RSS Feed
Morally Right and Politically Impossible
The answer to the question is both. Children's health care is a parental responsibility and a moral imperative for society. Why should adults bother to have children if they do not take care of them? Why should a nation bother to imagine a future if it does not make basic investments in its coming generation? Taken together, that means a collaboration between parents and government to make sure children are healthy, well-fed, educated and not burdened by onerous financial debts that they will inherit as adults.
That's the ideal. Now, what's the real? Reality is that we live in a country ever torn torn between the cult of individuality and the ideal of a generous communitarianism. In that division, we typically lean toward individualism, which at its best does wonderful things for our creativity in all fields.
But at its worst, the impulse toward total individualism--and its thoroughly disreputable theological handmaiden that holds that riches and health equal evidence of God's favor--propels us toward a Dickensian society distinguished by all manner of social ugliness.
The needle on the social dial usually inclines toward the individual side spectrum, that area which we typically call "freedom," by the way. The exceptions come in times of enormous crisis, such as the Depression, when Congress felt moved to put in place Social Security, and the mid-1960s, when evidence of rampant poverty among the elderly allowed for the creation of Medicare.
Where are we these days? Well, we've got a president who just vetoed legislation to expand a popular children's health insurance program and a Congress that can't muster the votes to override that veto. That's just a piece of a wider political culture, one in which the nominee for attorney general--the nation's highest law enforcement officer--recently claimed not to know what waterboarding is and, when informed, couldn't bring himself to call it torture.
We live in a time, to borrow an old expression, of "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost." Not an era to care much about the health of our children.
By
Gustav Niebuhr
|
November 5, 2007; 9:19 AM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: City (of Immigrants) on a Hill |
Next: Sick Kids Have a Right to Health Care
Posted by: BGone | November 6, 2007 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Bush era of "compassionate conservatism" has always been a slogan without substance. We should not surprised that debt, environmental issues, and inadequate health care has been piled on our children. The larger question is whether there are any leaders who can muster a sense of vision for baby boomers like myself and others to see beyond our own pleasures and "toys" and are willing to invest in the generation that will be wheeling us around. A meditation for Bush et al is the old Cat Stevens song "Cat's in the Cradle" -- no time for children's health and world now, don't expect much in 20 years or less.
Posted by: Dave Pasinski | November 5, 2007 9:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Bush era of "compassionate conservatism" has always been a slogan without substance. We should not surprised that debt, environmental issues, and inadequate health care has been piled on our children. The larger question is whether there are any leaders who can muster a sense of vision for baby boomers like myself and others to see beyond our own pleasures and "toys" and are willing to invest in the generation that will be wheeling us around. A meditation for Bush et al is the old Cat Stevens song "Cat's in the Cradle" -- no time for children's health and world now, don't expect much in 20 years or less.
Posted by: Dave Pasinski | November 5, 2007 9:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Bush era of "compassionate conservatism" has always been a slogan without substance. We should not surprised that debt, environmental issues, and inadequate health care has been piled on our children. The larger question is whether there are any leaders who can muster a sense of vision for baby boomers like myself and others to see beyond our own pleasures and "toys" and are willing to invest in the generation that will be wheeling us around. A meditation for Bush et al is the old Cat Stevens song "Cat's in the Cradle" -- no time for children's health and world now, don't expect much in 20 years or less.
Posted by: Dave Pasinski | November 5, 2007 9:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Bush era of "compassionatte conservatism" has always been a slogan without substance. We should not surprised that debt, environmental issues, and inadequate health care has been piled on our children. The larger question is whether there are any leaders who can muster a sense of vision for baby boomers like myself and others to see beyond our own pleasures and "toys" and are willing to invest in the generation that will be wheeling us around. A meditation for Bush et al is the old Cat Stevens song "Cat's in the Cradle" -- no time for children's health and world now, don't expect much in 20 years or less.
Posted by: Dave Pasinski | November 5, 2007 9:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Only legislation has put in place the moral pillars necessary to make a moral society.
The religions have been a complete failure since the invention of "faith".
Witness that the "good christians" in Southern States stopped lynching blacks as laws were enacted to exact a price IN THIS LIFE for immoral behaviour.
Note that even the "good christian" mormons toed the line when the Great Society legislation was enacted. Now black males can "hold the priesthood". (well as long as they pay their money).
Nooses?
They have never been out of style among the hypocritical, southern and midwestern, "good christian", rednecks; but, Blacks are now protected from these "good christians".
The point.
Legistation is responsible for raising the bar of morality, i.e. conservatives are forced to be moral via threat of prosecution.
Health Care?
"good christians" have done nothing to provide for children's healthcare except as it has provided a tax deduction for the wealthy.
The "inconvienent truth"?
The churches use donations to further their existence, not for charity as Jesus encouraged.
Sadly, an immoral society tends to vote for immoral candidates, e.g. George Bush and the majority of republicans.
Nevertheless, little by little, we achieve a more moral society via legislation (FDR, JFK, LBJ) - not faith (we also lose morality via legislation Hitler, Lenin, Reagan, Bushes 1 & 2).
Posted by: George | November 5, 2007 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Given the characters at the front of the pack maybe we'll be in better hands with the Devil.
Posted by: Mad Love | November 5, 2007 6:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I hear and second you, Henry James!
Posted by: Gaby | November 2, 2007 4:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Unfortunately,
Professor Niebuhr,
you got this one just about right.
(Gulp)
Posted by: Henry James | November 2, 2007 3:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Dave Pasinski:
Denying poor kids health care is just dress rehearsal for denying boomers medicare. Haven't you heard, the system is going broke. And, it's been going broke even before it was a system. You wouldn't hire a contractor that said it couldn't be built yet you've hired a manager that says it can't be managed.
You, as a boomer have two things to worry about. The first is getting amnesty for illegal aliens so they can afford to buy your house and give you the retirement money you've been counting on. Then there is the matter, as you put it, "getting wheeled around." Those undocumented aliens serve both of your needs, someone to wheel you and the money to pay for it.
Those who don't rely on government are never disappointed while those that do are rarely gratified. We got the best government money can buy bought with your money. They're hoping you "hold your breath" waiting for them to take care of you, "wheel you around" so that won't be necessary. The real question is, will you disappoint them and vote for the other party that's just as corrupt as them. Maybe amnesty?