Share This
Political Physics: Is It Socialism to Care About “The Least of These?”
.
a blogumn by Monique King-Viehland
A question has been plaguing me lately that I’d like to pose to the Fierce and Nerdy audience. Why is it socialist to care about others? Now this article may be a bit of a cross between Political Physics and Philosophical Physics, but this has really been on my mind and I think this is the right audience to explore the thought further.
Around this country, conversations around health care have hit a fevered pitch and conservatives are arguing that President Obama is a leftist who is trying to bring socialism to the United States. The debate has even reached Facebook.
The other day I, like many others, posted this statement as my status: Monique thinks that no one should die because they cannot afford health care and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, post this as your status for the rest of the day. In the interest of full disclosure, neither my mother nor brother has health insurance. And my brother, who had a brain tumor removed years ago, now suffers from seizures and debilitating migraines, and is buried under insurmountable medical debt. So you can guess where I stand on public health care.
But anyway, my cousin-in-law Lee who has a great sense of humor posted the following as his status on Facebook the very next day: Lee believes that no one should die because of zombies if they cannot afford a shotgun, or even just a machete. And, no one should be turned into a vampire if they get bit by one, or a werewolf for that matter. If you agree, post this as your status for the rest of the day.
Now I tried to be mad, because health care is a very serious topic for me, but this was too damn funny. But then a debate ensured between two of his friends about Lee’s topic that caught my eye:
A guy named John responded: Must be nice to make fun of the less fortunate. Just hope you don’t end up as one of them. And then a woman named Jenny responded to him saying: No, john, I won’t … I have this whole constitution thingie that grants me the opportunity to make sure I’m NOT less fortunate … you know, through hard work and responsibility … and oh, calm down … the nanny state’s still wholly in place in case you’re unwilling or unable to do so … jeez, no sense of humor on those democrats! ;) [sic].
Now I am not sure what John’s political affiliation is, but clearly what Jenny was insinuating was that he had to be a Democrat. I mean only Democrats are pro-public healthcare right? Only Democrats care about taking care of the less fortunate right? And perhaps if you are less fortunate that is a choice you made because you did not work hard enough.
Really?
What is America’s greatest moral failure? That was one of the questions pastor Rick Warren posed to President Obama during the campaign at a Saddleback Civil Forum. In response to the question, Obama said – citing a well-known Bible verse – that America’s greatest moral failure has been that we don’t abide by Jesus’ words: “Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.” Obama went on to identify the “the least of Jesus’ brothers” as the victims of poverty, racism and sexism.
Now, there are some biblical scholars who will argue that President Obama is using the words out of context and in actuality when Matthew talks about “the least of Jesus’ brothers” he is actually referring to the people who will be persecuted for their faith in Christ, not the victims of poverty, racism and sexism. However, I have heard many pastors point to that passage when speaking to the need to help others. In fact, it is a principle that I have seen Christians and non-Christians swear by, and it is the foundation principle for many nonprofit and advocacy organizations (even secular ones). Yet, when we talk about things like public health care all of a sudden this notion of helping “the least of these” becomes inherently socialist.
So again, I pose this question: Is it socialist to care about others?
I looked up “socialism” in the Webster’s Online Dictionary and the first definition says that socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods [or services].”
By that definition, I’d imagine that many people would argue that a public health care option is socialist. But my question is broader than that.
I know that according to the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, in 2005 46.6 percent of Americans were uninsured (and yes I concede that the number includes undocumented immigrants). For me, that is simply unacceptable and we need to do something about it. Any even if Jenny is right and the uninsured are just not working hard enough, I still do not think that is acceptable.
I know that according to Homeless Children in America, 1 in 50 children in the United States are homeless. For me, that is simply unacceptable and we need to do something about it.
I know that according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 35.9 million people live below the poverty line in America, including 12.9 million children. For me, that is simply unacceptable and we need to do something about it.
Then again, I am like Obama and the thousands of organizations – both Christian and secular – who believe that we have a moral responsibility to take care of “the least of these” in our society.
