I want to address a couple of false beliefs that seem to have driven a lot of the electorate. One is the belief that the Founding Fathers, to ensure the balance of power, intended to create a system that would never see the same party dominate all three branches of government. This is utterly wrong. The balance of power resides in the fact that we have three branches of government, each of which will zealously protect its turf against encroachments from the two other branches. The Founding Fathers cared not a whit about party balance amongst the branches.
The second canard is that the Democrats should win because it is against the country’s founding doctrines that there are poor people in America, especially poor people without adequate medical care. I’ve searched the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and a bunch of statutes, and don’t find anything saying that this country was founded on the premise that there could be no poor people and that everyone should get medical care.
Now, I agree that it would be lovely if there were no poor people and everyone could get medical care. The Soviets tried extreme socialism to achieve that goal, and it was a dismal failure. Everyone got poor and no one got medical care. The Europeans have been using modified socialism for some time, and it seems to be a slow-mo version of the the Soviets. For a long time — the halcyon 70s — it really looked as if it was working, with cradle to grave care and endless vacations. However, the paradigm is falling apart.
These countries have poor economic growth, high unemployment (see Germany and England, for example), major racial problems, etc. (A good place to see these numbers play out is the CIA’s World Fact Book.) It is true that Germany avoids poverty statistics because of its socialism, but that seems to be more a fact of everyone going down slowly together, as opposed to having successfully avoided mass poverty. Certainly the tensions between the “rich” Germans and the completely disenfranchised Turks — called into the country to do the work the Germans cannot or would not do — seems to bear this out.
Now, I recognize that German reunification has skewed German numbers (which are exceptionally bad for economic growth and unemployment), but things aren’t much better in other countries. Check out the Fact Book for England, Holland, Denmark, France, etc., and you’ll see the same picture over and over. They’re hanging on by their teeth and, while it’s true that the poor do better there (which is a good thing), the fact is that they all are in the same economically sinking boat. Take the rich/middle-class down far enough, and the poor are going to sink with them.
Health care in socialist countries is a toss-up. In America, most people get good health care, and some get lousy health care. In countries with socialized medicine, everyone gets slightly better than lousy health care. Take your pick which ineffective system you’d prefer. If, like me, you get good health care, you’d stick with the American model. If you’re suffering from lousy health care, because you have no insurance, you’d logically opt for socialized medicine, which would at least give you a fighting chance to some medical benefits.
As it is, I lived in England during the peak years of socialized medicine (late 1970s/early 1980s). Cancer patients were put on 3-4 month waiting lists for “emergency” surgery. Patients with degenerative joint diseases that could have been aleviated by joint surgery were parked in wheel chairs and put on waiting lists for a year or more. Routine medical care was substandard, although everyone definitely had access to it.
What was fascinating was that, during the time I was there, private medicine was making a resurgence. Those with money were paying vast amounts (despite their tax rates) to buy insurance so that they could avoid the socialized system and get decent care. When I left England in the early 1980s, England had developed precisely the same type of system we have in America: the rich got good care, the poor got government care.
I fear that many of those who voted Democratic believing they were advancing inalienable rights of equal party divisions among branches of government, or the right to high quality medical care for everyone, have been sold a bill of goods. Let’s hope they figure things out in the next 2 years.
UPDATE: Interestingly, America has survived decades of a unified Presidency and Congress. That is, there have been years and years where all elected branches lay under the control of a single party. Even more interestingly, since Roosevelt, this unification has almost invariably favored Democrats, not Republicans. I’m sure were there to be a Democratic sweep in 2008, the silence about its effect on balanced government would be deafening.
Filed under: Europe
I think what drove the electorate is that they got sick and tired of watching death on the news concerning Iraq, so they took it out on the first boss in charge, the mid term elections for Republicans. Supposedly, these so called non-biased media guys, somehow biased the entirety of 300 million people against the Republicans via showing violence in Iraq and Katrina.
Pretty good for the Big Business Owned Right Wing Media, eh?
It really isn’t about the issues, Bookworm, what would work or what would not work. It is about what people percieve them as, in such situations, perception matters more because even facts are shaped by perception. Facts can change perception, that is true, yet it cannot do so if the media bars the way.
IF they keep watching and being influenced by the media insurgents, then no, they are not going to figure it out. At least not until Bush or someone else takes action to task and dispels the illusion with the shining light of devastating action. The media is predictable, you can throw them off their attack vector by surprising them, sucking them into an ambush, and so forth. Rumsfield’s resignation is only one of the things that confuses the media.
Agree wholeheartedly BW. (Seems I always agree with you). I worked for a British owned company and spent a fair amount of time in England–as late as 1997. The most prized perq associated with a job was medical insurance. The Brits hated their health care system with unmitigated passion.
