Christian anti-evolutionists claim their rejection of evolution is not a rejection of science. Phillip Johnson, widely considered the leader of the Intelligent Design movement, states that all he is rejecting is the atheistic lens through which evolutionary scientists view the world. Evolution, he argues, is "based not upon any incontrovertible empirical evidence, but upon a highly philosophical presupposition."
And to a certain extent, this line of argument makes sense. Science is not a neutral enterprise. Prior beliefs undoubtedly influence interpretation. If one believes God created vertebrates with a similar design plan, one can acknowledge their structural similarities without believing in common descent. No amount of radiocarbon dating evidence will convince someone the Earth is 4.5 billion years old if that person believes God created the world to look old, with the appearance of age.
But beyond a certain point, this reasoning breaks down because no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.
It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.
It has failed to explain why the fossil record proposed by modern scientists can be used to make precise and accurate predictions about the location of transition fossils.
It has failed to explain why the fossil record demonstrates a precise order, with simple organisms in the deepest rocks and more complex ones toward the surface.
It has failed to explain why today's animals live in the same geographical area as fossils of similar species.
It has failed to explain why, if carnivorous dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern animals, we don't find the fossils of modern animals in the stomachs of fossilized dinosaurs.
It has failed to explain the broken genes that litter the DNA of humans and apes but are functional in lower vertebrates.
It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.
Those who believe God created the world scientists study, even while ignoring most of the data compiled by those who study it, might as well rip dozens of pages out of their Bibles because if "nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible," it's basically the same thing.
The belief that scientists can discover truth, and that, once sufficiently debated, challenged and modified, it should be accepted even if it creates tensions for familiar belief systems, has an obvious impact on decisions that are made everyday – and it is that belief Christians reject when they reject evolution. In doing so, they have not only led America astray on questions ranging from the value of stem cell research to the etiology of homosexuality to the causes of global warming, they have also abandoned a central commitment of orthodox Christianity.
Christians must accept sound science, not because they do not believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.
This post is an excerpt from: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution by Jonathan Dudley, author of Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Where libertarian ideology fails
It has long been a central tenet of libertarian (hard-right conservative) ideology that government should not be expected to pick up the bill for providing that which people should be providing for themselves. While we may battle over what those things might be, that ideology has never, to the best of my knowledge, been extended to deny help to those who clearly cannot provide for themselves due to a dramatic and overwhelming catastrophe such as what has been experienced in Joplin and the many other American towns devastated by recent weather emergencies. And yet, this is the ideology that Congressional Leader Cantor expects his party to adopt in dealing with the tragedy that has been visited upon our fellow countrymen.
Before Alabama was devastated by tornadoes on May 27, 2011, Joplin, Missouri was ravaged by a tornado on May 23 that took the lives of 134 people and displaced thousands as a result of their homes and businesses being destroyed. Yet House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a libertarian leaning Republican, has made it clear that he has no intention of coming to the aid of Joplin, Missouri unless and until budget offsets can be found to pay for any federal aid to help these Missourians in need.
Cantor has brought to the front the false and perverted choices embraced by those who would subscribe to his libertarian approach, including the followers of the Tea Party ideology.
Setting aside what most of us may feel about Congressman Cantor’s rather heartless comment about this situation, it turns out that Joplin is represented in Congress by a Tea Party backed Republican named Billy Long – one of the angry freshmen elected to Congress on a platform of being ‘fed up’ with career politicians and who ran on the motto that he was “Tea Party before Tea Party was cool’ which means he ascribes to libertarianism. So, what is a Tea Party Congressman – dedicated to smaller government and individual responsibility – to do when the very people who are hurt and in serious need of billions of dollars of assistance are the same people who sent him to Congress in support of his ultra-conservative beliefs?
His answer has been to do nothing as he weighs his ideological commitment against the dramatic needs of his constituents and the political damage that might follow whatever decision he makes. Upon learning of Cantor’s position on the subject, Long clammed-up, refusing to say where he stands.
Big mistake.
Even Tea Partiers want the federal government to open up the wallet and begin spending when their own lives are the ones engulfed in pain and disarray through no fault of their own.
