Is Bi-Partisanship Dead Within the American Body Politic?

Now that health reform legislation appears to be on its way to becoming the law of the land, how do we reconcile the differences that people have about how it will impact them? Most Americans who currently have health care coverage either privately or through their companies are the least likely to feel any consequential effects from this legislation, if they do at all.

Conceivably, those who purchase their policies individually may see some increases. This could easily be more of a reaction by their insurance company to anticipate client losses who may leave to find lower cost insurance plans in the newly created "exchange pools". Those left behind will be expected to cover such losses. This has been the practice of many insurance companies rather than reducing their medical loss ratios(MLRs) - the amount of your premium dollar that goes to health care versus what goes to the company's bottom line.

Bi-partisan efforts may not have gotten us to where we are now but that doesn't mean we need to exclude it from where we go now with health care reform. This legislation will affect a large number of people in ways that many are unclear of. Until they fully understand what impact it will have on their daily lives, any angst they may hold will only serve to prevent a dialogue between all parties and establish commonality that all sides can feel reasonably comfortable with.

A lot of the rancor that has divided people with this often-contentious issue is partly a personal perception about such "social" legislation along with a healthy dose of mis-information as to what actually exists within the bill. The first part is a subject not easy to deal with in a few short paragraphs. It encompasses a mind-set as deep and passionately held as one's spiritual and religious views. But unless we try to create a level playing field by which all players approach this effort with an open mind, the mis-information part will not make much difference .

Clearly there are many who oppose this legislation from what they perceive to be constitutional grounds and a capitalistic philosophy that rejects any interference from the government. The origins of capitalism arose with Adam Smith and his treatise, "Wealth of Nations" published in 1776; the same time our new nation was in the throes of independence and self-governing. Many of the principles Smith employed in his works fit the economic and social framework that the colonies were experiencing and thus were easily assimilated into the evolving political character of the American Republic.

Wholesale dire poverty was absent in comparison to our modern standards and though there were "hard times" to contend with, the opportunity for most white men of certain ages to make their fortune were available to anyone who had courage to tame the raw and vast wild lands that were virtually there for the taking. Equal opportunities for minorities and women were nearly a century and half away before they would begin to push back on the predominant white male status quo that controlled all aspects of the social order.

Thus, the prevailing attitude that "you can make it if you work hard" became ingrained within the social conscience of a smaller and vibrant population with room to expand; with little to no restraint from the government. Many were in fact encouraged by the U.S. government to fulfill American newspaper editor John O'Sullivan's concept of "Manifest Destiny" in the mid-1800's

But as our nation prospered and grew it attracted millions from abroad. Populations exploded and crowded into the existing towns and cities. This influx of cheap labor was exploited by the wealthy business class, resulting in wages insufficient to provide for the large families that many had. Labor unions formed to break up the exploitation and the "social justice" conscience of the predominant religions began to demand improved conditions for poor working families. The monied interest lost ground in their ability to control organized citizens and ultimately, following the Great Depression, a strong middle class became the back-bone of an economy that JFK referred as one "where a rising tide lifts all boats."

Economic and social conditions changed from early America's self-reliant and pioneer spirit but the belief that you could still prosper on your own remained intact. Partly because it was true; there were still plenty of opportunities for many but that was becoming more an ideal and less a reality as we entered the 20th century. Wealthy capitalist began influencing government policies that restricted who could join their elite club. They kept the notion of free-enterprise alive for most to cherish but behind the scenes they were changing financial rules that would enhance their fortunes and limit all others.

Following the Supreme Court ruling of Santa Clara county v. Southern Pac. R. Co.,118 U.S. 394 - 1886, corporations gained "natural citizen" rights that were intended for the country's human population. As such, corporations could now claim privileges under the 14th amendment that would allow them the right against self-incrimination, right to privacy and the right to lobby the government. However, their control of great amounts of wealth would make them more powerful than the common citizen.

This has become evident in the current disparity between the "haves" and "have-nots" where the "have-nots", who consist of 95% of the income earners and make less than $100,000 annually, had an average increase from 1979 to 2005 of roughly 18%, while the top 1 percent during the same period saw an increase of 228%

According to a 2007 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report:

- The share of the nation's total after-tax income going to the top 1 percent of households hit the highest level on record (with data back to 1979).
- The share of national after-tax income going to the middle fifth of households (the middle 20 percent) was the smallest on record.
- Similarly, the share of national after-income tax going to households in the bottom fifth was the smallest on record.

In addition, the share of national after-tax income going to the top 1 percent of households more than doubled between 1979 (when it stood at 7.5 percent) and 2005 (when it reached 15.6 percent). The $180,000 average income gain for these households in 2005 is more than three times the average middle-income household's total income.

With numbers like these, serious doubt is raised that challenges the notion that the capitalist spirit is alive and well and works equally for us all. And yet it is this belief that people defend when they rail against "social legislation" that benefits most Americans. Many of the people that would contend that our freedoms are being removed under the "liberal" legislation initiated by Obama and the Democrats still hold to the notion that Ayn Rand popularized in the 1940's and 1950's. In her works, especially "Atlas Shrugs", Ms. Rand asserted that man "is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

Further, Rand's belief that pure laissez-faire capitalism is the only realistic economic form for achieving one's self-serving goals rejects all government intervention. It would be curious to see how she would respond to the failure of capitalism in the 21st century. Would she be so locked into her philosophical view and simply deny the fact that sometimes government assistance isn't the bogey man she thought it was? Would she be willing to alter her view that man's greed can ultimately circumvent her pure notion of personal freedom?

It's hard to say. She was an intelligent woman and capable of reconsidering something that time might show weakness of. One thing's for sure though; her legacy is alive - the people who still hold this view as an infallible truism. Some are highly intelligent and are capable of approaching a level playing field to expound on their views while listening a bit more distinctly to counter views. But the mob mentality that has gripped many lesser informed, anti-government types and viciously attacked their political adversaries in town hall meetings and marches in the nation's capital are a stumbling block to any bi-partisan effort.

Until the people they view as leaders get them to respect the loyal opposition and direct their anger toward a constructive dialogue, bi-partisan ship will suffer a set-back that may take generations to recover from. Lincoln's words then have relevance for our age: "A house divided against itself cannot stand"

RESOURCES:

The Wealth Gap Challenges American Ideals

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities