The past year has been pretty much one long heated debate about....well, everything. The US is at a crossroads of the same epic proportions as other historical debates: taxation without representation, separate but equal, minority rights, globalization, and yes, health care reform.
The fact is that our culture is evolving but there are decisively opposing segments of the population; they are in direct conflict with each other. It's time to take a look at the real issues - and it's not health care.
The fundamental issue is how we view access to basic needs and the role of government in relationship to those needs. Rousseau's (Jean-Jacques not the crazy jungle woman from LOST)Social Contract Theory says that humans originally lived freely in nature alone until the population grew enough that old ways of satisfying needs had to change; people began to live in communities where divisions of labor developed which freed up people's time for leisure and of course they began to make comparisons between themselves.
But Rousseau focused on the invention of private property and the development of social classes, an institution that eventually bred greed and inequality. Therefore, he argued, government was invented to protect people's private interests from those who may choose to violate or confiscate, i.e. a social contract, providing equal protection of all. But Rousseau's reasoning pointed to a darker motivation: "the contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private property. This is the naturalized social contract, which Rousseau views as responsible for the conflict and competition from which modern society suffers" (see Internet Encyclopedia from University of Tennessee).
So in theory government is really an invention of the strong to maintain their power even though they originally gained power by joining a community to satisfy basic needs. In the American "experiment" of government of, for, and by the people, we have embarked on a series of movements to balance the power between the powerful and the weak; Thomas Jefferson warned of the wrathful "power of the majority".
Every major sociopolitical act has been bred through grassroots movement of someone disaffected, someone without, someone in direct conflict with someone else in power. And although the reasons for someone to be disaffected is for another post, the end result is the same: we are all trying to satisfy our hierarchy of needs that Abraham Maslow discussed. And as our society evolves, we will focus on better ways to efficiently, collectively satisfy those needs.
So the fundamental issue is how to satisfy basic needs and the role of government in that process. The current debate really stems from the fact that our society, and increasingly the world, functions with commodities to be exchanged - but the base of exchange sits in the seat of power with the ones who can exchange, not those who can not exchange. Our irreconcilable differences are because there are segments of the population who view health care as a luxury commodity, not as a basic need. Maslow argued that health and safety are second only to food and shelter!
The role of American government has faced the lack of representation and equal rights of citizens, and developed safety nets for disadvantaged in terms of basic needs, such as food stamps, subsidized housing, and safety within our societal borders, yet there is severe riling up over opening access to another basic need.
The issue is not whether government should be equalizing power to access need satisfaction because clearly government was created to protect and balance power among all members of a community when surviving alone was no longer feasible. The issue is whether the community has evolved enough to realize that; only then can we move on.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Irreconcilable Differences
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Just Pick a Date
As we celebrate the historical proclamation of being independent with all of the fireworks and hot dogs one can imagine, we are doing so on a seemingly random day chosen from the summer of 1776.
As tensions brewed during the hot summer days when the 2nd Continental Congress convened to write out a list of grievances the crown had imposed on the colonists, the foundations of our American government...well, began to work like our current American government - slow.
On June 7, Richard Henry Lee moved for independence with John Adams seconding the notion formally, although support had been growing for some time by then. But the issue was "deferred" until July 1 while Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston drafted a declaration. Although Jefferson claimed that he did not refer to other historical literature, many of the ideas and phrases he chose did make it into the document.
After the declaration was editted, a semi-unanimous vote was taken on July 2 (because New York delegates hadn't been given "official" voting power - though they did finally cast a vote July 9). Later in the month, July 19, the declaration was officially copied to parchment, which is the preserved copy now residing in a temperature-controlled case under guard) but it wasn't until August 2 that the delegate members actually signed that parchment with 3 absent members signing it later.
So the notion of celebrating the essential act of giving Britain the middle finger on the fourth day of July is arbitrary at most; really we should celebrate the entire summer and for most intents and purposes, we do. But everytime you pay taxes, participate in a trial and vote for elected officials, you are celebrating the real intent of the Declaration.
And that, my fellow citizens, should be celebrated all year.
Posts