Long’s fellow GOP Member of Congress from the Missouri Delegation, Jo Ann Emerson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, has had no problem whatsoever in working out where she stands. Her own district buried under 12 feet of water as a result of the storm, Emerson has not held back in her criticism of Cantor for holding these unfortunate people hostage to his ideology. She then added something that goes right to the heart of the matter when addressing the ideological conflict raised by asking the federal government to provide the needed assistance:
“People all of a sudden have a change of heart on spending when it becomes personal. My own constituents would be horrified if I didn’t do everything I could.”
Another are where people quickly drop ideology is in discussing the realities of healthcare when serious illness strikes one of their own loved ones. People no longer care about things like conservative versus liberal ideologies that has nothing to do with the one thing people do care about – making their loved one healthy again. Such is the case in Joplin, Missouri and the many lives from many towns that have been destroyed by extraordinary weather.
When your home or business – and possibly even the life of a loved one – has been snatched from you in an instant, political ideology is the last thing on your mind. When you need help as a result of an overwhelming circumstance where only the very wealthy among us could handle on their own, you will look to your fellow countrymen to stand by your side and do what it takes to provide that which is necessary to help you begin pulling your life back together.
Many of the folks in Joplin, Missouri – a district that sent a self-professed Tea Party devotee to represent them in Congress – have no doubt spent countless hours decrying the federal government’s involvement in anything not specifically allocated to it by the United States Constitution. These same people have spoken out loudly about how government’s role is not to spend for everyone who has a problem and reinforced the notion that Americans should be expected to take care of themselves and not look to government to solve their problems.
And then a devastating tornado took out half their town and killed 142 of their citizens.
These very same people are now finding that they currently see the issue very differently despite the fact that the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government the power to bail out a city devastated by Mother Nature.
And who could possibly blame them?
As Americans, we understand that politics and ideology go out the window when such a crisis happens. Joplin citizens have now learned that it’s about humanity. When a fellow American is in this kind of trouble, we set aside our allegedly deeply held political beliefs and we do what we must to help people in such deep distress.
Eric Cantor does not get it. And in using this horrible circumstance to make his ideological point, Cantor reveals that there is something very wrong with his commitment to a twisted libertarian ideology rather than a commitment to people.
I suppose we should not be surprised. Remember that it was Eric Cantor who, when asked by a Virginia constituent what an uninsured relative (due to the relative’s having lost her job) who was dying of stomach cancer should do to get the operation she so badly needed to save her life, Cantor heartlessly advised that the dying relative should ‘find a charity’.
And what about Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri – a self-professed deeply conservative Republican with the voting record to back it up? Blunt has been quick to say that he wants the federal government to completely reimburse the devastated towns of Missouri and has asked the federal government to assume a larger share of the cleanup costs than what the government would normally take on in these circumstances.
It’s easy to be an ideologue when you can’t see the faces or don’t know the names of the people you are hurting. Funny how Blunt's ideology took a 180 degree turn when it was about his own state.
Certainly, Blunt is reacting to the serious needs of his constituents and is to be praised for doing so. He understands the small value ideology holds when it is his neighbors who are in trouble. So far, Blunt has not even placed a condition on his request that offsets be found to pay for his wishes – and I don’t expect he will be doing so.
But Blunt also voted for the Ryan Budget that would devastate Medicare and Medicaid, forcing future senior citizens into a highly precarious position when it comes to their healthcare when they reach 65.
There is a terrible lesson in Joplin, Missouri for GOP lawmakers:
It’s all ‘personal’ to those who are affected.
It’s time for Republicans to turn away from Eric Cantor and libertarian Tea Party style ideology and remember that, at the end of the day, it’s all about people. And while we can differ on the solutions that will have the best result, there are certain needs that supersede ideology and politics – and Joplin, Missouri is clearly an example of such a need.
Libertarian ideology fails when it comes to community and people in need.
Before Alabama was devastated by tornadoes on May 27, 2011, Joplin, Missouri was ravaged by a tornado on May 23 that took the lives of 134 people and displaced thousands as a result of their homes and businesses being destroyed. Yet House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a libertarian leaning Republican, has made it clear that he has no intention of coming to the aid of Joplin, Missouri unless and until budget offsets can be found to pay for any federal aid to help these Missourians in need.