On the flip side, I do not want to live in a Marxist or communist regime. I do not want my salary to be added into a government pot and be divided equally among everyone in the populous. And I do not want the government to pay for every little thing in my life.
So can you not want to live in a socialist regime while also wanting the government to fill the gaps that the private sector has left open as it relates to the uninsured, the homeless, the poor, etc.? Or am I trying to have my cake and eat it to? Am I in denial? Is it just inherently socialist to care about others?
What do you think?
And while your sounding off in the comments, think about this. I was talking to my friend Latoya last week about the challenge she is having with some of her Christian friends. She is pro-health care and has found herself in intense debates with some of her friends who are firmly against a public health care option. Here is my question: Staying on the topic of “the least of these,” how does the Republican Party reconcile the Christian conservative values, including helping the “least of these” with the anti government-intervention including the notion of “pull yourself up by your own boot straps?”
Again, what do you think?
I think we absolutely have an obligation to help those in need whenever we can. No one should be forced to choose between buying medicine for a sick child or paying the electric bill and for many Americans that is a choice that has to be made everyday. Our family has health insurance and we pay a lot for it but we still have a hard time keeping up with the rising cost of health care. One of my four children came down with the flu this weekend and this was my out of pocket expense $50 to the clinic $45 for tamiflu $45 for zopenex for his nebulizer because he has asthma and was having a hard time breathing $45 for an inhaler and $56 for a spacer for the inhaler because insurance won't pay for one and the inhaler won't work without it. That is almost $250 and I have insurance.
Angela, I totally agree with all of your points. Not only am I disappointed that health care might be denied those without insurance but also those with.
The reason I make annual donations to Planned Parenthood is b/c they provided me with my gyno exams and provided low cost birth control when I didn't have health insurance.
Angela, Ernessa and CH, I agree with your comments about the need for public health care. But I am posing a larger question. Not just about health care but about helping people in general and the role the government should be playing in doing that if any? And if you believe the government does have a role in assisting "the least of these," are you a socialist?
I think the problem is that we're taking the "people" out of "government." The government is us, and do I think we should help our fellow man, yes. But not for altruistic reasons. If everyone is insured then all of our pay-ins go down. Our emergency rooms aren't abused. Universal health care just seems loads more efficient. I guess I'm from the school of thought that feels that the "good" thing where health insurance for all is concerned is also the "most practical" thing.
Also, I don't want to be worried sick about Betty when she gets too old to be covered under our insurance. If she came down with something really bad and was uninsured it would not only devastate us emotionally but also financially.
In this case I think the selfish thing also happens to be the "good" and "practical" thing.
Did I use enough quotation marks?
Interesting. If we can equate good with practical it makes the choice easier doesn't it. But what if the "good" option wasn't necessarily the "practical" option from a cost standpoint?
I guess I don't believe the good option is ever not the practical option. I think it'll always cost us more in the long run not to do quality work from the get go. This applies to everything from the way we treat others to government spending to clothes shopping.
I think we absolutely have an obligation to help those in need whenever we can. No one should be forced to choose between buying medicine for a sick child or paying the electric bill and for many Americans that is a choice that has to be made everyday. Our family has health insurance and we pay a lot for it but we still have a hard time keeping up with the rising cost of health care. One of my four children came down with the flu this weekend and this was my out of pocket expense $50 to the clinic $45 for tamiflu $45 for zopenex for his nebulizer because he has asthma and was having a hard time breathing $45 for an inhaler and $56 for a spacer for the inhaler because insurance won't pay for one and the inhaler won't work without it. That is almost $250 and I have insurance.
Angela, I totally agree with all of your points. Not only am I disappointed that health care might be denied those without insurance but also those with.
The reason I make annual donations to Planned Parenthood is b/c they provided me with my gyno exams and provided low cost birth control when I didn't have health insurance.
Angela, Ernessa and CH, I agree with your comments about the need for public health care. But I am posing a larger question. Not just about health care but about helping people in general and the role the government should be playing in doing that if any? And if you believe the government does have a role in assisting "the least of these," are you a socialist?
