We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us…
Mitt Romney, candidate for the Republican nominate for president, was recently criticized at an event for being Mormon.
When I first heard this clip, I thought, I can’t stand religious intolerance. This is America and should be open to all religious faiths (or lack thereof).
My second thought was, Would I vote for Romney? Well, maybe not.
Wait a minute here. What am I saying? Could I be prejudiced against someone because of his religion? No! I can’t be… religious bigots are those who have all the answers or are sure if “you’re not for us, you’re against us.” Or they are completely against religion. That’s not me. I’m a liberal. I’m tolerant.
Only I’m not. I am prejudiced. In day to day life, I couldn’t care less if someone belongs to a religion other than mine, or no religion at all, for that matter. Heck, some of my best friends are pagans. But I’m apparently applying a different standard when I consider voting for someone.
There are aspects of some religions I find irrational and illogical, and I have trouble trusting and respecting someone who’s a member. I can’t even claim this comes from ignorance on my part; I’ve learned a fair bit about religions over the years. Nope, this is intolerance based on information…it’s not a gut reaction….it’s a choice.
I talked to my family about this at dinner. My daughter said, “Don’t you judge people based on what they do?”
“Well, no, honey. This is about religion.”
“But you should decide about people based on what they do.” Great. Here I am, a bigot, raising a lefty. How did that happen?
My husband thought about it and decided that he agreed with me. He considers religion just one more criterion used to evaluate politicians. He thinks it’s reasonable because lately many issues are societal/political/religious. OK, I can see that. So why does my reaction bother me so much?
I had to think about this quite a while. Then it hit me…
What if Romney were Jewish? Would I have a problem? Well, no.
Presbyterian? No
Episcopalian? Nope.
Atheist? No
Islamic? Uh-uh
Fundamentalist Christian? Well….maybe…
Scientologist? Well, probably…
I’m not questioning how someone’s beliefs would affect his behavior in office. I’m assuming there’s something wrong with a candidate simply because he belongs to a particular church. And I’m not consistent; for instance, I had no problem with John Kerry being Catholic, even though (as a former Catholic) I have grave reservations about that religion. But being Catholic is not a strike against him, as Mormonism is in Romney’s case. I’m not being uniform in applying this standard.
BraveHumans was devised as a forum for discussing differing viewpoints. We hope that people who come here will be open-minded, civil, willing to consider new ideas, and open to change. Well, time for me to change. I don’t want to be so biased.
This is not about Mormonism or Scientology, or fundamentalism. This is about me. I’m not perfect. (My husband will be so glad to hear that; it’s been a great burden for him to bear all these years.) Not only am I not perfect, but I’ve got some pretty ugly bigotry going on here. And I never even realized it until just recently.
Judging candidates by their platforms, past performance, participation in debates, party affiliations…all these make sense to me. Perhaps it’s even reasonable to consider religion, if that criterion is applied across the board.
I probably wouldn’t even have given this issue a second thought a few months ago. Lately, however, I’m always hunting for an idea for an intriguing post. So when religious intolerance raised its ugly head, I was there. I just didn’t know how close to home it was going to be. I guess I have BraveHumans to thank for it. Ultimately, I imagine this will result in personal growth…but right now feels downright yucky.
Be brave. Be human. (Boy, am I human)
Susan
March 8th, 2007 09:51
Hi Susan,
I see where you’re coming from. Don’t know if you’re actually a bigot, though. Isn’t it a rational reaction to wonder if a candidate will take his directive not from the people he’s supposed to represent, but from his religion? To me, that’s the issue. People were afraid that JFK was going to be a papal puppet, but he proved them wrong. It’s a natural thing to be concerned about, when a religion has such strong tenets and hierarchy.
Bottom line, if a candidate can prove through his record and experience that he’s not a puppet for whatever church he belongs to, his religion is a non-issue in terms of how I’d cast my vote.
Do you think perhaps this is what’s going on for you?
Elen
March 8th, 2007 10:07
Elena-
Thanks for the out. I’d really like to think that’s what’s going on here. But if that were so, then I think would have questioned how religious beliefs affect all candidates, and that’s not what I was doing. I think asking a candidate to “prove through his record and experience that he’s not a puppet for whatever church he belongs to” is valid, but it should apply across the board. That’s what I’m going to attempt to do in the future.
