the kind of coverage that those of us with top-tier insurance get. We'd be a whole lot better off if everyone could get preventative care to prevent catastrophic expenses down the road, and if everyone had the peace of mind that unforeseeable expenses wouldn't demolish their finances, and if everyone felt equally entitled to use that care.
But that means accepting that some level of health care should be universal. That means accepting that yes, there should be an *entitlement.* And this is where the rhetoric against "entitlements" -- the idea that "entitlements" are some ridiculous luxury that only the coddled and spoiled think they should have -- is so harmful. Because it convinces people that they shouldn't ask for these things, that they don't really deserve them, and that the people who *do* ask for them are somehow morally inferior.
That's how you get to the current fractured and fragmentary landscape. That's how you use rhetoric to con the people who'd benefit most into scoffing at the very *idea* that they might deserve to have some basic right to health care as a citizen.
But, in fact, a basic right to health care *should* be an entitlement. And that shouldn't be a word that people are afraid of, because you shouldn't be ashamed to demand what ought to be yours. This idea doesn't come from nowhere; it comes from very rich people spreading it to their considerably less-rich listeners, and playing off old animosities and myths of self-sufficiency to keep their listeners jealously guarding an illusion of independence at the cost of unity and real gains.
Look past the words. Look at the money. Who's creating that rhetoric, who's disseminating it, and who would stand to lose if the great majority of Americans demanded their fair share -- what they are, in fact, "entitled" to?
I didn't realize until this election how deep the resentment against "entitlement" runs in some quarters. I also didn't realize until one of my friends sent me an article on it (I *think* it was Aaron but I don't totally remember, and sadly I've failed to find the link again) how pernicious this actually is, but once it don don'd me, it was like the hidden picture in a Magic Eye suddenly came into view.
The gist of the now-lost article was that "Bill Gates doesn't need a Social Security check, but it's important for the political viability of the Social Security program that he gets one." In other words, it's important for universal-good programs to *be* universal. To be politically enduring, they must be entitlements -- yes, that loaded word -- that every American *is entitled to* by simple virtue of citizenship.
Obamacare is what happens when a beneficial program isn't a universal entitlement. Even though Obamacare has unquestionably done a great deal of good for the country (and for all of us in it, whether we're directly in the program or not; all of us benefit from a healthier and more secure society), it's open to attack because it's *not* universal. Not everyone has access to the same benefits across the board (in part due to different states implementing the program differently), and not everyone sees it as part of your basic right as a citizen.
Because it's not universal, it can be attacked as a charity program that benefits only part of the populace. Some people don't get (or "need") it at all, and some of those who do get it receive wildly varying benefits. People have different incentives to participate in the program or not, and they're put at odds with each other instead of being united in protecting a universal good.
And charity programs are always vulnerable to attack. Charity often carries with it a whiff of begrudgment and pity; those who give it may resent the gift (especially if it's undertaken out of obligation rather than any real wish to help) and those who receive it may feel ashamed. Charity also often comes with strings: if you aren't sufficiently worthy (or if I just plain don't like you that much), then you don't deserve the help.
In the health care context, these things are poison. Everyone needs health care, and everyone deserves it. We'd be a whole lot better off if everyone in our society had the kind of coverage that those of us with top-tier insurance get. We'd be a whole lot better off if everyone could get preventative care to prevent catastrophic expenses down the road, and if everyone had the peace of mind that unforeseeable expenses wouldn't demolish their finances, and if everyone felt equally entitled to use that care.
But that means accepting that some level of health care should be universal. That means accepting that yes, there should be an *entitlement.* And this is where the rhetoric against "entitlements" -- the idea that "entitlements" are some ridiculous luxury that only the coddled and spoiled think they should have -- is so harmful. Because it convinces people that they shouldn't ask for these things, that they don't really deserve them, and that the people who *do* ask for them are somehow morally inferior.
That's how you get to the current fractured and fragmentary landscape. That's how you use rhetoric to con the people who'd benefit most into scoffing at the very *idea* that they might deserve to have some basic right to health care as a citizen.
But, in fact, a basic right to health care *should* be an entitlement. And that shouldn't be a word that people are afraid of, because you shouldn't be ashamed to demand what ought to be yours. This idea doesn't come from nowhere; it comes from very rich people spreading it to their considerably less-rich listeners, and playing off old animosities and myths of self-sufficiency to keep their listeners jealously guarding an illusion of independence at the cost of unity and real gains.
Look past the words. Look at the money. Who's creating that rhetoric, who's disseminating it, and who would stand to lose if the great majority of Americans demanded their fair share -- what they are, in fact, "entitled" to?
No comments:
Post a Comment