Left v Right is a Sidetrack: The Debate on Healthcare, Most Major Issues of Our Day Was Settled in 1776
The left/right paradigm has become extremely problematic. There are many peripheral issues we tend get hung up on, and while they are certainly all worthy of discussion and debate, its extremely frustrating we can’t move beyond this to address the major ones on which — by virtue of the kind of country we are supposed to be — it was long ago settled there should be almost universal agreement. And it is really these issues, not the peripheral ones that tend to consume our news cycle, which should occupy our major focus of attention.
If this sounds a little vague right now please allow me to clarify.
First off it is necessary to establish what I mean by “the kind of country we are supposed to be”. We live in what is known as a liberal democracy, and in this sense the word “liberal” doesn’t mean wearing pussy-hats. It means that the main function of our central government is supposed to the securing and bestowal of liberty. This is stated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence, signed in 1776 which says not only that “all men” (please update to include women and also note that it does not only say ‘all U.S. citizens’) are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain “inalienable rights” to include “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” but also states quite explicitly that the role of the republic is to “secure these rights”.
So with that in mind let us examine, one by one, a few of the major policy proposals of which in our current climate of debate are now generally framed as “far left”.
State-funded, “free” education. In the world of today or any other day there is generally no such thing as liberty without a decent education. This is true for so many reasons. There is the obvious, like being able to qualify for a job, but there are more subtle, insidious ones as well, like for one thing if there are oppressors trying to oppress you by limit what you can do and become in life, its very hard for you to fight back against them if you can’t understand the often subtle, sophisticated means by which they’re accomplishing it.
UBI, Universal Basic Income. You can’t have liberty if you are an unskilled ignoramus, but neither is liberty a thing if you are economically at the mercy of a market which accords no inherent value to human life (or any other life). To whatever extent your every personal decision has to be centered around what is going to advantage or disadvantage you in the market, your self-determination is accordingly diminished.
Healthcare. Pretty self-explanatory. Liberty is definitely not a thing if you don’t have health.
Debt relief. Also pretty self-explanatory: Liberty is going to be pretty severely hampered for you if you are tied down by/enslaved to mountains of debt for medical reasons or costs associated with education.
Jobs Guarantee. This one is a little less clear to me as it maybe depends a bit on what kind of jobs we’re talking about. There are many kinds of jobs I would argue maybe should not exist: I know this may sound sacrilegious of me, but for example I would put forth the wild assertion that perhaps drone pilots aren’t really making the world a better place. However, as a general rule, I would say that it is pretty much inarguable that having some sort of meaningful work which motivates you to get out of bed in the morning and provides you with a livelihood is absolutely essential for both liberty and happiness, and also that the more choice (even if its to do something that doesn’t exist yet) and flexibility you have in this regard, the better off — the more “liberated” — you are.
I have left out a number of proposals, such as those addressing environmental and/or climate concerns, but you can take this same basic formula following the examples I have given above and work it out for yourself… “you can’t have liberty if you don’t have [fill in the blank]”
The point is that by now I hope you can begin to see why it’s a something of a misnomer and a red herring to define these proposals as “socialism” and reject them on this basis. In my estimation this fear/stigma-based illogic is also transparently self-serving on the part of those primarily responsible for proffering it; namely those who own the lions-share of the interest in the various systems on which our civilization depends for its continued existence, and run them mostly for their own benefit (persons who tend to adhere to what Adam Smith, OG of classical liberalism, and author of the seminal work on capitalist economics, Wealth of Nations, termed “the vile maxim” of “all for ourselves and nothing for the people.”).
So, in spite of the barrage of hogwash most of us have been subjected to — and in many cases internalized— throughout our lives about any regulation or amelioration of the impacts of capitalism being an unpatriotic, unacceptable breach of faith in the wonderful, infallible “American” system, the real, unvarnished truth is that there is nothing fundamentally “American” at all about this system and that the debate on these things was more or less way back in 1776, in our founding document. Everything else that has been said on it since then has pretty much been nothing but one massive gas-light by self-serving assholes, the self-appointed “masters of mankind” who are used to seeing themselves as above everyone else and wish to keep it that way. Sorry (not sorry), but its true.
The only question that really remains (if indeed we are going try and stick within this whole “nation-state” thing) is how such programs should be best administered in order to be most effective at securing our liberties, and while — admittedly — there is tons of room for error there, by no means should we allow this stop us from trying.
Bottom line, if we are going to continue to call ourselves a “free country” or pretend we are in any way living up to the principles for which we are supposed to stand, then regardless of what “ism” you choose to label them by, these basic proposals are not radical, crazy or even “left-wing” . They are simply things we must have. If not, our institutions have failed to deliver what they promise and no longer warrant or justify any of the authority vested in them.
