There is a television commercial currently airing advertising "Repower America."
In the commercial, a man says he's been reading about Washington these days, "And, I just gotta ask, what's in it for me?"
He then proceeds to explain what he wants for his children. his wife, and himself.
I just gotta ask, why do we "just gotta ask, what's in it for me?" When do we begin asking, "What's good for America?"
As long as our first question about public policy continues to be self-interested, we are probably not going to continue to succeed at self-governance.
As an aside, I found it an interesting commentary that some sophisticated advertising executive somewhere thought it would be an effective way to "sell" public policy to focus on self-interest to the exclusion of the common good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you ask "What's good for America?" How do you make the argument that taxing 85% of Americans to insure 15% of Americans is "good for America?" Especially when there are some who claim that many of that 15% have access to insurance, but choose not to purchase it or apply for whatever existing government program they are already eligible for. Take a look at these numbers:
ReplyDeletehttp://risch.senate.gov/public/?p=BreakdownoftheUninsured
Even if we assume that these numbers are unfair and inflated because Risch is opposed to the healthcare reform bill, it is still reasonable to assume that a significant portion of the notorious 47 million are people who choose not to acquire health insurance even though they have the means to do so. Even if we generously assume that half the 47 million, or about 7.5%, are ineligible for existing programs and do not have the means to acquire health insurance otherwise, then what we're looking at is more like taxing 92% of Americans to insure 8%. Is this what's best for America? Given these numbers, doesn't socialized medicine seem like doing brain surgery with a broadsword rather than a scalpel? Does that seem reasonable?
An interesting response, since the commercial for "Repower America" is, I believe, about energy policy, not health care policy. Sort of a Rorschach test, I guess.
ReplyDeleteI never said that one could make the argument that "taxing 85% of Americans to insure 15% of Americans is 'good for America?'" That argument, if one wanted to make it, is a straw man you set up to knock down. Maybe you can knock it down, and maybe you can't. Either way, it is a question for a different subject.
It is entirely possible that reasonable people differ on whether it is good for America to tax some to provide health care for others. I'm not as sure that it is possible for good-hearted, well-informed, reasonable people to differ on that issue, but it's certainly possible for reasonable people to differ.
However, my point, which you seem to have missed - or, possibly, which you seem to illustrate - is that, until we stop asking "what's in it for me?" and start asking "what's good for America?" we can't even discuss whether it's good for America to tax some to provide health care for others, no matter what percentages are correct. We're still stuck on the question of whether it's good for me to tax me to provide health care for another American, instead of whether it is good for America to do so.
That was my point, and I think you missed it. Maybe I'm wrong.
Admittedly, I haven't seen the commercial for "repower America" and I have no idea what it's about. And yes, apparently it is a Rorshach test of sorts. Lately, no matter what I do, government encroachment on our freedoms and total disregard for the constitution is all I can seem to think about. I'd love to see it, so if you can post a link to it, that'd be great. Admittedly I did digress, but it's a symptom of my frustration with the consistent lack of interest in what I believe would genuinely be best for America. People act like they're asking that question but either they don't mean it, or they don't understand enough about the way our country, our freedoms, and our economy function to actually come up with an intelligent answer, so they believe whatever they're told. As far as what good-hearted reasonable people believe, I think the place they might differ is on whether or not the government and taxation are the appropriate vehicles through which to provide for that 15%. I really don't see where the constitution indicates the federal government has any business doing some of the things that have been proposed.
ReplyDeleteWell-informed, reasonable, good-hearted people can disagree over what the Constitution of the United States permits or prohibits. They have done so for over 200 years. I still have hope that those many people who are absolutely convinced that they know what the Constitution permits and prohibits and anyone who disagrees is just wrong may someday acknowledge that well-informed, reasonable, good-hearted people just might disagree with them. It is disheartening to perceive that they think anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of what the Constitution permits or prohibits is a fascist, or a communist, or a socialist, or out to deprive them of their rights, instead of just a well-informed, reasonable, good-hearted fellow contryman who happens to disagree with them.
ReplyDeleteBut, whatever it permits or prohibits, the Constitution is not divine. It can be changed if the People want to change it.
So, the question of what is good for America does not necessarily turn on what is constitutional. If it is a good idea, but unconstitutional, it can be made constitutional.(Although one can well argue - and with much merit - that it is good for America to adhere to the Constitution, that is not the same as the argument that it is bad for America because it is unconstitutional.)