I think the problem is that we're taking the "people" out of "government." The government is us, and do I think we should help our fellow man, yes. But not for altruistic reasons. If everyone is insured then all of our pay-ins go down. Our emergency rooms aren't abused. Universal health care just seems loads more efficient. I guess I'm from the school of thought that feels that the "good" thing where health insurance for all is concerned is also the "most practical" thing.
Also, I don't want to be worried sick about Betty when she gets too old to be covered under our insurance. If she came down with something really bad and was uninsured it would not only devastate us emotionally but also financially.
In this case I think the selfish thing also happens to be the "good" and "practical" thing.
Did I use enough quotation marks?
Interesting. If we can equate good with practical it makes the choice easier doesn't it. But what if the "good" option wasn't necessarily the "practical" option from a cost standpoint?
I guess I don't believe the good option is ever not the practical option. I think it'll always cost us more in the long run not to do quality work from the get go. This applies to everything from the way we treat others to government spending to clothes shopping.
We are the only developed nation in the world without national health care. Does that mean that we are the only country on the planet that is not a socialist country?
We are the only developed nation in the world without national health care. Does that mean that we are the only country on the planet that is not a socialist country?
Your Facebook Friend's friend doesn't realize how close all but the very richest Americans are to medical bankruptcy. We would ALL benefit from the public option. In fact I wonder why corporations haven't gotten behind this. How is it not in their best interest to have universal health care? I mean seriously?
Your Facebook Friend's friend doesn't realize how close all but the very richest Americans are to medical bankruptcy. We would ALL benefit from the public option. In fact I wonder why corporations haven't gotten behind this. How is it not in their best interest to have universal health care? I mean seriously?
For the most part, I've kept my nose out of this issue with friends because I know very few of them agree with my political beliefs, but why not?
I consider myself both a Christian and a Republican. I care about the less fortunate. I give to charities and donate to my church. I bake for bake sales to benefit people in need. I help with all the various charity drives they have at my office during the year. However, I do not believe in public healthcare. I don't think you can equate the two. I do not believe that I, the very definition of a middle class American, should be responsible for paying for other people's medical insurance. It is argued that I already do b/c of the high premiums I do pay, but I'll still be paying those and more taxes on top of that.
For years I never had insurance. I couldn't afford it once I was out of college and no longer under my parents' plan. And yes, I was very lucky that nothing catastrophic happened to me during that time. But I never expected to have insurance. I didn't feel that I deserved to be given it because I hadn't worked for it. It was a privilege, not a guaranteed right.
My first job out of grad school I didn't have a medical plan, but I paid into catastrophic coverage just in case I was to get into a car accident or develop some horrible disease. I was making $9 an hour and living in one of the most expensive cities in the country and I managed that. I currently have a mediocre HMO plan that I chose b/c it was the cheapest option. My husband, you see, wouldn't have insurance if I didn't carry him on my plan. I sacrificed quality of care for affordability. But I am completely fine with that. I expect that compromise.
I think the system we have now is broken, but I don't think a public healthcare option is the only solution. It's the reluctance to talk and compromise that will draw this out and make any kind of reform take longer than it should.
But I definitely don't think it's fair to equate being anti-public healthcare with being anti-Christian. People make that same argument for people who are pro-choice.
Debra, I appreciate your comment and please do no misunderstand my blog, I am not equating anti-public health care with being anti-Christian. I am simply posing a question. Isn't there some inherent contradiction between believing in taking care of "the least of these" and the doctrine of non-reliance on government assistance?
Debra, I think you bring up a good point. Is health care a right or a privilege? I think it should be a basic right like a public education. But I agree that both sides have to keep talking and talking until we figure this out. During many times during this national conversation, I've wanted to throw my hands up and shut down dialogue. Thanks for reminding us how important it is to keep the conversation going.
Not that this blog post was about health care, but since it's been hijacked… public healthcare OPTION. Not government mandated healthcare, but an option for those who have no other health care coverage. If you have coverage and like it, keep it. If you don't you can buy what you can afford and sacrifice coverage for cost or you could buy into the public option.
