"...a 'laissez-faire' economic theory is maintained in an industrial era through the ignorant belief that the general welfare is best served by placing the least possible political constraints upon economic activity. The history of the last hundred years is a refutation of this theory...It's survival is due to the ignorance of those who suffer injustice from the application of this theory to modern industrial life but fail to attribute their difficulties to the social anarchy and political irresponsibility that the theory sanctions." --Reinhold Niebuhr, "Moral Man and Immoral Society, A Study in Ethics and Politics" (1932).
Reinhold Niebuhr (1891-1971), pictured on the left in a TIME magazine cover from the early 1950's, was considered the one of the foremost American Protestant theologians of pre and post World War II America. He wrote many books and articles about politics and ethics and was the Professor of Christian Ethics at the Union Theological Seminary in New York State from 1928 to 1960. Prior to that he served as a pastor for thirteen years at a church in Detroit, Michigan. Another important work of his is the book "The Irony of American History", a book that explores the conflicts between "the hopes of the founding fathers and the reality of the present situation" (i.e, America in the dawn of The Cold War.) He has been cited as one of Barack Obama's favorite philosophers.
After World War II, he co-founded the leftist but non-Marxist group "Americans For Democratic Action", which is still an active and leading independent progressive organization which, among other activities, watchdogs the voting records of Congressional members in both the House of Representatives and The Senate.
Professor Niebuhr's book on morality in public life by groups and individuals seems relevant to me today not only because both Barack Obama and John Mccain cited him favorably during last year's Presidential Election, but because of the health care debate in the USA which is raging at the moment. The current struggle can be summed up in two competing philosophies. The first is the traditional view that nothing the government does in the domestic sphere can be of benefit to the average person. Change from Washington or the State Houses is simply incompetence at best and a collectivist power grab at worst. These views are all over the editorial pages of the "liberal media" newspapers, and there is a plethora of examples. I will spare you the cacophony of those who feel the status quo in having 40-50 million uninsured Americans is only worthy of modest reform and cite just one advocate, Michael Tanner of the conservative Cato Institute, writing recently in The Los Angeles Times:
"Everyone agrees that far too many Americans lack health insurance. But covering the uninsured comes about as a byproduct of getting other things right. The real danger is that our national obsession with universal coverage will lead us to neglect reforms -- such as enacting a standard health insurance deduction, expanding health savings accounts and deregulating insurance markets -- that could truly expand coverage, improve quality and make care more affordable."
Herein is the usual argument: to Mr. Tanner, health care is a commodity like an automobile, dog food or a latte coffee creation for someone's morning caffeine fix. Just let the "free market" take care of all this, add a tax cut to sweeten to pie, and all will be well.
Such thinking did not serve the America that Professor Niebuhr's wrote about during The Great Depression. Unregulated markets and speculation run wild had crashed the economy. And now we face a similar era of recovery from the sins of ignorance.
Health is most decidedly NOT simply a commodity. By it's nature it is often too expensive to purchase for those without the social protection of decent job. And the dangers of underinsured Americans means that 40-45 million Americans are not entitled to any primary care at all, unless it is under-borne by small-scale clinics which are underfunded. In addition those who fail to get primary care have to resort to the emergency room to get treatment, often for conditions that are long neglected. The result makes for sicker patients and higher bills. Today, more Americans file bankruptcy and lose their homes because of medical bills they can't pay than for any other reason.
One of the things Niebuhr wrote about in "Moral Man..." was the need to go beyond appealing to moral principles to create a change. Entrenched interests like the health care lobby will always try to show that their position of power is in the best interests of the country. They will protect that. Change can only come if enough people demand it, demand something that is so "radical" that all nations in Europe and Canada that elect governments already have some form of it--a public health care system with regulated costs and open access. Otherwise, we will be left with the status quo, which traps people in jobs, and makes a mockery of a "free" society :
Excellent post Doug and in my view an irrefutable argument from Reinhold Niebuhr. The major difficulty is how do those demands become articulated in a society where the media frequently conspires to marginalise them. Under different circumstances 40-50 million could be considered a significant interest group whose political pressure could be influential, but the sick are the least able to stand their ground, the well have to raise these issues while they are able to. Therein lies the logic of socialised health and welfare provision which is not only a moral position but an economic one too. At a time that we all must tighten our belts why do we continue to support a profligate private health industry that gives to the rich by depriving the poor and the insurance industry it spawns. Insurance is the business of trading on fears, remove the insecurity and the health of the nation improves anyway because a major corrosive stressor has been removed. Private medicine is an oxymoron and so far as the US is concerned it is the enemy within, public health Enemy Number One.