Susan
March 8th, 2007 10:12
Susan -
Gotcha. I suppose it is true that some churches seem to have a more rigid system of um…control?… over their adherents. Those would be the candidates that I’d be more concerned about. If there’s a central authority in a church, whether one person or a council of persons, or if there is a very rigid code of morals, I’d probably be more careful in scrutinizing that candidate’s record.
However, as you say, this awareness should be applied to all candidates, regardless of religion or lack there-of.
Thank you for sharing this very personal reflection.
Elena
March 8th, 2007 10:36
It’s important and good that you realize this in yourself. We’re all guilty of it.
At the same time, it’s not neccessarily “bigotry.” While it is “prejudice” or a “pre-judgement based on your own impression of a criteria, it’s not bigotry. Bigotry takes that pre-judgment and obstinately clings to it, no matter what evidence may arise to dispel the prejudice. Sounds like you are making strides away from bigotry now that you’ve realized your prejudice.
So don’t be too hard on yourself. It’s a common thing in us people. It’s “Brave-Humanesque” of you to realize it and put it out there in the open, not only on the anonymous Internet, but for discussion with the family. I applaud you for that.
Scott
March 8th, 2007 16:03
Good post. I think it’s important for people to recognize when they’re being prejudiced in ANY way, but so many people don’t delve into themselves deep enough to notice.
I too, am prejudiced against LDS. The religion is too young to separate its followers from their gospel. Take any random Mormon compared to any random Jew: the Mormon is more likely to believe a literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon than the Jew is to believe a literal interpretation of the Torah.
That said, I have an LDS friend. He is my black friend’s cousin.
March 8th, 2007 19:38
Hi Susan,
I have had that same ’shock of insight’ when I realised that I was carrying negative assumptions about some people. When I looked more closely, as you did with the various religions, I saw that my assumptions wove through things like race, religion, class, appearance, politics and even radio-listening habits — e.g. I have observed that I am much more cautious in conversations with taxi drivers when the radio station they are listening to has one of our local opinionated talk-back personalities than if they are listening to classical music! I attribute all kinds of rabid, non-tolerant attitudes to them on the basis of their radio listening habits. So, I need to SEE this and put it into question so I can maintain an openness and acceptance to them, instead of a kind of closed caution.
Your example has reminded me of those studies that show the REALLY pervasive tendencies to attribute greater intelligence to people who are widely judged as better looking, or taller. My psychologist daughter is a tiny 5 ft tall and very slender - not heavy enough to give blood! She is at the beginning of her professional life but she already notes a theme where colleagues, clients and social friends are surprised that she is as well-informed and articulate as she is. We laughed and said that her fate in this life is to always surpass expectations!
All of this raises the question for me about HOW does change of opinion come about? I suspect that it comes mostly the way you describe - we change ourselves in the light of new information, new insights or self-reflection. We can do next to nothing to change others. The best we can hope is to offer new information and the opportunity for others to gain their own insights and challenge their dearly-held perceptions of how things are.
Thanks for raising this in the way you have. It reminds me to pay more attention to changing myself than changing others.
March 8th, 2007 20:42
Susan,
There are bigots on the left and the right, although your statement sounds as though they are only on the right.
Other than that, I agree with your comments. The individual reality checks usually impact us more than any persuasion could, especially when our own children bring us there.
March 8th, 2007 21:04
Rick,
I don’t understand your comment, “your statement sounds as though they are only on the right.” I provided what I considered to be 2 extreme examples of religous bigotry: radical Christian fundamentalism (the excerpts from the movie “Jesus Camp”) and radical atheism (from Brian’s post).
It could be we disagree about the labels “right” and “left.” I consider the radical fundamentalism far right, while the radical atheism strikes me as the other extreme.
Could you shed some light, please?
Thanks
Susan
March 8th, 2007 21:17
Gillian-
Race, religion, class, appearance, politics and even radio-listening habits…thanks for giving me more areas to worry about and work on! I sympathize with your daughter…height has never been my issue, but gender and youth (well, that was a while ago).