Anyway – I am a christian and a democrat. I feel that my wealth is god given and should be used to help those less fortunate. I give at church, I pay taxes, I give to those I know who need it. I don't want to pay higher taxes, so I am all for higher efficiency in government.
Studies have shown that the VA (a government run health care program) has the best coverage. One reason quoted was that if the VA doesn't fix you, they have to keep treating you until they do, so it's in their best interest to watch out for your long term health, not just patch you up and kick you out. Medicare and Medicaid are both government run health care programs that are wildly successful (other than funding issues) and that people love. If I could buy into Medicare, I would compare it to private insurance in cost and coverage and if it beat the others, I'd do it. Same with the "public-option" being proposed. You only get it if you choose it.
Outside of health care, which should be a right, I do feel that we are morally obligated to help those around us. Welfare, housing vouchers, job training, etc are all things to help the least of these around us. The conservative side of me says there should be monitoring of these systems to prevent abuse – these programs should be short term safety nets for those who fall on hard times and all of them should have a primary goal of getting people back to self-sufficient. However, they should be there and we should make sure that they are funded. I am self-employed and have never needed these programs personally, but with the economy as it is, you never know what's around the corner.
For the most part, I've kept my nose out of this issue with friends because I know very few of them agree with my political beliefs, but why not?
I consider myself both a Christian and a Republican. I care about the less fortunate. I give to charities and donate to my church. I bake for bake sales to benefit people in need. I help with all the various charity drives they have at my office during the year. However, I do not believe in public healthcare. I don't think you can equate the two. I do not believe that I, the very definition of a middle class American, should be responsible for paying for other people's medical insurance. It is argued that I already do b/c of the high premiums I do pay, but I'll still be paying those and more taxes on top of that.
For years I never had insurance. I couldn't afford it once I was out of college and no longer under my parents' plan. And yes, I was very lucky that nothing catastrophic happened to me during that time. But I never expected to have insurance. I didn't feel that I deserved to be given it because I hadn't worked for it. It was a privilege, not a guaranteed right.
My first job out of grad school I didn't have a medical plan, but I paid into catastrophic coverage just in case I was to get into a car accident or develop some horrible disease. I was making $9 an hour and living in one of the most expensive cities in the country and I managed that. I currently have a mediocre HMO plan that I chose b/c it was the cheapest option. My husband, you see, wouldn't have insurance if I didn't carry him on my plan. I sacrificed quality of care for affordability. But I am completely fine with that. I expect that compromise.
I think the system we have now is broken, but I don't think a public healthcare option is the only solution. It's the reluctance to talk and compromise that will draw this out and make any kind of reform take longer than it should.
But I definitely don't think it's fair to equate being anti-public healthcare with being anti-Christian. People make that same argument for people who are pro-choice.
Debra, I appreciate your comment and please do no misunderstand my blog, I am not equating anti-public health care with being anti-Christian. I am simply posing a question. Isn't there some inherent contradiction between believing in taking care of "the least of these" and the doctrine of non-reliance on government assistance?
Debra, I think you bring up a good point. Is health care a right or a privilege? I think it should be a basic right like a public education. But I agree that both sides have to keep talking and talking until we figure this out. During many times during this national conversation, I've wanted to throw my hands up and shut down dialogue. Thanks for reminding us how important it is to keep the conversation going.
Not that this blog post was about health care, but since it's been hijacked… public healthcare OPTION. Not government mandated healthcare, but an option for those who have no other health care coverage. If you have coverage and like it, keep it. If you don't you can buy what you can afford and sacrifice coverage for cost or you could buy into the public option.
Anyway – I am a christian and a democrat. I feel that my wealth is god given and should be used to help those less fortunate. I give at church, I pay taxes, I give to those I know who need it. I don't want to pay higher taxes, so I am all for higher efficiency in government.
Studies have shown that the VA (a government run health care program) has the best coverage. One reason quoted was that if the VA doesn't fix you, they have to keep treating you until they do, so it's in their best interest to watch out for your long term health, not just patch you up and kick you out. Medicare and Medicaid are both government run health care programs that are wildly successful (other than funding issues) and that people love. If I could buy into Medicare, I would compare it to private insurance in cost and coverage and if it beat the others, I'd do it. Same with the "public-option" being proposed. You only get it if you choose it.