It is interesting that so many people think that divided government is necessarily a good thing. I read their meaning to be that they want the government to do less. Generally speaking, I agree that less government activity is better; except that there are certain things that really need doing. Social Security reform as one example. After pretending that there was no problem, some left-leaning Economists are now whispering that a disaster is approaching much faster than people realize. If divided government means knee jerk obstructionism even when major problems need addressing–which it has in recent years–then it can be as catastrophic as unfettered government.
It is ironic that there were no Democrats stumping for divided government, much less finding a constitutional basis for it, back in the 60s, late 70s, and 90s.
Propaganda is not for the slow of wit and tongue, Oldflyer. It gets re-invented every few years, if not weeks.
Let’s think about this a bit, shall we, Bookworm? Imagine that all three branches of our American government were dominated by one party. Presumably, party affiliation influences its members’ public service. Now, exactly what mechanisms would operate to ensure that “The balance of power resides in the fact that we have three branches of government, each of which will zealously protect its turf against encroachments from the two other branches”? Whatever those mechanisms might be, they clearly failed under our recent history of Republican governance, when the Congress abdicated it’s authority to the Executive Branch, and then, Bush expanded the Executive’s authority to an extent previously not seen (consider the impact of all those signing statements). Your assertion appears to be theoretically and experientially ridiculous, a canard, if ever there was one.
Let’s think about this a bit, shall we, Bookworm? Imagine that all three branches of our American government were dominated by one party. Presumably, party affiliation influences its members’ public service. Now, exactly what mechanisms would operate to ensure that “The balance of power resides in the fact that we have three branches of government, each of which will zealously protect its turf against encroachments from the two other branches”? Whatever those mechanisms might be, they clearly failed under our recent history of Republican governance, when the Congress abdicated it’s authority to the Executive Branch, and then, Bush expanded the Executive’s authority to an extent previously not seen (consider the impact of all those signing statements). Your assertion appears to be theoretically and experientially ridiculous, a canard, if ever there was one.- Greg
Exactly!
Nobody is saying that the Founding Fathers intended to create a system that “would never see the same party dominate all three branches of government.”
Congress is supposed to provide oversight, however, and keep the executive branch in check. Given the realities of party politics, that does not seem to happen when one party rules.
The Founders understood power’s corrupting influence, however:
“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” — James Madison (1829)
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” — Thomas Jefferson(1778)
“Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation [of power] first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.” – Thomas Jefferson(1821)
I think the response to Greg, is simple, Bookworm. You might or might not agree. Congress is there to act as oversight over the Judicial branch, not just the Executive. The three branches cannot be dominated by all 3 parties, because the J branch is politically independent. Because the E branch listens to the SC, the E branch doesn’t need oversight from the L branch, but the L branch does need to oversight the J branch, otherwise the J branch and the L branch can just combine and take over the E branch, as they have been doing. After all, if the E branches listens to the J branch all the time, what counter-acting force is there to stop such corruption when the L branch is either sitting around doing nothing or actively in cahoots with the J branch in such power abusive scheems as the Eminent Domain thing? You know, where judges rule that it is okay, and legislatures do the confiscating.
It is all about deductive principles. The Left believes a priori wise that this is true and always true, regardless of what they see or do not see. They believe Bush has accrued too much power and used too much of it.
When the truth is that the Republicans got sacked precisely because Bush and Co listened too many times to the SC and to the L branch and just sat around doing nothing but talk.
Anyone who truly believes that Bush extended the power of the Executive Branch beyond any previous limits has no understanding of the actions of Abraham Lincoln, T. R. Roosevelt, and F. D. Roosevelt–just to name three.
The Congress and the Courts have trod all over Executive Authority for some time. If Bush re-captured some of that which has been lost, then he has served future Presidents very well.
There is a reason, after all, why Jacksonians identify themselves with Andrew Jackson.
The poor have medical care via MEDICAID and also can receive care free at most ER’s. School children have all kinds of benefits and get many free services.
What they don’t have and what the left wants to make points on, is Health Care Insurance.
One thing we’ll find out pronto is that problems that can be laid at the feet of Democrats will disappear from the face of the earth and we’ll never hear about them again.
Mitt Romney’s solution to healthcare probs in the Uber Communist Community called Massa choo choo to Utopia, was very very convincing and appealing.
BW – just wanted to piggyback on your observations of socialized medicine in the UK. I lived there 85-93.
The NHS could respond very effectively in life threatening circumstances. I knew a woman who saw a doctor, was diagnosed with brain cancer, and was in surgery within 24 hours.
I also knew a woman who suffered a broken hip in a car accident. She needed a joint replacement, and waited for 2 years. I remember seeing her limping around the workplace in considerable pain.
I was acquainted with a doctor who divided his time between the local state run hospital, and a private practice where he saw those who could afford private care. As you stated, anyone who could afford private health care did so.
FWIW, I would like to observe that the Catholic hospital where I am employed provided over $25,000,000 of treatment last year to individuals who were unable to pay.