Socialism (of a sort)
Opinion Paper: 16 August 2009
– by Mike Murray
(Note: This essay was originally published prior to the enactment of “ObamaCare.” )
Millions of Americans are troubled by President Obama’s affection for Big Government. They have good reason to be. He and members of his inner circle seem determined to gain total control of our nation’s key institutions. They are endeavoring to acquire massive amounts of power for the executive branch (and, coincidentally, for themselves).
These new Washingtonians – many of them Chicago transplants – believe the government should be involved in nearly every aspect of our lives. Only the federal government, these wonks like to say, is “big enough” to solve major societal problems. Hence it makes sense (to them) to put the feds in charge of everything.
Oftentimes, they frame arguments for their positions around the notion of “fairness.” Utopian, socialistic dogma (to which many of Obama’s Chicago consorts subscribe), dictates that resources be centrally consolidated and then redistributed. What is supposed to result is a classless culture. There are no rich; there are no poor. Everyone is equal. Everyone is provided for. “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need,” as Karl Marx put it in 1875. (Which squares nicely with candidate Obama’s stump message, that America should “spread the wealth around.”)
That sentiment is appealing in an abstract, hypothetical sense to many of us. That is, that we should do our level best to take care of all of our “brothers and sisters.” That we “leave no citizen behind,” so to speak.
Disagreements arise, however, over the preferred method of providing for those in need. Some say that governmental “handouts” are no one’s right, and that benevolence cannot be dictated. They, too, believe that assisting others is desirable and should be encouraged – but not mandated. Others believe that all workable solutions involve government involvement and oversight.
But in matters of governance, the devil is (always) in the details. There is a reason that Utopian societies nowhere exist. While they are easy enough to conceptualize, they are difficult to implement. And they are virtually impossible to maintain. In all of human history, I am aware of none (of any real size) that has succeeded.
Sure, the world has seen the establishment of many socialistic and communistic governments. Those have routinely come and gone. Some still exist. But none has ever achieved the altruistic goals glorified in the ideologies that founded them.
Always, hierarchies emerge. Always, there are those who manage to live a good deal better than the commoners they govern. In all such societies, the masses tend to survive (by and large). But the ruling elites do a good deal better than that. Top officials in the former Soviet Union, for example, occupied large estates; ate lavish meals; wore expensive clothing; owned expensive jewelry; and were attended by servants. They also wielded immense power over the citizenry.
They even attempted, decades ago, to extend their influence to America. They sent representatives to woo our “elites” (educators, entertainers, clergymen, members of our media, etc. – those believed to have the power to influence the populace.) Academics and Hollywood swells, especially, were vulnerable to the attention and to the flattery. They met regularly with their new Soviet friends to discuss the wonders and joys of communal living. They drank vodka into the wee hours, and they congratulated themselves over their “enlightened” views.
It was a laughable, pathetic attempt on the part of the Soviets to achieve advantage. It didn’t amount to much. In fact, it accomplished next to nothing. But it did give American elites numerous opportunities to eat, drink, be merry – and pat themselves on the back. Few of those misty-eyed dreamers were, however, subsequently willing to surrender any of their advantages in order to better provide for “the common man.”
After long nights of reverie and indulgence, most returned to reality. Which is to say, their comfortable lifestyles. And since those heady days, not much has changed. Elites continue to live well: in ivory towers on college campuses, and in Malibu estates on ocean-front properties.
Elected and appointed officials of governments the world over also continue to enjoy luxuries not accorded the citizens they represent. Even those officials who are employed in highly evolved republics and democracies – where they are termed “public servants.”
One of the proudest moments in American history was the enactment of civil-rights legislation in 1964. Out of that grew many rules and regulations aimed at eliminating discrimination. But Congress exempted itself from nearly all of them. Even as its members celebrated new restrictions on prejudicial considerations of race, religion, gender, etc. in the workplace, they refused to apply the same standards to their own legislative body.
Now, Congress is kicking around major changes to our nation’s health-care-system. And, in their early incarnations, every proposal has exempted the President, members of Congress, and other federal employees from forced participation. They would continue to enjoy the gold-standard health care that they do now. Only the citizenry – the collection of folks they’re supposed to be serving – would be forced to comply with potentially catastrophic changes.
Public pressure may yet force government officials to accept for themselves any system they impose upon the masses. But, even in such an eventuality, they would no doubt try to sneak in loopholes (amendments, and such), which would allow them to maintain their access to superior, and less costly, care.
In an attempt to sell his latest version of “reform” (which now focuses on insurance) Obama has lately claimed that he would have been willing to pay for his grandmother’s hip replacement – who, he says, was terminally ill at the time of her surgery. It is his way of demonstrating, he supposes, that he is one of us. That is, that he isn’t asking of us anything that he wouldn’t ask of himself.
And so, should we find ourselves in a similar situation, we should not expect Medicare – or any other governmental program – to pick up the tab. We should pay for it ourselves, as Obama says he was willing to.