You think the place reasonable, good-hearted people might differ is on whether the government and taxation are the appropriate vehicles through which to provide for your stated 15%. Yes, I agree, they can disagree on that. But, I would have to be persuaded that reasonable, well-informed, good-hearted people can disagree on whether we need to provide for that 15%.
If it is not the government (and, if it is the government, it must of necessity be through taxation of some sort), then what is your proposal for providing for that 15%?
How about we start with what Obama started with last night? I was so hopeful at first. Insurance reform, allowing individuals and small businesses to pool together to purchase insurance, tort reform, and tax credits (yes, I know that essentially raises taxes on others, but it is more fair). And let's go ahead and put that Medicare savings into practice. Then, for the very few people left that actually want health insurance, let's see if they qualify for Medicaid. But first, let's see if they have big screen tvs, xboxes, and cell phones for every person in their house. If they choose those, then they can choose health insurance instead. And if there are still some without insurance who don't qualify for Medicaid, maybe we need to reform that. Anything more than that, and we DO need to change the constitution first! The government does not need, nor does it have the right to take over health care.
ReplyDeleteAll human interaction is based in self-interest, from where we buy our clothes to protecting our children from home invaders. You don't donate your time and money to charity solely because you think it your civic duty, you do so because giving feels good and (if you're religious) it's what your diety usually requires in order to gain access to heaven's indoor pool.
ReplyDeleteTo suggest that somebody act in a way that is somehow not self-interested is to tacitly endorse coercion, as no human being anywhere will ever sacrifice their own well-being without being assured that some reward is to follow (like say, the good feeling of watching those we help succeed). Self-interest is the basis of all productive human interaction and I would challenge you to think outside the 'national interest' box and re-enter the realm of reality.
What's in it for him? Aggregate savings on energy costs, no more energy crises a la 2008, a better environment for himself and his children, and of course the 'new' jobs that come from a new energy system (really the jobs will be below replacement of old jobs). There are plenty of reasons for somebody to support renewable energy, but the national interest simply isn't one of them.
To your point James, the Constitution is not open to interpretation so no, good-hearted reasonable people cannot disagree on its meaning. By virtue of Amendment X we know that Article I, Sec. 8's list of congressional powers is exhaustive (along with articles II and III). Further, we know we were not intended to interpret the document due to the inclusion of an AMENDMENT process, which would allow us to clarify any alleged ambiguity within the document.
ReplyDeleteLet's examine what so-called reasonable people can disagree on. Opponents of the Second Amendment claim that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to state militias (now largely the National Guard), when the amendment clearly states "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...." In every other part of the Constitution "the people" means the electorate, and I am to believe that a 'reasonable' person, without political agenda can somehow honestly believe that Amendment II references a right held by militias? Further, given Amendment X's text and the fact that state militias are not barred from bearing arms, why would our framers feel the need to enshrine such a right in the same collection of amendments? Interpretation of this Amendment is and always has been purely political and devoid of any true legal scholarship.
The constitution need only be 'interpreted' when political amibitions of those doing the interpreting clash with the direct text of the document.
Ultimately, I think that 15% needs to be provided for through private means, which would almost certainly manifest as private charities of various origins. As a general guideline, Judeo-Christian priciples, which many Americans religious or not would claim to believe are valuable, recommend that 10% of income before taxes be donated to their local church. Many Americans don't go to church, so let's just say 10% as charitable giving. This would result in over 4 Trillion dollars according to numbers provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding personal disposable income in 2008. And those numbers are if people gave 10% of their income AFTER taxes. 4 Trillion dollars! The actual charitable giving in the US last year was $307.65 billion not including religious giving. This number is according to the GivingUSA foundation. While I can't find a good number for religious giving anywhere, I have a difficult time imagining that the other 3.7 trillion dollars is going there. Do I believe it is likely that all Americans will suddenly become this altruistic? No, I don't. But the reality is the numbers are there and they add up. What these numbers do show, is that people are lazy. Everyone wants to talk about how terrible it is that people don't have X or people don't have Y. Instead of getting out and becoming actively involved in fixing the problems they want to protest so loudly about, people pass their responsibility on to the government. Every time we do this, we are chipping away at the very foundations of freedom that America was built upon. PETA garnered $34 million in revenues in 2008, according to the financial statements available on their website. In 2007, since 2008 numbers are not available, the United Way received $66 million dollars in revenue. Really? PETA received more than half as much as the United Way? Americans need to get it together. These priorities are so far out of reasonable alignment that it is embarrassing. Americans need to quit shirking their responsibilities to their fellow human beings and align their actions with their alleged intentions. Would you rather have these 47 million people receive health insurance, or would you rather see another naked billboard of some pretentious celebrity protesting the production of fur coats? A wise friend of mine once said that if you want to know what's really important to someone, read their checkbook. Well, right now, America's checkbook is a pretty poor read.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, if I understand your suggestion for how to approach health care reform, I think there is a lot of merit to it.