Cantor has brought to the front the false and perverted choices embraced by those who would subscribe to his libertarian approach, including the followers of the Tea Party ideology.
Setting aside what most of us may feel about Congressman Cantor’s rather heartless comment about this situation, it turns out that Joplin is represented in Congress by a Tea Party backed Republican named Billy Long – one of the angry freshmen elected to Congress on a platform of being ‘fed up’ with career politicians and who ran on the motto that he was “Tea Party before Tea Party was cool’ which means he ascribes to libertarianism. So, what is a Tea Party Congressman – dedicated to smaller government and individual responsibility – to do when the very people who are hurt and in serious need of billions of dollars of assistance are the same people who sent him to Congress in support of his ultra-conservative beliefs?
His answer has been to do nothing as he weighs his ideological commitment against the dramatic needs of his constituents and the political damage that might follow whatever decision he makes. Upon learning of Cantor’s position on the subject, Long clammed-up, refusing to say where he stands.
Big mistake.
Even Tea Partiers want the federal government to open up the wallet and begin spending when their own lives are the ones engulfed in pain and disarray through no fault of their own.
Long’s fellow GOP Member of Congress from the Missouri Delegation, Jo Ann Emerson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, has had no problem whatsoever in working out where she stands. Her own district buried under 12 feet of water as a result of the storm, Emerson has not held back in her criticism of Cantor for holding these unfortunate people hostage to his ideology. She then added something that goes right to the heart of the matter when addressing the ideological conflict raised by asking the federal government to provide the needed assistance:
“People all of a sudden have a change of heart on spending when it becomes personal. My own constituents would be horrified if I didn’t do everything I could.”
Another are where people quickly drop ideology is in discussing the realities of healthcare when serious illness strikes one of their own loved ones. People no longer care about things like conservative versus liberal ideologies that has nothing to do with the one thing people do care about – making their loved one healthy again. Such is the case in Joplin, Missouri and the many lives from many towns that have been destroyed by extraordinary weather.
When your home or business – and possibly even the life of a loved one – has been snatched from you in an instant, political ideology is the last thing on your mind. When you need help as a result of an overwhelming circumstance where only the very wealthy among us could handle on their own, you will look to your fellow countrymen to stand by your side and do what it takes to provide that which is necessary to help you begin pulling your life back together.
Many of the folks in Joplin, Missouri – a district that sent a self-professed Tea Party devotee to represent them in Congress – have no doubt spent countless hours decrying the federal government’s involvement in anything not specifically allocated to it by the United States Constitution. These same people have spoken out loudly about how government’s role is not to spend for everyone who has a problem and reinforced the notion that Americans should be expected to take care of themselves and not look to government to solve their problems.
And then a devastating tornado took out half their town and killed 142 of their citizens.
These very same people are now finding that they currently see the issue very differently despite the fact that the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government the power to bail out a city devastated by Mother Nature.
And who could possibly blame them?
As Americans, we understand that politics and ideology go out the window when such a crisis happens. Joplin citizens have now learned that it’s about humanity. When a fellow American is in this kind of trouble, we set aside our allegedly deeply held political beliefs and we do what we must to help people in such deep distress.
Eric Cantor does not get it. And in using this horrible circumstance to make his ideological point, Cantor reveals that there is something very wrong with his commitment to a twisted libertarian ideology rather than a commitment to people.
I suppose we should not be surprised. Remember that it was Eric Cantor who, when asked by a Virginia constituent what an uninsured relative (due to the relative’s having lost her job) who was dying of stomach cancer should do to get the operation she so badly needed to save her life, Cantor heartlessly advised that the dying relative should ‘find a charity’.
And what about Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri – a self-professed deeply conservative Republican with the voting record to back it up? Blunt has been quick to say that he wants the federal government to completely reimburse the devastated towns of Missouri and has asked the federal government to assume a larger share of the cleanup costs than what the government would normally take on in these circumstances.
It’s easy to be an ideologue when you can’t see the faces or don’t know the names of the people you are hurting. Funny how Blunt's ideology took a 180 degree turn when it was about his own state.