Outside of health care, which should be a right, I do feel that we are morally obligated to help those around us. Welfare, housing vouchers, job training, etc are all things to help the least of these around us. The conservative side of me says there should be monitoring of these systems to prevent abuse – these programs should be short term safety nets for those who fall on hard times and all of them should have a primary goal of getting people back to self-sufficient. However, they should be there and we should make sure that they are funded. I am self-employed and have never needed these programs personally, but with the economy as it is, you never know what's around the corner.
From a economic standpoint if it is cheaper for me to get my insurance from the government then a private insurance then I want a government option if you don't then stick with your private insurance. If I don't like it then I can change back.
I feel like today we are already paying for the uninsured and for profit insurance profits if we can take the profit out of the equation then wont that save me money?
Interesting. I agree CH that in actuality we are already bearing the cost of the uninsured. But let's assume for a moment that the pubic option was actually more expensive when the cost of subsidizing was spread across both the users and non users (e.g., a tax across people irrespective of whether or not they use the program above a certain income to subsidize the program to make it cheaper for end users). Are you still pro a public health option?
From a economic standpoint if it is cheaper for me to get my insurance from the government then a private insurance then I want a government option if you don't then stick with your private insurance. If I don't like it then I can change back.
I feel like today we are already paying for the uninsured and for profit insurance profits if we can take the profit out of the equation then wont that save me money?
Interesting. I agree CH that in actuality we are already bearing the cost of the uninsured. But let's assume for a moment that the pubic option was actually more expensive when the cost of subsidizing was spread across both the users and non users (e.g., a tax across people irrespective of whether or not they use the program above a certain income to subsidize the program to make it cheaper for end users). Are you still pro a public health option?
I think in answer to the original question that not only as a Christian but as an American I feel an obligation to help those in need in whatever way I can. I in no way think that helping the least of these is socialism.
I think in answer to the original question that not only as a Christian but as an American I feel an obligation to help those in need in whatever way I can. I in no way think that helping the least of these is socialism.
I'm so late to weigh-in on this one, but I couldn't help myself. i wanted to comment on the original question whether one must be a socialist to care for the "least of these." I say not necessarily and we already incorporate some socialist values into our government and economy already. If you just read over this blog there are several examples of government control over certain services: education, medicare, etc… There are very few governments that are purely anything, most are a hybrid of different political theories and philosophies. So, I think you can care about the "least of these" and believe in some aspects of capitalism.
Obviously, not all things are solved by the markets or the goodness of charity. Otherwise we wouldn't need government funding/regulation for education, roads, the markets, housing, etc…. There will always be holes to fill and those gaps are largest for the most marginalized in our society and just because government steps into to fill those spaces where the market and volunteerism won't doesn't make us a socialist country. Nor does believing that the government should provide all its citizens with basic rights make you a socialist–supportive of some socialist tenets, perhaps, but what the heck is wrong with that? I say, absolutely nothing.
I'm so late to weigh-in on this one, but I couldn't help myself. i wanted to comment on the original question whether one must be a socialist to care for the "least of these." I say not necessarily and we already incorporate some socialist values into our government and economy already. If you just read over this blog there are several examples of government control over certain services: education, medicare, etc… There are very few governments that are purely anything, most are a hybrid of different political theories and philosophies. So, I think you can care about the "least of these" and believe in some aspects of capitalism.
Obviously, not all things are solved by the markets or the goodness of charity. Otherwise we wouldn't need government funding/regulation for education, roads, the markets, housing, etc…. There will always be holes to fill and those gaps are largest for the most marginalized in our society and just because government steps into to fill those spaces where the market and volunteerism won't doesn't make us a socialist country. Nor does believing that the government should provide all its citizens with basic rights make you a socialist–supportive of some socialist tenets, perhaps, but what the heck is wrong with that? I say, absolutely nothing.