ReplyDeleteHere, however, is where I get to a problem.
Only to illustrate the point I'm about to make, I'm going to talk for a moment about automobile insurance. When someone who can afford automobile insurance drives a car without adequate automobile insurance and has a wreck, they work a serious injury to others who are innocent of their irresponsible decision to drive uninsured. To avoid that, we take the decision of whether to have insurance out of their hands and require them, under penalty of law, to carry auto insurance.
Likewise, when someone who can afford health insurance chooses to buy televisions and xboxes instead of buying health insurance, and then gets sick, they work a serious injury on many who are innocent of their irresponsible decison. Why shouldn't we take that decision out of their hands and require them, under penalty of law, to purchase health insurance if they can afford it?
Set aside, please, for the moment, the question of whether the U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to expercise that level of control over requiring people to purchase health insurance. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, but the question I'm trying to get to is why we, as a society, should let people make irresponsible decisions that hurt other people who cannot do anything about it. After we answer that question, maybe we decide we need to change the constitution, or impose the requirement at the state level. But, first, we have to decide what we ought to be doing.
Anonymous, you may be right, on some theoretical level, that all action, even action which seems to be altruistic and against one's own self interest, is really, in some subtle, subconscious way, self-interested.
ReplyDeleteI submit, however, that such analysis is unhelpful, even if correct. There are some theories which, even if true, are useless theories in the course of human affairs because they don't lead to any utility in the conduct of human affiars.
There is also the theory of Occam's Razor, which postulates that the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.
I submit that there is much human behavior which can be explained by your theory that all human behavior is self-interested, but that is not the simplest explanation of the behavior. The simpler explanation is that, sometimes, a human makes a decision to do something that does not benefit him or her personally, because he or she thinks it is more important to serve a greater good than personal interest. That is a simple, straight-forward, and useful explanation for altruistic human behavior. You can go around the mountain three or four times to demonstate some attenuated way in which the behavior really did benefit him or her personally and that was really the true reason he or she did it, but that's a very complicated explanation for something that can be fully explained more simply.
My belief that altruistic bahavior is possible is useful in that it gives us a goal and a standard to which other humans can aspire which does, ultimately, contribute to the commonweal.
Your theory, even if true, can never do that.
The only basis on which your theory can be useful is in a nihilistic acceptance that humans cannot aspire to do good, because the appearance of doing good is merely an illusion. There have been times in my life when I was willing to accept such nihilism as a personal philosophy, but I am not currently in one of those times. Perhaps someday I will return to such a nihilistic outlook on the world and fully agree with you, but, until then, I still think we are in trouble as a nation if we subscribe to the philosophy that we ought to make decisions about national policy based on what benefits us and our families, rather than what is good for the nation as a whole.
Abonymous, I confess I cannot think what to say in response to your statement that reasonable, good-hearted people cannot disagree on the meaning of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteAs a trial attorney, I have learned over the years that the hardest argument to logically refute is the one that is least logical. If the flaw in logic is only minor, it is usually relatively easy to point it out and demonstrate why it is a flaw. But, an argument which is totally divorced from reason, which has no connection to reality at all, is almost impossible to refute logically. To those arguments, one is left to merely look at the Judge, shrug, and say, "Your Honor, I don't know what to say. That argument is totall illogical."
To say that reasonable, good-hearted people cannot disagree on the meaning of the Constitution is such an argument, totally divorced from reality, totally devoid of logic. There is no logical place to stand to get a handle on it. It is merely a bald assertion which is self-evidently wrong.
If it is truly your belief that a document that long can be written, that millions of people can read it, and that no honest, reasonable, good-hearted dispute can possibly exist about its meaning in any particular - which is what I understood you to say - then we have no basis for discussion. You will always be right, and anyone who disagrees with you will always be wrong.
