Trademarking Arrogance

Having done a series of posts recently on what passes for "patriotism" in the United States, and how this mistaken notion of patriotism (which is actually narcissistic nationalism under a different name) is somehow seen as healthy, but in fact is doing irreparable damage to the country at present, the point that I am making should be growing clearer and clearer to those who happen to read these pieces: that our arrogance is blinding us to other ways of doing things, to other possibilities.

What I am saying here is that, when a people assume that they are the best, as this country seems to feel, then it seems to assume that about everything. They seem to assume that this implied supremacy is across the board, and that everyone else should be following our example, and that any criticisms or hostilities towards us or our way of thinking (and looking down on them) is automatically just jealous of us, of our superiority and way of doing things.

For example, when the issue is healthcare, an obviously very heated debate here in the United States, it is automatically assumed that what we consider to be "socialized medicine", a term that was invented here and has no precise set standard or definition to it, is inherently evil. Yet, every industrialized country in the world outside of the United States has precisely such a system, although such a definition is vague. There systems vary considerably. The system that is implemented in, say, France, is different from in Britain, or in Canada, or South Africa, and these are different from one another as well. Yet, through the lens of this American arrogance, all of the various approaches that these countries take are systematically lumped together under the umbrella of unacceptable and evil, big government "socialism". Even though medical care and medicine all tend to be much more affordable than here in the United States, no credit is given for any positive inroads that these countries have made in providing for their citizens. No, it is only seen as a purely evil, or at least a greatly flawed, system, and horror stories abound. Strangely, however, none of these countries have switched over to the "superior" American model, perhaps because this model leaves forty million people uninsured, and leaves many tens of millions of others with inferior healthcare coverage plans that offer very little to make medical care and medicine more affordable and accessible. Perhaps even more odd is that while there are problems with the various systems (none of which are perfect), the general consensus is that people prefer the security of their system to that of stripping away these benefits and following the privatized American model. On the flip side, nowhere are the huge and glaring gaps of the healthcare system as evident as they are here in the United States, and also nowhere is this issue so heated and polarizing as it is here. Still, any thought that we could truly learn something from the example that other countries provide seems unthinkable and almost laughable to many Americans, although the shortcomings of our own approach persist.

It is election season again, and healthcare is, quite predictably, the major issue. Would it be surprising if it remains, once again, a huge issue, perhaps the pivotal issue, in 2016? Maybe I'm jumping ahead here, but I'm just saying. In any case, "Obamacare", as it is often called, is a watered down version of what President Obama proposed when still a candidate in 2008. Yet, look at the opposition it generated, with challenges from many states and a court case in the Supreme Court. There were some differences and heated exchanges among the Republican challengers, and the eventual apparent winner to emerge, Romney, had a system in Massachusetts during his stint as governor there that was viewed as a liability because of the parallels to "Obamacare". It was even given the name "Romneycare", and Mitt Romney was at pains to try and put some distance between his system and the one that Obama was trying to put in place. It almost cost Romney dearly, and he is still being attacked for it now. So much was he afraid of the damage that it could do, that he tried to redefine the record, and to make clear distinctions between his system and Obama's, so that now he is "boldly" attacking "Obamacare" in a typically Republican manner, trying to show his conservative credentials. The main point that they continually keep bringing up is that this system is (gulp) a socialist system, and too similar to Europe. We have a whole movement of American exceptionalists now swooping in, ready to pick at the bones of the presumably dead and discredited healthcare plan, and beating their chests at this victory for the American nation.

In the meantime, tens of millions of people, including children, would remain uninsured, and tens of millions more would remain under inadequate and inferior healthcare plans. Yay, America, ra-ra-ra!

Am I going out on a limb in suggesting that healthcare will be an issue in the 2016 Presidential election? Perhaps the 2020 Presidential election? Beyond that? Would it really be all that surprising?

There was an interesting article that deals with this phobia of "socialism", appropriately titled "Obama a socialist? Many scoff, but claims persist" (see the link below).

In it, there is mention that claims of "socialism" have been commonly used throughout much of American history, dating all the way back to the days of the Civil War, when pro-slavery advocates branded an abolitionist newspaper editor, Horace Greeley, of being a socialist. They were used against President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and much of his "New Deal" programs that are often widely attributed for helping to pull America out of the Great Depression, but which have been attacked by some staunch neocons today, such as Anne Coulter, although even conservative icon Ronald Reagan had spoken positively of FDR and what he did for the country.

Since then, that claim has been thrown around rather loosely, coinciding, as it did, with traditional American phobias about communism, as if the two are one and the same. As if present comparisons of socialism as it is seen in Europe today are essentially examples of communism in the days of the Iron Curtain. Anyone who shows less than a ridiculous and irrational paranoia regarding socialism and communism in present day Europe is now seen as a socialism This shows a lack of understanding and knowledge.

So, Obama is lumped in as a socialist, although he is far, far from being that. In the article, Romney is portrayed as taking a more cautious, politically expedient approach, and is quoted as saying that Obama "takes his political inspiration from Europe, from the socialist-democrats in Europe."

Yes, instead of looking at Europe and trying to understand what is going on there, let us instead continually just dismiss them as quickly as they are brought up. Knee jerk reactions and prejudices have always played a prominent role for too much of American history, and they unfortunately persist today. It's easier than thinking, isn't it?

The trend will continue, and so will our problems. Europe certainly has it's share of problems at the moment, as well, to be sure. Both sides of argument will likely continue to use one another as examples of how bad it could be if things are allowed to go too far towards the other side. Too bad that there cannot be a better understanding in general on both sides. Europe has been humbled recently, because of how bad things have been there. Yet, despite how bad things are here, we remain loud and arrogant, pointing fingers at political adversaries here and abroad.

It seems that some things will never change.
Next, I will take a closer look at education in America, and see how our sense of superiority has been hurting as here, too.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-socialist-many-scoff-claim-persists-174845832.html