One-Party Country

Big country usually means big government in the way that small country usually means small government.

But within each country a government is seen as big or small depending on the role it plays in the lives of its citizens. And this role is seen as either "good" or "bad" depending on the extent to which each citizen believes the government intrudes into their own particular life and how each citizen interprets this as either improving or not improving their life. Or in some cases actually making it worse.

But these opinions can never be tabulated and then aggregated such that one is able to extrapolate from all the experiences and reactions of each individual to a broader theoretical assessment of what the optimal relationship should be between any given government and any given set of citizens.

In other words, neither Alan Wolfe, Peter Wehner, Michael Gerson, David Brooks, you nor I can accomplish this by setting out to define an optimal relationship between the U.S. government, its citizens and the health care delivery system alleged to be best suited for us all.

Without that as a fundamental jumping off point [along with the actual existential relationship between political, economic, legislsative and judicial power] we all just continue to thread water insisting that our defininition of the words used to decribe all this in the debate are the most reasonable of all.

This all revolves considerably around how each of us understands the relationship between the language we use to talk about these things and the extent to which language is seen as something that can order our lives for the better or the worse by the accumulation of words into a moral and political narrative said to be .

But better or worse for whom? And how do we go about making the transition between the language we are indoctrinated to internalize as children and the language we come in contact with as we become more or less atonomous adults?

Think about it like this:

Suppose you are marooned alone on an island, what would be the point and the limitations of langauge with respect to health care? Only if you believed in God would language be of any real value because you would have to reconcile your thoughts, beliefs and behaviors with Him. Ah, but what if another castaway washes up on shore? Then language would become more important because now your relationship is not just with nature or God but with the mind of another who may see health care in a different way. Now, you may both agree on what best facilitates optimal health care but if the relationship between that and the resources you have to sustain it becomes strained there is no narrative that can be embraced such that the rationing of health care can be coordinated on par with your dwindling health care resources.

In other words, you will both wash up on shore with the language you were taught to embrace in the world you were brougth up on. But that world is gone and now you have a new world to shuffle all the definitions of all the health care words in order to fit them into these new existential permutations and parameters.

Again, it is nothing short of amazing [appalling?] how few of us think about the words [and the meaning of the words we use to accumulate the knowledge we use to define and defend value judgments] in this way. There is a new "reality show" series on the Discovery Channel called The Colony. A bunch of strangers come together in "post apocalyptic world" to figure out new ways of surviving in a world very different from the one they were familiar with before. This is how language and meaning and knowledge and values play out in a world that is ever subject to change. The modern world.

Alan Wolfe:

The real shame, though, lies on the liberal side. Had there been a real opposition party in America, one that actually believed not only in governing but in governing well, Obama’s bipartisan instincts might have produced better public policy.

george:

I agree with this. But for diferent reasons. And that is because my understanding of what the words mean will always both overlap and conflict with Wolfes because our lives crossed so many different and conflicting paths. My point then is that we must grope about moderating the words we use about health care in order to negociate compromises that will bring the most health care to the most people.

Ah, but as per usual Wolfe barely touches on the role the incestuous relationship between political and economic power plays in all this. Nor does he delve much into how a bipartisan relationship here is crippled by the inherent need to demonize the other sidein order to take advantage of times when this demonizing can be used for partisan advantage. After all, many folks in the Congress and the White House are dependent upon their government salaries to pay the bills and raise their families. If the Republicans act so as to achieve a Obama success story here how does that help their chances in the next election cycle?

george

You need to go back on your meds, walton. Though I suppose that would not alleviate your graphomania. Alan Wolfe, who is about four quadrillion times smarter than you, once again did not flog your Marxist horses. You are a Johnny-one-note. Wolfe knows all about the linkages between economic interests and political realities, far better than you, in fact. You seem to have zero awareness that some corporate interests bump up against others and all are not yoked together in a solid front against "the people". Further, you do not have the dimmest notion about the intricacies and complexities of health care reform. Wolfe is right that the Republicans are screamers, any that count these days, that is.

lib:

Alan Wolfe, who is about four quadrillion times smarter than you, once again did not flog your Marxist horses.

george:

Hey, don't make me expose your bromance with Alan!!!

You are a bro aren't you? I mean, you hardly never bump into women in places like this as obnoxious as you [and jackson and sleeplyall etc] are. Fucking men, whatcha gonna do right?

And if Alan is as smart as you say he is he's had all the opportunity in the world to crush me like a bug here. You know, like Marty does over in The Spine.