I welcome your comments to my writing. I hope you will feel free to continue to make them, and I hope you continue to make them. I appreciate the fact that you take the time to read my writing. It is flattering.
However, as long as I think it remains your position that no reasonable, good-hearted person can disagree about the interpretation and meaning of a document as long and complex as the United States Constitution, I consider it futile to respond to anything you say. It won't matter.
If I'm wrong about my understanding of your words - and I surely might be - please explain. Until then, I do not intend to re-engage in discussion with you.
James, I posted the items concerning the immutable nature of the Constitution and the premise of universal self-interest. Nice to sort of meet you. Hopefully using a name will clear things up, since I certainly don't wish to muddy the waters of your blog.
ReplyDeleteHealth insurance and car insurance are not one in the same and you've stumbled on a false premise. Driving a car is an option and not a right, while living qualifies as exactly the opposite, and while my irresponsibility can truly damage other motorists, the only way my lack of health coverage can damage society is when society willingly takes on the responsibility of my well-being. This is illogical. I cannot damage you by engaging in activities that result in consequences for which you have accepted responsibility (by passing laws mandating stabilization treatment and ER access regardless of insurance). I choose to drive my car however, and through my choice to drive I might accidentally (or intentionally, which begs significantly deeper moral and criminal questions) damage another person's property or even hurt them. This, coupled with the fact that roads are property of the state and therefore under the authority of the state, means that a car insurance mandate is perfectly logical while a health insurance mandate is not necessarily so.
The premise of self-interest is in no way nhilistic nor is it a rejection of altruism, charity, or communal esprit de corps. On the contrary, all of these things exist because human beings recognize the benefits of a healthy, happy society free of crime and hatred.
ReplyDeleteTo your example, why would an individual sacrifice for a collective body? Individuals have unique values and principles to which they adhere, and many of us espouse a belief in a "do the most good" type of philosophy. In acting selflessly to bring such a philosophy into the realm of reality, we are enriching our lives (by achieving that which we seek to achieve, and therefore benefitting) and we feel good about doing it.
I'm not suggesting that conscious thought is always involved and that we're all secretly trying to screw each other. I am suggesting however that we all pursue what we believe to be our individual self-interest to the best of our abilities in our lives, whatever that interest might be. This is model is demonstrably superior to others; Hong Kong, the BRICKS states, and of course, the country you and I call home. Individuals, pursuing their self-interest generate wealth, trade, help one another, raise their children, care for their families, and defend their country. If you look at examples of history where nations have departed from the notion of self-interest, it universally yields perverse economics, social, and political outcomes that I don't believe either of us would find desirable (USSR, Cultural Revolution-era PRC, DPRK, and Nazi Germany to name a few).
On the last point concerning the definitive nature of the Constitution, a few points:
ReplyDeleteThe US Constitution is the shortest constitution in the world.
Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803 (sixteen years AFTER its ratification) was necessary in order to extend the power of judicial review and loose interpretation to the national political reality.
Concerning Marbury, the case was a blatant Federalist power grab following the defeat of the party in 1800 and 1802. John Marshall, Chief Justice at the time, was directly involved in the case (and yet, refused to recuse himself), failed to establish jurisdiction prior to his decision (a blatant violation of well-established legal precedent and practice that we honor to this day), and misread the Judicial Act of 1789 (some say intentionally) so he could rule it unConstitutional despite the Act (article 14 in particular) being a near verbatim recitation of Article III Sec. 2.
Now that we've got that out of the way, why is it illogical to claim a written constitution as unwaivering and not open to interpretation? Our founders came from a parliamentary system in which any law could be passed for any reason...and they decided against it. A written constitution by its very design is a limitation on the power of government generally imposed after revolts against bad governments. This, coupled with a strict amendment process and Amendments IX and X tend to point toward a distinctive bias against the central government's growth and power. I humbly submit that the illogical position is to claim that a constitution is somehow open to interpretation when its intended purpose is to clarify and solidify the powers and limitations of a government. Again, if we're going to interpret what it says, why have it?
Ron, you have made a number of assertions about the U.S. Constitution and constitutions in general. Some of them are correct, some of them don't seem to be. None of them are apropo to the question of whether reasonable, intelligent, good-hearted people can disagree on what the words of the U.S. Constitution mean. Clearly they can, and have, and for you to assert that they can't is so illogical, so divorced from reason and reality, that it makes it impossible to engage in any meaningful conversation with you.
ReplyDelete