I continue to hear from folks who are:
a) pleased by my advocacy of a single-payer national health plan;
b) surprised by it.
This intrigues me, but I should know that it arises from the same in-the-rut thinking that I’m always ranting against here. Apparently, my position just doesn’t fit into the convenient left-vs.-right dichotomy that most folks have, unfortunately accepted as reflecting reality.
Most of the expressions of both a) and b) come from folks of the self-described "liberal" persuasion. I think this is because they have decided recently to divide the world into two portions — those who demand that our troops get out of Iraq by last year, and everybody else. Since I am definitely in the "everybody else" category, they are befuddled at my health-care position. But… he’s a warmonger, so how…?
If only they would try harder to grok the UnParty. I clearly stated my single-payer position in my very first UnParty column, the manifesto itself. Of course, the UnParty doesn’t demand adherence to that or any other fixed position. The most fundamental, non-negotiable tenet is"
First, unwavering opposition to fundamental, nonnegotiable tenets.
Within our party would be many ideas, and in each situation we would
sift through them to find the smartest possible approach to the
challenge at hand. Another day, a completely different approach might be best.
But I gave a list of particular positions that I, personally, would bring to the mix as an UnPartisan. Here are items 2 and 3:
- Belief in just war theory, and in America’s obligation to use its strength for good. (Sort of like the Democrats before Vietnam.)
- A single-payer national health care system — for the sake of business and
the workers. If liberals and conservatives could stop driving a wedge
between labor and capital for about five minutes, we could make this a
reality.
So — no surprises here.
Related Posts
I can’t agree with you about war, because I don’t think any country has the right to inflict itself pre-emptively on anyone. Nor am I sure that any institution created by humans is always correct in its judgement. If one must fight, I can understand fighting for one’s own protection, or assisting someone else who is under attack. That’s it.
Of course I agree with you about single payer, and I think that most of our democratic candidates will end up going there if they win the election (I don’t know that anyone will, or can, given the scare tactics used by big Med, big Pharma, and big Insurance). But we can hope that someone has enough persuasion and just plain guts to face up to these people, and help the general populace to understand what these big businesses are actually up to.
Belief in just war theory? How can that be an Un-partisan issue? Anytime a large military power goes thousands of miles away to impose it’s will on a much weaker nation that presents absolutely no threat to the people of the big nation that is nothing but imperialism. There is nothing just about that. It is a monstrous abuse of power and is highly partisan. That is true whether it’s the British in India, Germans in Poland, Russians in Afghanistan, Isrealis in Lebanon or Americans (or British circa 1920) in Iraq.
(sigh)
Read it again, bud. There are two different kinds of assertion there. First, there is the “fundamental, non-negotiable tenet” of the UnParty, which is “unwavering opposition to fundamental, nonnegotiable tenets.” In other words, believe in Just War or not; believe that a given war IS just or not. You can still be in the UnParty, as long as you’re tolerant of the fact that your comrades might disagree.
The second section cites a couple of examples of the ideas that I, Brad Warthen, would bring to the UnParty, which would of course be different from those that you or someone else might bring.
The reason I included those in the original column was to show people that the UnParty isn’t about NOT having strongly held, pronounced positions. I have lots of opinions that are neither wishy-washy nor middle-of-the-road. But my opinions are not UnParty doctrine.
Brad, you should join the Unitarian Church. That sounds exactly like something they would preach from the pulpit.
As for this just war stuff, I could never affiliate with a party that had a substantial portion of it’s membership subscribe to such a monstrocity. I prefer a party whose members generally abhor war and want to avoid it. The Libertarians have the correct philosophy on that idea. But many Democrats also subscribe to that way of thinking. Republicans, along with independents like Joe Lieberman, support war making as a way of making the world a better place. That’s the kind of thinking that causes me to totally reject the Republicans and virtually all it’s members. Just watch one of their presidential debates. They fall all over each other trying to prove they are the person who can spend more money and kill more bad guys.
As an UnParty member, I would propose a just war theory to the effect that it is morally right to remove a madman engaged in genocide. Mission accomplished, we would depart, promising to return if his sons or followers replay the tape. Recontruction would be their business (or the world’s), which would serve as a deterrent to future would-be despots. We might even leave behind a bill for services rendered.
Can anyone say competition? You give the health care industry a free hand to charge anything they choose and then whine and cry about the costs. Not, a word about how absurd the whole thing has gotten. Please, Please Big Brother pay for my pills. After all those taxpayers don’t mind and if we run out of money, we can just get some more Chinese loans. Isn’t it terrible about the cost of the war. Shame! We have become a nation of old women.
Apparently, my position just doesn’t fit into the convenient left-vs.-right dichotomy that most folks have, unfortunately accepted as reflecting reality.
-Brad
This is very consistent with Brad’s world view. Simply put, Brad believes in massive government interference in all aspects of everyones life. Which of course makes Brad a partisan and not a pragmatist. A true pragmatist would recognize that government has limitations, that government can sometimes do more harm than good, that government needs to be watched carefully. Until Brad can acknowledge without equivication that Green Diamond is something that government should not endorse then he cannot claim to be a pragmatist. That is the litmus test I am now going to use when determining if someone may be a pragmatist rather than a partisan.
bud, that’s just weird. The libertarian position is that private property owners should do what they damn’ well please, and government should just get out of the way. That position would please the Green Diamond folk.
The statist position is that government should come down hard on Green Diamond and tell the property owner he can’t do what he wants with the land, and that’s just tough.
In this case, you are favoring the latter. I lean that way myself, just not as hard as you do, and that upsets you.
Brad, you are almost correct. Libertarians would allow someone who wants to buy land in the flood plain and build a house or store to do so. But the government should not build levees, annex land, provide infrastructure, tax breaks or any other incentives to do so. And if the levees were shown to harm other individuals those individuals would be allowed to band together to prevent the owners of the land in the flood plain from build levees with private dollars. Of course this last point is mute since the cost of building levees would effectively prevent a private developer from building on a flood plain. The cost would simply be too high.
Mr. Warthen has no clue what the libertarian position is on Green Diamond.
Libertarians say that under a free market,
1. The developers should pay 100% of the cost of roads, sewers, fresh water plants, pipes, and other utilities for their project. The costs should be reflected in the true price of their houses, and financed by the buyers in their mortgages.
2. Developers should have no bail out or loans from and government.
3. No government should spend any money, much less borrow money through bond issues, to subsidize the development or sale of any houses.
4. Developers and homebuyers should pay for their own flood insurance.
Statists say:
1. The government should borrow money or tax other people directly to subsidize development, by paying for roads, water and sewers.
2. Government should provide loan subsidies to developers.
3. Government should use tax money to subsidize the sale of houses on the development.
4. Government should put other taxpayers at risk by providing flood insurance and encouraging development which engineers and insurance companies say is too risky.