Certainly, Blunt is reacting to the serious needs of his constituents and is to be praised for doing so. He understands the small value ideology holds when it is his neighbors who are in trouble. So far, Blunt has not even placed a condition on his request that offsets be found to pay for his wishes – and I don’t expect he will be doing so.
But Blunt also voted for the Ryan Budget that would devastate Medicare and Medicaid, forcing future senior citizens into a highly precarious position when it comes to their healthcare when they reach 65.
There is a terrible lesson in Joplin, Missouri for GOP lawmakers:
It’s all ‘personal’ to those who are affected.
It’s time for Republicans to turn away from Eric Cantor and libertarian Tea Party style ideology and remember that, at the end of the day, it’s all about people. And while we can differ on the solutions that will have the best result, there are certain needs that supersede ideology and politics – and Joplin, Missouri is clearly an example of such a need.
Libertarian ideology fails when it comes to community and people in need.
This is an edited version of: Deadly Tornados Reveal The Failure Of Today’s Perverse GOP Ideology by Rick Ungar
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Palin’s babbling
What you heard in Palin’s recent statement about Paul Revere is of such poor quality that – even without her political positions – it is anathema to the educated, whether they lean left or right.
She sounded like an airhead – her usual Modus operandi.
Asked about what she had seen in Boston, as usual, she blathered on mindlessly: "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."
Over and over, we have seen Palin’s statements dissolve into something we could call fact-mishmash as she tries to say something important off the cuff, but what comes out of her mouth is the sort of nonsense you would expect to find coming from the mouth of a stroke victim who, unable to understand the nature of his injury, or even that he is injured, babbles incoherently not realizing that the brilliant discourse he has prepared in his mind sounds like babble to the world around him.
Palin's comments were the epitome of bumbling semi-literacy. In too many of Palin’s utterances, the facts are sort of there – and she intends to use them – but her ability to order them into something other than babble is absent.
It is safe to say that every American over the age of twelve has some version of our historical stories in his or her head. Palin had just visited a history center that should have reinforced what she already knew about Paul Revere’s famous ride. Yet, instead of coming up with a simple, sequential capsule version of the Revere story or even saying ‘Wow! That trip to the center was beautiful,’ out of her mouth tumbled something akin to psychobabble. It was a bucketful of fact-mishmash, delivered to a reporter who asked a simple, off-the-cuff, softball question. In a later interview on Fox, she said the ‘lamestream’ reporter had asked her a ‘gotcha’ question.
Yea, right. It's only a gotcha question if your head is half empty.
But the important issue here is not what she said, irrespective of its importance or how much time she had to prepare, nor is it her stubborn defense of her “position” in subsequent interviews; it is the image of her in a position of power as president of the United States and reacting to events that require quick, decisive thinking and action. I envision her responding to the office’s demands on her powers as president by releasing clouds of psychobabble. What makes intelligent, educated people shudder is the thought of a President Palin filled with the milk of conservative values whose every thought gushes forth in a language indistinguishable from that of a stoner who is ripped out of his mind.
Even scarier are Palin's supporters who went into Wikipedia to make the history of the midnight ride of Paul Revere match the words of their heroine. That set off a bit of a war at Wiki between the editors who are not insane and the Palinites who are.
It appears that the biggest problem in this country is willful ignorance, particularly on the right, and particularly among Palinites. All over the internet you can see debates between right and left – but on the right, if a politician's statements do not fit reality, well, then reality must be wrong. So they attempt to change history books and Wikipedia to fit their own ‘facts’.
Here is a suggestion of what she should have said (paying homage to her view on gun rights):
“Being in the city where Paul Revere’s famous ride to warn his fellow Patriots that British troops would soon be on the move in an attempt to capture stores of weapons that would prove crucial for the nascent rebellion, was a moving experience. I’m not sure of one thing: did he put a lamp or lantern in the church belfry or did he ring the bells in the church? I cannot remember. It’s been a long time since grade school. Whatever the details, thank God he warned the patriots who, in turn, foiled the British plan to seize their weapon stores, demonstrating once and for all the value of our traditional right to bear arms. Thank God for his courage.”
But a statement like this would be too intelligent for her – there is not enough babbling.
She sounded like an airhead – her usual Modus operandi.
