Why liberals need to rethink--and restate--what they really stand for

If you're a liberal, you probably beleive in the "safety net." You probably want to protect "entitlements" in face of the huge tax cuts that have been given to the wealthy.

But if you really believe in the liberal cause, you need to stop talking about safety nets and entitlements.

Here's why:  when you use that language, you use the language of the right. The right wins when they can point to safety nets (full of waste and abuse) and entitlements (modest government programs now out of control because of a "dependent" class).

Paul Krugman is fond of saying that the US government is an insurance company with an army. I think that's dead on correct. Now--think about that for a minute. What does an insurance company do?  It lets people share in covering their risks.  When the government does it they do it to protect all citizens, not to make a profit. Our society has ratified this view of government since the New Deal days. Yes, the right would like to abolish it.

Which is why they use the language they do.

But don't think of things like unemployment insurance or food assistance or Medicare or Social Security Retirement as safety nets or entitlements. They are basic protections availalbe to ALL or our citizens (even the  wealthy have been known to collect unemployment and even food stamps if they face an unexpected life crisis and lose their cushion).

In that sense, they are like the public schools. No one (except for the real wingnuts, and they do exist) would look at someone who took advantage of public education as using an entitlement.  But eveyone in this society is entitled to a public education that is paid for by the taxpayers. We don't use that language, however, because it implies that people who go to public schools are freeloaders. We know that's nonsense, no matter how wealthy someone may be.

This is why the idea of Medicare for All is so vital--and why raising the Medicare eligbility age is so perverse. Everyone's health is important, and virtually no one can afford to "self-insure" and subject themselves to the possibilty of catastrophic risk--or the risk of chronic illneess or injury. If we take it as a fundamental right--just as we do with education--we would demolish the right wing storyline on "socialized medicine."

No more Medicaid--an erratic and stigmantized program that screams, "You're poor."  No more any one paying with their life because they couldn't quality for or afford private insurance.

And Social Security? Do you seriously believe we pay our elderly exorbitant benefits?  If you say yes it's probably because some people could afford to live without the benefit, or with less of it. But those same people could afford to pay for their own educations. And if you ever do the math on Social Security, and treat it for what it is (an inflation adjusted annuity), you'll find that what people earn from it is close to what they would get from a private annuity.  Except its safer, and we all can get it.

We need to stop looking at our social contracts as safety nets, and start looking at them as programs that embody the spirt of "all for one and one for all." 

Change what you stand for, and change the way you support it. Do it in the right way and the whole game changes.

 

 

Comments

[jerseys form China]

There was much to see along with the museum is actually laid out properly. The hallway with the bust of the inductees is particularly well done and inspiring. Fun to walk through football history and notice other admirers reminiscing regarding their favorite teams/games/moments.