Except that he didn’t. He let Uncle Sam cough up the cash for his aged relative’s surgery. Even now, he could reimburse the Treasury. The government accepts donations. And Obama is a millionaire. He can easily afford it. He is planning, after all, to take his family on a summer vacation to Martha’s Vineyard – to a neighborhood where properties rent for a whopping $35,000 – $50,000 per week.
Obama’s financial wherewithal is the kind of which most people can only dream. And his earning potential, post presidency, is astronomical. Nevertheless, he has opted not to pony up for granny (even though doing so – before using her as a political prop – would have been smart).
And then there is Obama’s key health-care advisor: Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm, White House Chief of Staff). Emanuel is a medical doctor by training. Many people admire him. They consider him to be a bona fide intellectual, and a thoroughly decent person. But he has some very troubling philosophical views on how health care should be doled out within a society. The Complete Lives System to which he subscribes is a commingling of disciplines: health care and economics. And, of the two, the latter dominates.
A popular definition of economics asserts: “Economics is the study of the allocation of scare resources among a variety of competing ends.” In plain English, that means that there isn’t enough of something (something precious) to go around. And so hard decisions regarding distribution have to be made. As it relates to health care, that means rationing. As a consequence, rationing methodology is central to the Complete Lives System. (Goggle® it. It’s fascinating reading.)
The CLS employs a curve, one that represents priorities regarding health-care allocation, relative to age. Highest priority is assigned to young adults, in whom society has invested much (food, clothing, housing, education, and such), and from whom much contribution (commercial activity, new-knowledge generation, technological development, tax payments, etc.) is expected during – what are anticipated to be – many outlying years.
Least important are seniors (most especially, mentally disabled ones), from whom communal “participation” and “contribution” are already limited – and unlikely to increase. Somewhere in between are mid-lifers, who are deemed still useful to society, but for a lesser number of future years than are young adults.
Babies – ones born with abnormalities (cognitive being the worst) are very low priorities in the Complete Lives System. Their future contributions are uncertain, and there is no previous investment in them for society to protect. (Hence, Sarah Palin’s concern about how a governmental “death panel” in such a system might have affected her son Trig’s access to taxpayer-assisted medical treatment is, in my judgment, thoroughly warranted.)
Sound scary to you? It does to many. Especially since it is a philosophy that one of the Obama administration’s closest advisers on health care endorses. Emanuel has several times written favorably about the Complete Life System, most recently in January of this year.
Emanuel’s defenders say that he has had no part in the drafting of any of the health-care proposals currently under consideration. Perhaps not. But much of what has been developed so far is vague in its language, and highly susceptible to interpretation when / if implemented. And, given Emanuel’s close proximity to executive branch decision-makers – and his great influence with them – his “personal views” could very easily transform themselves into public policy. Folks have genuine cause for concern.
To older Americans, who believe the Complete Lives System to be unfair, Emanuel offers this: You were once a 25-year-old yourself. You had your turn. His implication is that you, too, were once favored in the distribution of scarce health-care resources. Now, he says, it is the younger folks’ turn. That reasoning is based on a false assumption: that those who are now older in age received preferential treatment when they were young. They did not.
As Obama officials are themselves quick to point out, seniors have historically consumed the most generous (i.e., the most expensive) portion of the health-services pie. They state that fact as something of a pejorative. But it was quite naturally and reasonably so, since many severe illnesses and conditions strike later in life.
But that also means that people who are newly senior in age – along with those who are fast-approaching that status – have been paying for the care of those ahead of them for a good many years. And, now that they are older, sicker, and in greater need of assistance – and have finally reached the front of the health-care allocation queue – Emanuel and his ilk would have them move to the rear.
Nothing about that seems fair or reasonable.
Moreover, it disturbs many that the dispassionate (some would say callous) people from whom Obama takes advice fail to recognize the intrinsic value of human life. Reasonable people can disagree over whether that profound value derives from God, Allah, or Mother Nature. But no one can sensibly argue against its existence – or that it should be diminished by any bureaucrat.
Certainly not one who favors the Complete Lives System, which treats human beings as if they were no more than bees in a hive, ants in a colony. The system favors those members of society who are most “productive” (read: tax-paying, and useful in other practical ways). It uncaringly calculates who among us is most deserving of the communal assets necessary to be medically maintained.
Regardless of the level of health care that the government guarantees the masses, however, the ruling class (and the wealthy) will be fully protected. Whether their medical expenses are covered by Uncle Sam or paid directly by them, the privileged will get by. Comfortably. As they always have. Irrespective of any governmental policy, neither Barack Obama nor Ezekiel Emanuel will ever have to worry about financing critical medical procedures for himself or his family.
In ways large and small, these new Washingtonians are into social engineering. Obama and his lieutenants are seeking unprecedented powers over commerce, communication, and wealth. They are intensely interested in redistributing our nation’s resources. All of them. They are endeavoring to “remake America” – just as they said they would.
Nevertheless, it doesn’t appear to me to be socialism, precisely, that Obama administration officials have in mind. Given their heavy-handed attempts to control so many aspects of our lives, it looks a whole lot more like totalitarianism.
Copyright © 2009 Michael F. Murray All rights reserved.