As to how I’m going to change…I’m a believer in behavior. If I can at least act unbiased (question everyone or no one), then perhaps my feelings can follow. If not, I’m still acting in what I consider to be a more acceptable way.
Elaine-
Welcome! Your comment about the “age” of religions is an interesting one….that had never occured to me. I’ve got to think about that some more.
Susn
March 8th, 2007 21:52
Susan,
Your expression “Here I am, a bigot, raising a lefty, ” implies that bigots and left-orientation are opposites, which Rick picked up.
So, I don’t think it is really a matter of defining ‘left’ and ‘right’.
March 8th, 2007 21:53
Postscript
Hmmm… can bigots be middle of the road?
Maybe middle-of-the-road isn’t so bad after all?
March 8th, 2007 22:20
Gillian-
I think the examples with which I started indicated that I believe that prejudice can be anywhere.
That said, I can see why the joke about my daughter could give one pause. It just seemed silly to me to think about a five-year-old having a political agenda. Sometimes things don’t come across as we want them to in print. I’ll have to be more careful about that.
Thanks
Susan
March 9th, 2007 03:38
Susan,
I applaud you for your candid and soul-searching post. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “Mormons”), I have often encountered this type of prejudice from wonderful people who were not bigots. It is natural to fear that which we do not understand, and I know there are many ideas about “Mormonism” out there that are difficult to understand (in many cases, they are also untrue). In the end, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, people are people, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, or any other box I may want to put them in. I think that the process of overcoming this tendency to prejudge others begins with realizing that it is something we all do. The process continues when we actually take steps to understand that which we have feared. So, an appropriate prescription might be to seek out a “Mormon” (or insert a member of another misunderstood class here) and really get to know him or her. My guess is that you’ll find someone who is not much different than yourself.
Of course, it might not be so easy to get to know Mitt Romney.:)
March 9th, 2007 07:42
Speaking as your designated “right winger”…
Let’s start with a disclaimer: While I *am* a “religious zealot” (or so I’ve been told) I’ve noticed that a prevailing attitude or philosophy of folks that are generally suspicious of religion (and especially of us zealots) is, “It’s okay to be intolerant of the intolerant”.
That is, Mitt Romney, for example, holds that there is an absolute truth in his religion. That necessarily makes other people wrong. That seems to bug a lot of newspaper reporters, hence the endless comments about his Mormonism.
Once again, I’m a religious zealot, so I’m sure there are things I don’t understand here, but it was my impression that diversity of opinion was a good (and unavoidable) thing.
If you’re human, you probably disagree with even your closest friend on several things. So, what is it about someone being religious that you can’t see past?
For the record, I don’t like (and you probably *would* like) Mitt because he enacted “Universal Healthcare” in Mass.
Also, for the record, I like you just the way you are - all “lefty bigoted” and everything.
Dan
March 9th, 2007 09:15
Andrew-
Thanks for your understanding. I like your idea about getting
to know someone of the “misunderstood class.” Julia has
offered to put me in touch with the Mormon sisters
about whom she wrote in “And the Truth Shall Set You Free.”
I’m going to seriously consider that, especially since Mitt’s
schedule is probably too full to fit me in…
One of our hopes in establishing BraveHumans (this is my
impression, but I think I’m remembering correctly) was the belief
that even though there are a lot of differences among people,
there are many issues we can agree on if we’d just listen
and discuss. People are people; we just often lack understanding
of each other.
Dan-
Thanks for the support, because I’m working on the prejudiced part, but
I don’t think the “lefty” part will change anytime soon.
A question about your question: “So, what is it about someone being religious that you can’t see past?” I’m not sure if that’s a rhetorical question or actually meant for me, but I’ll answer it anyway. I do have a strong religious faith. No one has called me a zealot, but my daughter and I attend Sunday school every week and then my husband joins us for the service (Sunday school is too early for him). I’ve been attending church all my life, although as an adult I switched denominations to one that I can embrace more fully. Truly, I think my problem has not been with religion but with certain specific denominations. That’s prejudiced AND inconsistent.