ReplyDeleteTo me whether individuals and groups making the sorts of arguments Niebuhr does are Marxist or not is of no consequence, both labels 'marxist' and 'protestant' are divisive and value laden. The situation is too serious for doctrinal debate which can be reserved for more congenial times or just abandoned altogether.
What people believe is not here nor there in my view, it's what they do about the problem that counts.... which brings me to one final point about Mr Obama.
It is interesting the US presidents have to have a favourite philosopher, the last one had Leo Strauss (My Pet Goat School) the thinking mans 'hard cop' and this one has Reinhold Niebuhr a moral campaigner and icon of 'soft cop' politics if ever there was one.
Obama might read some fine books but he like the rest of us, will be judged on how he makes the ideas into concrete policies and enacted measures in the real world.
Great blog Doug, highly nutritious food for thought I think.
Yes, but presumably everybody is demanding it but each in a very small voice. They need to shout louder.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to link to this, Doug, and I hope you don't mind.
ReplyDeleteNiebuhr was what I like to call a 'thinking Christian' - a theologian more in keeping with the great philosophers of the Western world, rather than the likes of the loud-yet-ignorant lot who dominate the religion nowadays.
Of course, his position on most things would find him ostracized by most of the Fundie-set nowadays - they'd probably call him a "Socialist"...
Thanks for this! A message which needs to be heard - again....
And here my own thinking can only come up with the argument that if we really want to be an enlightened, "civilized" culture, then the question of health care for those that need it is a given. My own beef with our current system is the lack of focus on prevention. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
ReplyDeleteThat's the opinion of any enlightened progressive, Lach.
ReplyDeleteAny nation which cannot or will not care for the least of its citizens is either immoral (if the act is wilful) or uncivilized (if the act is beyond its control, because of things like internal chaos or a weak government).
I'm sure R. Niebuhr would have agreed with you, AA. Here's a brief bit from his chapter on "Justice Through Revolution" in "Moral Man and Immoral Society":
ReplyDelete"Nothing is intrinsically immoral except ill-will, and nothing intrinsically good expect goodwill...each action is judged with reference to its relation to the ultimate goal." Certainly nations make for unusual alliances in times of war, and there's no reason for grassroots groups to fight to exclude those who share common goals. The ballot box can sort that out later.
I agree Jeff. Some of us are trying to get our voices heard over the din of the lobbyists. Fingers crossed, we shall get a health care reform law worthy of its name.
ReplyDeleteLink away, Astra. I'm happy we agree on this excellent thinker.
ReplyDeleteYes, the best coast containment is a healthy society. Much more focus should be there, Lach, than ever before. Thanks for stopping by to comment.
ReplyDeleteA Protestant liberation theology perhaps Doug?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what will happen there Doug there is one person on my blog that is within the US and he brought up the Canadian medical system. For myself, I feel that America needs it's own system one that is appropriate within a country that is for 308 million people. That is something that is not an easy manner.
ReplyDeleteHowever I do believe in a system whereby all have the ability to have medical treatment.
Why not, AA? The Calvinists of five centuries ago are given credit by some historians for laying the groundwork for the free-range capitalism popular in 19th Century Industrial America. That "God gave me my money" * excuse was used in part to justify the growth and egregious massing of concentrated wealth in the monopolistic USA of a century ago. Groups like "Sojourners" seem to be moving toward something more like the Social Gospel of a Century Ago in England and North America. How it goes this time is anyone's guess.
ReplyDeleteHere is the Sojourners website by the way, currently the Christian Progressive movement that is getting the most attention over here.
http://www.sojo.net/
The dominating fundementalist religious strain in Protestant America seems to be ebbing at present, in the face of a shift away from "morality issues" driving voters over here. Perhaps something in the general good will come out of this speculation crisis after all.
* attributed to J D Rockefeller
I agree there. This is going to be a long slog (on health care reform, that is) Jack. And Canada's system has been used as a sort of perennial bad example by conservatives down here. Doubtless, it has a lot of good points, but it was conceived at a different time and, as you imply, there has to be a program that seems American-grown to succeed. Something like what has been used to measureable success in Massachusetts and Hawaii for instance, where coverage is mandatory and all are covered.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a huge fan of the Health Care Access plan as conceived in the commercial above, but its a good start and a federal government option embedded into the plan might pass the Congress. Health Reform may need several "reforms" later on as I gather was the case in Australia when they started their system.
An interesting site Doug, I was surprised by the article on the UK National Health Service which most of my compatriots grumble about whenever the subject is raised. Both positions are right I think, the NHS does provide free health care and often it is of a high standard, but there are also concerns that standards have progressively slipped since the 1970s and the health service is starved of resources.