Asked about what she had seen in Boston, as usual, she blathered on mindlessly: "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."
Over and over, we have seen Palin’s statements dissolve into something we could call fact-mishmash as she tries to say something important off the cuff, but what comes out of her mouth is the sort of nonsense you would expect to find coming from the mouth of a stroke victim who, unable to understand the nature of his injury, or even that he is injured, babbles incoherently not realizing that the brilliant discourse he has prepared in his mind sounds like babble to the world around him.
Palin's comments were the epitome of bumbling semi-literacy. In too many of Palin’s utterances, the facts are sort of there – and she intends to use them – but her ability to order them into something other than babble is absent.
It is safe to say that every American over the age of twelve has some version of our historical stories in his or her head. Palin had just visited a history center that should have reinforced what she already knew about Paul Revere’s famous ride. Yet, instead of coming up with a simple, sequential capsule version of the Revere story or even saying ‘Wow! That trip to the center was beautiful,’ out of her mouth tumbled something akin to psychobabble. It was a bucketful of fact-mishmash, delivered to a reporter who asked a simple, off-the-cuff, softball question. In a later interview on Fox, she said the ‘lamestream’ reporter had asked her a ‘gotcha’ question.
Yea, right. It's only a gotcha question if your head is half empty.
But the important issue here is not what she said, irrespective of its importance or how much time she had to prepare, nor is it her stubborn defense of her “position” in subsequent interviews; it is the image of her in a position of power as president of the United States and reacting to events that require quick, decisive thinking and action. I envision her responding to the office’s demands on her powers as president by releasing clouds of psychobabble. What makes intelligent, educated people shudder is the thought of a President Palin filled with the milk of conservative values whose every thought gushes forth in a language indistinguishable from that of a stoner who is ripped out of his mind.
Even scarier are Palin's supporters who went into Wikipedia to make the history of the midnight ride of Paul Revere match the words of their heroine. That set off a bit of a war at Wiki between the editors who are not insane and the Palinites who are.
It appears that the biggest problem in this country is willful ignorance, particularly on the right, and particularly among Palinites. All over the internet you can see debates between right and left – but on the right, if a politician's statements do not fit reality, well, then reality must be wrong. So they attempt to change history books and Wikipedia to fit their own ‘facts’.
Here is a suggestion of what she should have said (paying homage to her view on gun rights):
“Being in the city where Paul Revere’s famous ride to warn his fellow Patriots that British troops would soon be on the move in an attempt to capture stores of weapons that would prove crucial for the nascent rebellion, was a moving experience. I’m not sure of one thing: did he put a lamp or lantern in the church belfry or did he ring the bells in the church? I cannot remember. It’s been a long time since grade school. Whatever the details, thank God he warned the patriots who, in turn, foiled the British plan to seize their weapon stores, demonstrating once and for all the value of our traditional right to bear arms. Thank God for his courage.”
But a statement like this would be too intelligent for her – there is not enough babbling.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
The kind of nation we really want
With Tea Party conservatives and many Republicans balking at raising the debt ceiling let me offer an example of a nation that lives up to their ideals:
This particular nation has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country: fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs. This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn’t imaginable, and criminals are never coddled. The budget priority is a strong military, the nation’s most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.
So where is this Republican Eden, this Utopia?
I will tell you shortly – keep reading.
The United States is, of course, in no danger of actually becoming a European socialist country any more than we are going to become a third world country at the other extreme. But as America has become more unequal, as we cut off government lifelines to the neediest Americans, as half of the states plan to cut spending on education this year, including colleges, let’s be clear about our direction – and about the turnaround that a Republican budget victory would represent.
Developing countries, from Congo to Colombia are typically characterized by minimal taxes, high levels of inequality, free-wheeling businesses and high military expenditures. In Latin American, African or Asian countries, one will sometimes see shiny tanks and fighter aircraft – but schools have trouble paying teachers. Sound familiar? And the result is societies that are quasi-feudal, stratified by social class, and held back by a limited sense of common purpose.