Susan
March 9th, 2007 10:21
Hi Dan,
Can I ask you expand on your views concerning universal health care? If you’re up for it this might make a good post/seperate discussion. I’m interested because at this point I see UHC as both very likely and as a broadly good idea (with LOTS of specific pitfalls) and I’d love to kick it around a bit.
-Grant
March 9th, 2007 11:35
Gillian,
Yes, you were correct. Thank you.
Susan,
I was hoping you didn’t mean it like you typed it. Per your response to Gillian, I’m glad that you didn’t.
March 9th, 2007 11:39
The middle of the road is full of people with prejudice as well as the “left” and “right.”
All people are prejudiced. To not be prejudiced is to not have any experience.
To realize we are all prejudicial, and to strive to understand and get to know people before lumping them in with our generalizations is the thing we must try to do.
I’m fond of saying “I’ll give every individual the chance to prove he’s a …” whatever. The idea being that I know I am prejudiced, but on an individual level I will try to stifle that judgment until proven otherwise.
fwiw
March 9th, 2007 14:33
I agree with Scott. Sorta. Yes, we gain “prejudice” (or, in other words, judgement) from experience. But true prejudice is to determine something (say, a Mormon) is bad without having (or even knowing about) any bad experiences with that thing.
As far as Universal Health Care, to expand just a bit, the reason that I think it’s a bad idea is the same reason that Medicare or Walter Reed ended up as bad ideas: A great, compassionate motive run by the government (an uncaring institution either way) turns into a bad service that wastes a lot of money.
If you want healthcare, get it. If you don’t want it, don’t get it (which, incidentally, is NOT an option under the Mass. law - you will be fined and taxed if you didn’t obtain health insurance). If you can’t afford it, we should encourage charitable organizations to supply it instead of wasting money doing it badly through the government.
America is the most giving country in the world. We sent literally billions of dollars out of our pockets to Katrina folks and, here in Houston, lots of churches and families took care of a lot of people. Why can’t we allow charity to happen for healthcare, too?
Dan
March 9th, 2007 14:39
Oh - and Susan,
Though I disagree with your “lefty” stance, that has nothing to do with my acceptance of you just as you are.
I can even accept you fully as both prejudiced and inconsistent. If it is the way you are (as you say), then who am I to try to change you?
That doesn’t mean I don’t think you’re wrong. And it doesn’t mean that I won’t point out when I think that you’re wrong and persuade you to come to the “good side”. But, heck! I’m wrong on a rare occasion too, and I don’t dislike me!
Dan
March 9th, 2007 15:04
On universal health care… I am a strong supporter. Fervent supporter. Passionate supporter.
I live in Australia where we have had universal health care for a generation, run at the Federal level. The system works well overall, and excellently in many respects. Of course there is regular debate about effectiveness, but that doesn’t mean the system is broken, it means it is under constant scrutiny.
For me, the question is not should we have it or not, but ‘How do we build the fairest and most efficient system’.
Our system provides free basic care for the very poor and subsidised care for everyone else. It is paid for by a 1.5% income tax levy on the top 30% (rough guess) of earners, as well as general taxation.
There is NO WAY that care for the poorest and most vulnerable should be left to charity. Like Americans, Australians are one of the most generous people in the world, coming near the top of lists of OECD countries for private philanthropy. So, providing UHC does not diminsh private giving, it just allows the philanthropy to help in other domains.
I was astonished when I first discovered that the US doesn’t have a public health system. My sister-in-law works three jobs in rural N Dakota to earn a basic livelihood - she can’t afford health insurance. When she recently needed an operation, the family chipped in several thousand dollars and the hospital gracefully accepted her as a charity case. I thought this was unnecessarily demeaning. It simply wouldn’t happen here. Here, most of the cost would be covered by the govt, she would pay a contributing amount. Wealthy folks can pay to use private hospitals and enjoy greater comfort.
I hear that Arnie is looking to bring UHC to California - great stuff!
March 9th, 2007 15:28
Dan-
The big problem is that I can’t accept me as prejudiced…espeically about something like religion. Religious intolerance ibothers me in other people, so I can’t accept it in myself. (That would make me hypocritical as well. Good grief, I’ve got enough to work on!) So it’s up to me to change me.
Please do tell me when you think I’m wrong. I promise to listen, and then agree or not.
Susan
March 9th, 2007 19:25
“If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see wha it costs when it’s free!” -P.J. O’Rourke
But how did we get to healthcare?
March 12th, 2007 08:01
Frankly I think that is the biggest reason people (outside of the healthcare world) are pushing UHC: “It’s demeaning for…”
Hang on - since when do I have to pay money because peoples’ egos can’t take a little humbling? How about waiting several months for an appointment? Is that demeaning, too?
I have read a lot about a number of different healthcare systems, but never Australia’s. And Australia seems to have a good bit of common sense still stirring in the government, unlike most other countries.
However, in the U.S., if the Federal government were to run a UHC program, I refer you back to the Veterans’ Hospitals and Medicare.
These two “UHC on a small scale” programs have been a disaster. I recently talked to someone who was diagnosed with cancer at a VA Hospital and told “come back in 4 months so that we can talk about treatment options.”
Whether or not UHC works in other countries (and it mostly doesn’t), that is how it *does currently* work in the U.S. Idealism and hope won’t change that.
Dan
March 12th, 2007 17:21
Daniel,
What would have happened to my sister-in-law if her relatives were unable to contribute? Do all the hospitals have charity programs that are sufficient to meet the needs of the poor? Who pays for these charity programs? My guess is that govt funds make a contribution.
In the current system, do some people hear “come back when you’ve saved/borrowed the $50,000 for the treatment”.
UHC provides access as well as dignity.
I take your point on the need for UHC to be well-run. What a pity there is little confidence in US governments (State and Federal) to run things effectively. After the New Orleans debacle, I don’t have much confidence either! So maybe you are better off with the current system, for all its flaws.
Here’s a question — what things do you think that US governments DO run well?
Gillian
March 12th, 2007 20:12
Hello Susan,
What a refreshing and open posting this was. Most of us struggle with this very issue in various aspects of our lives. That you do merely proves that you are human and thinking and self-aware. Congratulations !
May I offer some thoughts to organize our efforts in this regard. Below my comments are the definitions of Bigot, Prejudice and Bias from the American Heritage Dictionary, published by Houghton-Miflin. I have noted them here as I see distinct gradations in the meanings of the words, yet in many of the respones to you, they are seemingly used interchangeably.
Bigotry has the elements of strong partiality to one’s own group (race, religion, politics, etc.) and positive intolerance of others.
Prejudice has the elements of a judgement yet illformed and adverse, prior to knowing the particular facts.
Bias is a preference or inclination, possibly inhibiting impartial judgement.
The problem of living beings is that we must have some means of prediction of an outcome from an interaction with other creatures or with parts of our environment. If we had no predictive abilities we would have to approach every instance as if we had no memory of the patterns of what had gone before. To solve this we begin to track outcomes and responses to inputs. With this information we begin to form predictive probabilities so we can know how to approach or avoid a given situation.
When this is a survival moment, these inflexible rules are most usefull. One cannot afford to ponder long the proper response to a car approaching at a high rate of speed, or a sword seeking union with one’s cranium. One must act without philosophical inquiry or experimental testing. As adults we know the rationale behind this decision tree. As chlidren, we had to learn and obey, or we would not be here to contemplate it. This class of stimulus/response or opportunity/reaction is easy to accept and undestand.
On the other end is the benign situations. Do I have chocolate or red rasberry today ? Assuming no allergies, one has little risk, and possibly some gains. Even without personal knowledge of the flavors, if one has had ice cream, one can safely predict there is no threat, merely a like or dislike.
The really tricky one are those where there is some threat, on any level you care to define, physical, personal, emotional, financial, political. If one cannot adequately define the level of potential threat, one must fall back on previous classes of knowledge, however inadequate or inappropriate to this usage. We are fundamentally unable to ignore a perceived threat of unknown proportion. We have to try and resolve the ambiguity to know if we must act or can safely ignore the situation. It can safely be asserted that only those who had ancestors who had this compulsion are here to discuss the phenomenon.