ReplyDeleteI have strayed off topic here a bit, but I have no dispute with the Sojourners on any of the fundamental policy issues or the moral causes they support. It is of course right to link political dissent in England with protestant non-conformity. Just as the Calvinists you mention have been identified with what Max Weber called the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, so the non-conformist sects that proliferated during the Civil War in the mid 17th century are the origins of socialism and communalism here and subsequently in the US.
While Latin American Catholic 'liberation theology' has an interface with marxism, Marx himself acknowledged the influence of both English political economy and organic socialism as an influence on his later theories.
For that reason I think the common ground is much more important than the differences between people of good will which is also the principle of 'popular frontism' that so upset Leon Trotsky and which continues to bother his latter day adherents.
I personally have always been in favour of broad democratic alliances and in my view there was never a better time to strengthen them in a unity of purpose than to address what presently confronts us all today.
Yes, I 've heard both positive stories about NHS---such as Mr. Higgins relates in his article--and the other problems, like scarce resources. When they come from British health consumers in news reports, and not tarted-up scare-mongering from American Repubicans--I take them seriously. It's good to get a real take on the negatives of any national health system, so as not to give people a false sense that any government can deliver resources without prioritizing.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, for all its problems, I haven't heard of a concerted effort to get the British for an "American-style" system, where out-of-pocket expenses even for the insured can drag families people into near-ruin and doctors (especially specialists) bill insurance companies enormous sums for treatments that are little more than casual office calls lasting a fraction of an hour! (This is just one example of the myriad of flaws in our current private system, with its public health patchwork "safety net" that seems designed to allow working people to fall through the net in most states. )
America still awaits a figure like Mr. Bevan was in the late forties to pull us out of the nightmare of health treatment as a commodity. I will say I am more excited about the progress of some type of improved and uniformed US health system than I have ever been.
They agreed on something?
ReplyDeleteGlad you referenced Max Weber, AA, because his work from my college days introduced me to this concept of capitalism and the Protestant ethic, and his work I believe shows the adaptability of spiritual-minded people to better themselves and their neighbors. Can this synthesis evolve once more, in the United States and Britain, to a new and more ethical spirit of political change? I certainly hope so.
ReplyDeleteMarx's acknowledgment to England's pre-industrial socialists was not something I read about before. The Trotskites of Europe may be not unlike the conservative Democrats of the USA --the "Blue Dogs" as they are called. Both factions could be guilty of behaving like the French Generals on the Maginot Line, holded up in their bunkers and fighting the last war. I agree th common ground among parties can be found is the goals are clear and minds are open.
Thanks for your enlightening additions to my scant blog.
Thanks lol, even from here I have heard them. Mr Tanner is indeed a good representation. First lets fix everything else and then we will get around to helping the vulnerable. If indeed they haven't all died already, possibly that is what he and his mates are hoping for.
ReplyDeleteUniversal Health Care is not a commodity. It is a necessary social service for countries who believe in the equity of opportunities and access to resources - these ideologies are cornerstones for civilised societies and democracies.
The so-call "free" market has by now been proven not to deliver to any but the upper middle classes? (do these people actually really exist or are they just richer wage earners?) and the very rich and corporates. Keeping health care in the domain of commodity serves to enrich these groups further, it does nothing for the people who really need it. In fact these profiteering junkies have forced the cost of health care to spiral ever higher, not only effecting the US but also the people in other countries who buy drugs from the US headquartered, globalised, pharmaceutical companies.
Niebuhr makes sense. Thank you for introducing him to me. The "moral" argument (what the heck is that anyhow beyond some judgemental, value-laden cliché) when held by the powerful lobbyists can be plainly seen self-serving.
Yes , oddly enough, they agreed at least on a dead theologian and political ethicist who has had a bit of a popular renewal over here. Obama references Niebuhr's strong critiques on how American society doesn't always support the humanistic values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. in this way, he is like the pre Civil War abolishionists against slavery in the 19th Century, and those who stood for Civil Rights and the end of unjust wars such as the Spanish American and Vietnam wars in the following decades. (How "ironic" Obama own administration may become is a topic for another blog I think)
ReplyDeleteHere's a bit from a New York Times review from 2007 on a book the combative Senator Mc Cain wrote called "Hard Call".
"
McCain says he admires Niebuhr’s ability, in opposing the Vietnam War, to “express the moral ambiguity that is inescapable for the soldier who must kill to defend his country. Many of those who have had that experience feel that ambiguity keenly. For many, it is the stuff of nightmares that last years beyond the experience.”
If this sounds lke obvious stuff to you, Iri Ani, I know. But for a former full-out hawk like Mc Cain, it's practically a psychological breakthrough. He is an unusual conservative; for instance, he opposed Bush-Era torture methods against captive Muslims, a stand that, as a combat pilot tortured for months in a POW camp in North Vietnam, carries a good deal of weight with his party.