I just watched the final episode of
Crash Course, a set of world history videos posted online. John
Green, Kenyon College grad and acclaimed author of young adult
fiction, produced them. They are informative and genuinely
entertaining. I learned a lot watching them. I absolutely recommend them.
But one of Green's themes in the last
episode disturbs me. He calls individualism a “new idea” and
makes it clear he thinks there's too much of it going around. As we
start to live into whatever reality the Affordable Care Act brings, I
think this attitude matters. To the contrary, I submit there is not
enough individualism going around these days. I believe individualism can be a loving manner of living.
But I mean something very particular
about individualism. It has nothing to do with cowboys in
pickup ads; certainly not with survivalist conspiracy
thinkers stocking their bunkers. No, true individualism means taking
responsibility for your own life. It means accepting the
consequences for our mistakes and saying Sorry when we should. It
means living with the outcomes of our decisions without complaint.
It even means helping others in need. It especially means
helping the needy—but on our own initiative and if possible, in
person.
As always, John Green gave various
opinions a fair airing. But in the end he came down on the side of
collective political policy. (Note that I did not accuse him of
advocating collectivism, one
of the nastier side-effects of communism.) He rightly stated that
Americans born in the first half of the 20th
century experienced serious limits on personal freedom. He uncritically claimed that the New Deal
shortened the Great Depression. In fact, it probably deepened the
Depression and economic recovery did not really get going until we
began supplying war materiel to the Brits in the very late 30's. He
spoke of the draft (“limiting your freedom not to have to go fight
in a war”). I have no argument with this point.
But
Green gave another example that applies directly to Obamacare. He
spoke of the creation of Social Security as a limit on personal
freedom, saying, “You know, as in your freedom not to have to pay
to take care of old people.” That is factually incorrect and it
may reveal a bad attitude. Social Security is supposed
to be a federal program that compels us to save for our own
retirement. The truth, of course, is that it has become the biggest
Ponzi Scheme in history. And that attitude gets to me.
It assumes that any person who does not share one's own biases is
selfish.
To be
fair, Green openly admits that he has biases. And I genuinely like
his work. But as we rush blind and afraid into yet another
collective federal program I wish I could somehow put up a giant stop
sign. I think it will hurt, not help, people. And I am beyond tired
of having people who disagree with me think I am selfish. I am trying my best to do the loving thing for people. And I honestly feel that individualism creates the best conditions to grow that plant.
Individualism
has deep and ancient roots. The Old Testament Hebrews believed in an
individual God, and while Yahweh certainly held them accountable for
their collective behaviors, he also treated them as individuals.
This strain runs through Greek Classical philosophy, the New
Testament, and thinkers as varied as Aquinas and de Tocqueville.
Ironically, liberalism arose from individualism.
When done right individualism
creates human safety and happiness. When we take responsibility—for
ourselves and others—when we sacrifice, save, keep our noses clean,
and all the rest of it, life gets better for almost everybody. I
honestly believe history teaches this. I wish history teachers
taught it, too.
Hi Mike
ReplyDeleteThoughtful post. Enjoyed reading it. Thanks,
Scott
While I probably agree with you about Obamacare, I think your premise here is flawed. You make one very interesting assumption which needs some unpacking, which is that placing individuals in control of their own destinies, making them responsible, generally leads to better outcomes for society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteNow, as an evolutionary process, I believe this to be true. We have grown as social beings, and when left to ourselves we generally make choices that are the best for ourselves, and for our kin. But, the trouble is that it stops there, with kin, and that in this context "generally" only means about 70% of us. The last 30% or so are people who, left to themselves, would very rapidly ruin their lives, via debt, drugs, other addictions, or just sheer stupidity.
I am admittedly a cynic, but I think it takes a lot of confidence to believe that the average Joe has enough wits about him to plan more than half an hour in advance. It especially takes a lot of confidence in mankind to think that the average person is likely to care in the slightest about anyone outside the four walls of his own home. This is confidence I do not have, both by reason of personal observation, psychological studies, and also scripture. The ideals of supporting the poor, feeding the weak, caring for the widowed, and turning the other cheek had to be mandated by God precisely because they are not natural. It is not normal to care for the unfortunate; that behavior is learned, and trained, and enforced for years before most people can begin to actually internalize it.
So suppose we suddenly are granted the opportunity to control our own lives, and all our bad habits that have been propped up for years by a semi-socialist government are being purged from us in the crucible of personal responsibility. All the people that just don't have the self control for rational, responsible behavior will suffer, and the vast majority of the rest of mankind will ignore them. No safety net. They will crash, burn, lose jobs, spend poorly, take poor care of their health, and very soon be starving, with no resources to begin the process of correcting their death spiral.