Susan, now the kicker ! We cannot know enough to properly address all situations, given that we are limited beings. Therefore, we struggle to be good, giving our neighbor, the repairman, the salesman, the politician, the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, there is doubt, as we have all been taken advantage of by others, some whom we trusted and some we didn’t.
We all have strong elements of bias, as I have defined it. This one helps us order our understanding of the universe we live in. A highly usefull thing, overall.
I think in smaller areas, we have prejudice in that we have opinions and none of us have the time to fully flesh out our knowledge. So this one we work on when we become aware of it
The last one has two elements: 1) a strong partiality for one’s own group. This element I have no problem with. I certainly have a high regard for my ethnic identity and the shared humour, music, dance literature, etc. of my heritage.
It is the second element, and how severe it is that pushes one over into a despicable state. It is the intolerance of those who are different.
As one of the gentlemen, Mr Dan Sweet, noted. One can have absolutist views, without being intolerant. My religion also has formal absolute truths, and admits in some regards no other truths. On a belief basis, I am content with that. I am content to have my beliefs, and equally content for you to have yours, whether they are complimentary, conflicting, or indifferent. That is true tolerance.
It is the act of denying the other person his beliefs that makes one a bigot.
In the context of these remarks, I will put forward the contention that you have nothing more to fear from a committed religious person than from a committed social activist, or a right winger, or a leftist, or any other member of a group with defined values, goals, and aims. Given that every candidate is vying for a bloc of votes sufficient to be elected, they can only effect change if a sufficient number of the electorate support them by actually voting. In the larger context, it matters little if my advocacy of a policy stems from revealed wisdom, as I understand it, or from naked self interest for financial gain. Either way, one must bring one’s arguments to the people, make your case, garner support, and see if you can carry the day.
If you get the votes, that advocacy is moved forward. If you don’t it languishes til the next election. That is the nature of our representative republic. It serves us well, for the people cannot be fooled all of the time.
As for your original dilemna, you are struggling with the limits of knowledge, and the moral dimensions of making choices with less than perfect knowledge.
Congratulations, my dear. You are fully human !
I consider that high praise indeed ! ! !
BIGOT
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
PREJUDICE
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
BIAS
A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
March 13th, 2007 21:06
Gillian,
The way it currently works is if you have the means, you pay. If you don’t have the means (and the medical treatment is “medically necessary”), a city / county hospital will provide the treatment and the taxpayers will pick up the tab.
If it’s not “medically necessary”, it just doesn’t get done.
As far as charity goes, the historical precedent is that charitable donations (as large as they are in the U.S.) started dropping when the Federal government created charity-like programs. In other words, people could now beg in a dignified manner by filling out forms for the government rather than having to go hat-in-hand to a charitable organization (such as - today - Goodwill, a church, the Salvation Army, etc.)
The U.S Government does many things well. For instance:
Protection (Military, Police, Fire, Ambulance)
Infrastructure (”roads & bridges”, sewer, phone lines, electricity)
Regulating Commerce (between the states and with other countries)
Research and Development (NASA, computers, particle accelerators, etc., although this can and does get out of control)
Justice (a relatively-trusted venue - the court system - to bring grievances instead of dueling)
Communication (U.S. Mail, the Internet)
Somewhat Unbiased Regulation of Certain Processes (Patents, Medicine, Copyrights, Corporate Entities)
These are just off the top of my head, but the various governments in the U.S. do some great stuff. And they do these things well particularly because a “government bureaucracy” is an unfeeling, rules-based organization.
However, things that are based on love, kindness, compassion, and charity (feeding and clothing the poor, sheltering the homeless, and even educating the young - which is done because parents demand it for the good of their children) are horrible things for an unfeeling, rules-based organization to run.
If these things aren’t done with a heart for the object being cared for, a “program” is formed that doesn’t particularly care if it helps or not. Think of Anytown’s local DMV running a healthcare program (”No, sir. Cardiac problems are in another line. NEXT!”) and you have a good idea of how UHC would be operated.
Dan
March 14th, 2007 02:26
Hi Dan,
Hmmm… that’s an interesting conceptual divide — services that include a component of love/kindness/compassion (LKC) versus services that don’t.
I think it probably gives a good starting place for thinking about govt services.
