![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
averygoodun42A couple friends shared this link in the NYT about Going Dutch.
The author makes some very good points, both for and against, but the thing that struck me as I read through it is the hopelessness of enacting real social change in this country. This is an adversarial country. That is part of our ethos. If it weren't, do you think we'd be so litigious?
It also highlights one of the weaknesses of this country as a whole. There is a constant battle in this country between the federal and State governments over who gets to control what. Republicans, on the whole, want the State to have more say while the Democrats want the feds.
I'm generalizing, but that's the gist.
Add to that the constant, though low-key, struggle between the states. Sometimes it isn't even all that low-key; just look at Texas. Everyone's an individual ("I'm not!") and wants to make damn sure that their neighbor is an individual as well.
And really, this attitude stems from the Civil War. The Civil War made this country what it is in almost every single important way. The South wanted to secede, the North wouldn't let them. The South wanted cheap labor. The North thought it labor should be regulated by morals. The Southerners loved their greens. The Northerners wondered what the hell they were on about.
But the main complaint, the main issue of the war, was all about separation and the ability (or inability) of achieving it. The North said, "WE are a country." The South said, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."
The North won the territorial war, but, on the whole, the South came out victorious. We, as a society, are not cohesive. We are divisive and have only become more so over the last century. Most call this an attitude of individualism, which is a fair enough moniker, but...
The minister quoted something today that struck a chord with me. It was something to the effect of: "Without community, righteousness becomes self-righteousness."
We are a nation of communities. We are not a community as a whole, though. I don't know if it's even possible, given the huge geographical and societal differences we encompass as a nation. And given that we are not a community, nor is it likely that we ever will be, how can we change things to help the (nonexistent) community at large? It is ingrained within us that that's the other person's problem. And who's down with the OPP?
The author makes some very good points, both for and against, but the thing that struck me as I read through it is the hopelessness of enacting real social change in this country. This is an adversarial country. That is part of our ethos. If it weren't, do you think we'd be so litigious?
It also highlights one of the weaknesses of this country as a whole. There is a constant battle in this country between the federal and State governments over who gets to control what. Republicans, on the whole, want the State to have more say while the Democrats want the feds.
I'm generalizing, but that's the gist.
Add to that the constant, though low-key, struggle between the states. Sometimes it isn't even all that low-key; just look at Texas. Everyone's an individual ("I'm not!") and wants to make damn sure that their neighbor is an individual as well.
And really, this attitude stems from the Civil War. The Civil War made this country what it is in almost every single important way. The South wanted to secede, the North wouldn't let them. The South wanted cheap labor. The North thought it labor should be regulated by morals. The Southerners loved their greens. The Northerners wondered what the hell they were on about.
But the main complaint, the main issue of the war, was all about separation and the ability (or inability) of achieving it. The North said, "WE are a country." The South said, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."
The North won the territorial war, but, on the whole, the South came out victorious. We, as a society, are not cohesive. We are divisive and have only become more so over the last century. Most call this an attitude of individualism, which is a fair enough moniker, but...
The minister quoted something today that struck a chord with me. It was something to the effect of: "Without community, righteousness becomes self-righteousness."
We are a nation of communities. We are not a community as a whole, though. I don't know if it's even possible, given the huge geographical and societal differences we encompass as a nation. And given that we are not a community, nor is it likely that we ever will be, how can we change things to help the (nonexistent) community at large? It is ingrained within us that that's the other person's problem. And who's down with the OPP?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-04 08:51 am (UTC)I'm with the Republicans in wanting states to have more control over their state. to try to make an entire nation of 305 million into "one" is to risk conformity, rather than community or cooperation; uniting all of us is like herding cats. we are too independent -- states have their own history and mindset. it's much easier to have a say in government when the capitol is in your own state, harder when you have to go all the way to Washington, DC and make your voice heard among 50 states. I think it's also easier to get folks to agree to higher taxes when the benefits will be within their own state.
we are also a nation of competing individuals. whenever Congress passes a budget, you know that every politician was out for himself/herself. whenever you ask a taxpayer about paying more taxes so that people in another state can benefit, you will get resistance. millionaires and celebrities hire lawyers and accountants to make sure they pay as little as possible in taxes, and they could afford taxes.
we're not as easy to manage and unite like Holland (17 million population). it's a tough sell to make folks want to pay more taxes to support illegal aliens (medical and education and welfare), and if we ever find out that our taxes are supporting the Octomom, watch out for public reaction!
no subject
Date: 2009-05-04 09:45 pm (UTC)I scanned the article, but haven't read it in depth. The US tends to trail Europe in demographic trends by about 30 years. But then there's also something to be said about never having been an occupied country and what one expects from subsequent reconstruction.
Maybe if we legalized drugs (like you know what country) we would all be HIGH enough to make the necessary changes.
Okay, enough smack talk. And I hope you realize that I don't have strong feelings about the Dutch, in part because I know very little about them, and the above represent not a deeply ingrained political viewpoint, but a need to talk smack generally.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-04 11:17 pm (UTC)And... an excellent rebuttal for my previous comment would be an explanation of how Canada managed universal care, since CA would probably be a better comparison as to how it could be administered here.
I'm just bunchy today, because even as I lower my premium by taking a higher deductible so I can continue paying bills, my insurance company is now charging me $5 to send me each bill.