The Church, I like to think, would be the ones that showed compassion for these poor fools, but being honest with ourselves, there is no way that the church could possibly muster the resources to deal with problems of that scale. We would basically need to let the weak die.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteThe question, in my mind, becomes one of whether the ends justify the means. Tough love is a great way to correct behavior, up until the point where it becomes criminal negligence. Personal responsibility is an excellent ideal, and I agree with you that it is undervalued. But, I also think it is not something that everyone can handle, and I personally believe that having a nearly defunct government make halfhearted attempts at protecting our nation's foolish from their own idiocy is preferable to watching 30% of our population self destruct. No, it isn't ideal, it isn't the way that it ought to be, and other people's folly is not really our fault, or our responsibility to support. But, given the options, I would rather go all the way socialist than try to go the opposite direction.
The fact that a course of action would be beneficial to society in the long run doesn't make it conscionable. If it did, I would be a wholehearted supporter of eugenics by forced sterilization.
All that said, Obamacare is absolutely ludicrous, not because it restricts personal freedom, or is a collectivist government program, but because it doesn't deal with the real problems, which are the pharmaceutical industry stranglehold on health care, extensive lobbying in government, a terrible court system that costs doctors a third of their salary for malpractice insurance, privately run hospitals that set their own prices, and an emergency room culture that has never heard of preventative care. Either we need to go fully capitalist and allow price competition to control the medical market without any government oversight or subsidization, or we need to go full socialist, have the government set care prices by fiat, reduce costs of everything to reasonable levels, limit malpractice suits so that even as doctor's wages drop, their take home pay can increase, and offer state insurance for free to all taxpayers. Oh, and stop letting pharma companies market directly to consumers; medications should be left up to doctors who actually know what they do and how they work.
I personally favor full socialized medicine because I have seen it work in Korea. People go to the hospital with a cold, and stay overnight just in case, because it only costs about $20. Preventative care is excellent and ever present, and quality of care in hospitals was not noticeably different from here in the states.
Plus, it just makes logical sense: Given a choice between going bankrupt to pay a hospital bill and dying, nearly everyone will go bankrupt. The health care industry has a captive audience that will happily pay for their wares at any price, because not paying means death. If the prices are not mandated by law, the companies can simply charge as much as they want, and they will, and they do, because they are not working from a sense of charity, but for profit. The fact that this is already happening is just one more example of why leaving people to be responsible for themselves doesn't work. We need the government to keep the powerful and rich people honest, and socialized healthcare is one step on that path.
So, after all that, I conclude by saying that in an ideal world, where human nature was fundamentally good, where people could be trusted to make good choices, act with empathy, and not to abuse the misfortunes of others, in such a world, you would be right about individualism. That's a world to strive for. But, we are very, very far from that world, and the government, pitiful as it may be, is one of the few things that holds back the tide of human callousness and greed. Whether they botch it or not, I think the goal at least is worthy.
I have hesitated to respond to Jon because he makes so many excellent points I don' t know where to start. I guess I'll begin with this: his heart is good and his mind is great. I agree with many of his points. Here, though, are a few things to consider:
DeleteDoctors are already very, very angry. The current system frustrates them. They fear (I think rightly) the increased role of uneducated bureaucrats under the ACA. Some doctor friends of mine have made concrete plans to stop practicing. Many people assume they're in it for the money. Sure, they love the money. But they're in it to treat people and many (most?) of them see Obamacare as the last nail in that particular coffin. We already have a doctor shortage. What happens next?
The insurance and pharmaceutical companies were actually promised increased influence (and income) under the ACA. That's how Obama got them to sign off on it. Whether it happens for them remains a totally open question. But if you don't like them now...
Jon, I think the most important point you made has to do with the interplay between human nature and human responsibility. As a good Calvinist (oxymoron) I agree: left to our own devices most of us will not care for the needy.
For that reason I do not advocate the complete removal of government from our lives. I do advocate that there be real consequences for able people who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives. Example: I should not have to pay increased premiums for health insurance because I am thrown into a pool with smokers and willfully obese people.
When I write about individualism I am not advocating throwing the baby out with the bath. I am willing to pay taxes to support those who cannot support themselves. I also believe that the most loving thing to do is to help/inspire/make people take charge of their own lives. They will be happier, healthier and we all benefit.
Well yeah, pretty much exactly what Jon said.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to John Green, he recently devoted an episode of Crash Course U.S. History to the New Deal and in this case I think he takes a more nuanced perspective than what you are suggesting he did previously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bMq9Ek6jnA I will say that as much as I love John and Hank, both of them suffer from a little too much snark and know-it-all attitude than what I like.
Dad, I know you too well to even entertain the idea that you are selfish, but I do think that the ACA is better than the system we currently have. As incompetent as the Democrats can sometimes be, I think it's ineffectual and irresponsible for Republicans to seek repeal of the ACA without coming to the table with a viable alternative system. There are plenty of things to hate about the ACA, but there also some core principles which I think make a huge difference. These include allowing those with pre-existing conditions to buy insurance and mandating basic coverage (which includes preventative care) for everybody rather than letting our emergency rooms clog up with people who most likely will not be able to pay the resulting bills.
I agree with Jon that a fully socialized system would be better, but to me, the ACA is better than nothing.