I wonder what happens when you see examples where the LKC services ARE provided effectively by the public sector? Perhaps its time to look at why some bureaucracies are able to provide LKC services whereas others aren’t. For example, most primary and secondary education in Australia is provided by the State (NSW state schools had 65,000 high school graduates last year) and our kids perform near the top of OECD countries on educational measures.
A separate point is that UHC is a system for ensuring that even the poor and vulnerable have access to appropriate health care, without relying on the optional benevolence of philanthropy. It does not mean that the govt runs the services, it means that the govt puts in place a funding system that ensures access to services. The services can by run by organisations and people with lots of LKC skills.
Australia’s system is a bit like that. It is govt funded, but most doctors are in private practice, whereas hospitals are a mix of private and public.
It sounds like your health care is a bit like that too, as it seems that hospitals are govt funded to care for the poor. I think the difference is that here people have more certainty about being funded for necessary medical procedures. The point is that my 86 year old mother-in-law did not have to go beg Goodwill or a church to pay her hospital and rehab bills when she broke her leg last year. She didn’t have the worry that she might have to sell her house to pay for it, instead she got straightforward access to appropriate care.
Your list of things the govt does well surprised me a bit. I have the impression that performance on some of those things is fairly patchy.
March 14th, 2007 19:35
Denis-
Thanks so much for the thoughtful commentary. I will strive to make better choices with my “less than perfect knowledge.” Up until, now, however, I didn’t realize just how imperfect it was. (I think my family suspected, but they’d never say anything…)
Susan
March 15th, 2007 18:09
Gillian,
I *do* see what you’re saying, by the way. And I agree (to a point) that we should see why it is that government (or, at least, the U.S. Government) can’t effectively provide LKC services.
I suspect it’s the same reason that they can’t fire incompetent workers: lawyers preventing common sense. That’s just my opinion, though…
I guess the direction we go on healthcare (UHC vs. charity vs whatever else) comes down a bit to philosophy. Is a citizen of a certain country entitled (no questions asked, no strings attached) to healthcare (of whatever level of necessity) paid for by everyone, willing and unwilling?
My caring for that person and wanting the best for them still doesn’t translate into a “yes” for me.
As far as the things I mentioned, they are periodically patchy, as you say, but the overall level of service is very high for a free society (ie. The police force is much more effective and there is significantly less crime in a totalitarian dictatorship than a free society. But, then again, the definition of “crime” is also subject to change at the whim of the dictator.)
Dan
March 19th, 2007 18:48
Update on Universal Health Care…
“The Institute of Medicine, in a series of reports published in 2004, concluded that 18,000 people in the U.S. die each year because they lack insurance.”
This is from an article by Julie Appleby, Gannett News Service, reproduced here…
http://povertynewsblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/uninsured-ranks-in-us-include-more-than.html
It certainly sounds like UHC is on the political agenda in the US at present.
Daniel — Are all citizens (plus illegal residents) entitled to health care of a certain standard, paid for by everyone? Definitely “Yes” - societies that look after their weaker members are stronger in the long run, and better places to live. They don’t develop a permanent underclass.
As you say, it’s an ideological stance - whether to lean more towards individual rights (classic US approach) or to lean more towards community responsibilities. Australia and Scandinavian countries lean more towards community responsibilities, though not as far as countries like China, or the Russian communist experiment.
Regarding infrastructure and services, as you say - “overall level of service is very high for a free society”. But then you should make comparisons with other free societies (Europe, Canada, Australia) not with dictatorships. How relatively high is the service compared with free societies? The New Orleans debacle really puts US govt competency in question. I don’t know enough to make comparisons. I do have a question mark though.
Still, as I get older, govt bureaucracy and incompetency looms ever-larger, and my confidence declines. *sigh*.
March 19th, 2007 23:37
Gillian,
The New Orleans situation is a fiasco extraordinaire. Having relatives-in-law that were born and raised in New Orleans, and hearing their stories, there are lots of problems there that the “leaders” are too incompetent to combat.
It shouldn’t be ironic that Florida gets hit by more hurricanes, but the loss of life is much lower. Florida has legitmate hurricane plans, whereas New Orleans waits for someone else to fix their problems.