But instead "serious journalists" flick me aside because I don't project in an academic or scholarly manner. I'm just not cut out to be somebody's esteemed colleague....am I?

Oh, and in many posts of mine I have been very clear about the complex nature of the ruling class in America.

For instance:

...my point has always revolved less around the simplistic, "Skull-and-Bones-by-way-of-the-Freemasons" mentalities and more around the manner in which some folks at TNR are intent on discussing the economic crisis as though organizations like the Trilateral Commission, the Carlyle Group, Davos, the Council On Foreign Relations, the DLC, the Renaissance Weekend, the Bliderberg Group etc etc are, at best, peripheral or ancilliary spokes in the wheel that is the global economy.

Nominating something as "the ruling class"...at home or abroad...does not mean that once a month...literally...the folks from CNBC and its Wall Street advertisers sit down with the relevant committee chairmen in Congress, Obama's economic team in the White House, the K Street lobbyists and Henry Kissinger's "colleagues" from Bilderberg to meticulously plan the next month's economic agenda. It doesn't work that way because it doesn't have to. Besides, even within these corporate concentrations of wealth and power, there are considerable conflicts. For example, corporations based here in America may be strongly opposed to government policies that favor companies that shift all or part of their business overseas. And companies that oppose policies seen as favorable to the interests of oil industry do so because the higher the cost of oil the more costly it is in run their businesses profitably.

THAT is where "democracy" comes into play. But some of these conflagrations are titantic because so much money is at stake.

No, America's ruling class does not encompass a bunch of secret meetings where secret conspirators secretly plot and plan to carve up the world in Dr Evil's secret location at Goldman Sachs.

Instead, it is more like this:

From the Bullfrog Films review of the film The American Ruling Class:

The American Ruling Class is one of the most unusual films to be made in America in recent years--both in terms of form and content. The form is a "dramatic-documentary-musical" and the content is our country's most taboo topic: class, power and privilege in our nominally democratic republic.

At bottom the film is a morality tale, the story of two Yale students (played by Harvard men) who seek their opportunities upon graduation. As the renowned essayist, author and longtime Harper's magazine editor Lewis Lapham conducts them through the corridors of power: Pentagon press briefings, the World Economic Forum, philanthropic foundations, Washington law firms, corporations, banks, the Council on Foreign Relations, and New York society dinners--our two representative graduates "one rich and the other not so rich" must struggle with their responsibilities in "a world collaterally damaged by the magic of money and the miracles of science." The real-life luminaries they meet on their journey become characters in a story about power, its responsibilities and abuses.

All the while "the Mighty Wurlitzer" plays on, a reference to the massive propaganda apparatus invented by the CIA's Frank Wisner, here used to signify the nocturnal philosophy of acquisition and imperial hubris which continually calls to the young men, the siren song of careerist myopia that was bred into their bones at school.

As we watch these two young men wend their way through what is only a slight fictionalization of their actual lives and choices, as we meet former Secretaries of State and Defense, directors of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, the publisher of The New York Times, Kurt Vonnegut, Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Robert Altman and a host of others, we have to ask along with Mr. Lapham: "To what end the genius of the Wall Street banks and the force of the Pentagon's colossal weapons? Where does America discover the wisdom to play with its wonderful toys?" The possible answers move beyond the empty distinction of party affiliation and into the heart of American Oligarchy itself. By film's end, the young men must decide: Should they seek to rule the world, or to save it?

George:

It is just commonsense to point out that those who own and operate the political and economic instruments that sustain the global economy, are going to want to connect the dots with others like them around the world. They have "shared interests" that evolve from and center around transactions that swell well up into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

So, no, they don't need to schedule a secret rendevous where they can exchange secret handshakes and secret code words with the other secret participants.

Do they?

And anytime you or Alan would like to discuss this in more depth please feel free to get in touch. If nothing else you will be afforded the opportunity to humiliate me in front of all my own "colleagues" here at TNR.

Let's give it a go, okay? Let's set up a debate in, say, The Plank. We can invite lots and lots firends [or in my case commie comrades] and finally resolve this gosh darn thing once and for all!!

george walton

Jesus Christ, George, have you no self-awareness?

You guys should do what I do: never read George's comments.

No, tray, unfortunately he doesn't.

Tray,

Why don't address the relationship between the Obama administration and "big government" in a manner that expresses an opinion with just the right balance between self-awareness and self-parody.

Or you can just copy and paste one of lib's post, right?

Go for it.

gw