Wealthy people in such countries manage to live surprisingly comfortably. Instead of financing education with taxes, these feudal elites send their children to elite private schools. Instead of financing a reliable police force, they hire bodyguards. Instead of supporting a modern health care system for their nation, they fly to hospitals in London. Instead of paying taxes for a reliable electrical grid, each wealthy family installs its own powerful generator to run the lights and air-conditioning. It’s noisy and stinks, but at least you don’t have to pay for the poor.
I see echoes of that pattern of privatization of public services in America. Maybe that’s why the growing inequality in America pains me so. The wealthiest 1% of Americans already has a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent, based on Federal Reserve data. Yet two-thirds of the proposed Republican budget cuts would harm low- and moderate-income families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Police budgets are being cut, but the wealthy take refuge in gated communities with private security guards. Their children are spared the impact of budget cuts at public schools and state universities because they attend private institutions. Mass transit is underfinanced; after all, Mercedes-Benzes and private jets are much more practical, no? And maybe the most striking push for reversal of historical trends is the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare as a universal health care program for the elderly.
The long trajectory of history has been for governments to take on more responsibilities, and for citizens to pay more taxes. Now we’re at a turning point, with Republicans arguing that we need to reverse course. So during the 2012 political debates, let’s remember that we’re arguing not only over debt ceilings and budgets, but about larger questions of our vision for our country.
Now would you like to know which country I described at the beginning of this article?
It is Pakistan.
When many Republicans insist on “starving the beast” of government, cutting taxes, regulations and social services – slashing everything but the military – those are steps toward a third-world-type government.
Do we really want to take a step in the direction of a low-tax laissez-faire Republican Eden like Pakistan?
History of Medicare: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
This op-ed is an edited version of: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?ref=opinion
This particular nation has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country: fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs. This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn’t imaginable, and criminals are never coddled. The budget priority is a strong military, the nation’s most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.
So where is this Republican Eden, this Utopia?
I will tell you shortly – keep reading.
The United States is, of course, in no danger of actually becoming a European socialist country any more than we are going to become a third world country at the other extreme. But as America has become more unequal, as we cut off government lifelines to the neediest Americans, as half of the states plan to cut spending on education this year, including colleges, let’s be clear about our direction – and about the turnaround that a Republican budget victory would represent.
Developing countries, from Congo to Colombia are typically characterized by minimal taxes, high levels of inequality, free-wheeling businesses and high military expenditures. In Latin American, African or Asian countries, one will sometimes see shiny tanks and fighter aircraft – but schools have trouble paying teachers. Sound familiar? And the result is societies that are quasi-feudal, stratified by social class, and held back by a limited sense of common purpose.
Wealthy people in such countries manage to live surprisingly comfortably. Instead of financing education with taxes, these feudal elites send their children to elite private schools. Instead of financing a reliable police force, they hire bodyguards. Instead of supporting a modern health care system for their nation, they fly to hospitals in London. Instead of paying taxes for a reliable electrical grid, each wealthy family installs its own powerful generator to run the lights and air-conditioning. It’s noisy and stinks, but at least you don’t have to pay for the poor.
I see echoes of that pattern of privatization of public services in America. Maybe that’s why the growing inequality in America pains me so. The wealthiest 1% of Americans already has a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent, based on Federal Reserve data. Yet two-thirds of the proposed Republican budget cuts would harm low- and moderate-income families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Police budgets are being cut, but the wealthy take refuge in gated communities with private security guards. Their children are spared the impact of budget cuts at public schools and state universities because they attend private institutions. Mass transit is underfinanced; after all, Mercedes-Benzes and private jets are much more practical, no? And maybe the most striking push for reversal of historical trends is the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare as a universal health care program for the elderly.
The long trajectory of history has been for governments to take on more responsibilities, and for citizens to pay more taxes. Now we’re at a turning point, with Republicans arguing that we need to reverse course. So during the 2012 political debates, let’s remember that we’re arguing not only over debt ceilings and budgets, but about larger questions of our vision for our country.
Now would you like to know which country I described at the beginning of this article?
It is Pakistan.
When many Republicans insist on “starving the beast” of government, cutting taxes, regulations and social services – slashing everything but the military – those are steps toward a third-world-type government.
Do we really want to take a step in the direction of a low-tax laissez-faire Republican Eden like Pakistan?
History of Medicare: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
This op-ed is an edited version of: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?ref=opinion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)