There is no political party in this country representing my interests, my values or my culture.

Sure, I'm a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, but that's only because I disagree with them the least not because I actually agree with their whole platform. I spent some time today reflecting on that and what I consider the greatest ill of the United States: our priorities as a nation are completely devoid of any kind of sense whatsoever.

We have no national enemy anymore, but we're spending billions of dollars to defend ourselves against one. Our new enemy, Militant Islamic Extremists, do not fight traditional wars and we're unequipped to deal with their guerrilla, terrorist tactics. Meanwhile, we can't be bothered to educate our kids properly, graduating a nation of illiterates both in the arts and sciences. Worse, a lot of these kids are going hungry because families can't provide for their basic needs.

What the hell is going on here? Why do we have mentally ill homeless people roaming the streets but we can sure find hundreds of billions of dollars in the couch cushions to pick fights with middle eastern countries who didn't attack us? Why do we treat the symptoms of drug abuse by throwing people in prison rather than addressing its causes by treating those people (a more cost-effective approach in the long run)?

Why do we vilify the "rich" when it comes time to cut taxes, but we're more than happy to rely on them to foot a disproportionate amount of the bill when it comes time to pay for services for the middle class and the poor? How is their money earned any less valuable to them than ours?

Why do we talk about only one side of social welfare-- offering assistance to those in need-- without addressing the responsibilities of the aided? Why do we talk about freedom of choice on one hand, but government takeovers of all of health care on the other? Isn't economic freedom of choice important too?

Humor me in my using a movie cliché to illustrate a point. In the movie "A Beautiful Mind," the embellished character of John Nash asserts than Adam Smith's theories on the pursuit of self-interest are incomplete. He realizes that if people pursue their self-interests and the interests of the group that all will benefit. And that is what it means to be a centrist in this nation today.

I'll elaborate. I believe that our society is best-off when everyone can take care of himself without the aid of the state. I think it's difficult to argue otherwise. But I also recognize that our economy cycles and the world market evolves over time. People just get down on their luck sometimes. Should we treat these people with some kind of draconian darwinist policy and say "sorry, you failed. Too bad." That might be in the best self-interest of the person saying it. But this policy is short-sighted. It would be in the best interest of the group to consider getting this person back on his feet: then they're productive, less likely to commit crimes or wander the streets, and they're paying taxes like everybody else.

On the flip side, it's in the best self-interest of the person receiving assistance to do nothing about his situation. Why work when you're getting your basic needs met by the state? This attitude is not in the best interest of the group. The whole group suffers if it has to drag somebody along behind it as it moves. This also gets back to the notion of the responsibility of the aided I mentioned above.

The staunchest Libertarians would say that all education should be privatized and that the state should not interfere. I think this, too, is short-sighted. We're all better off as a society when we have to deal with as few stupid people as possible. I know I hate dealing with stupid people. How do we reduce the number of stupid people to the benefit of all? We educate them. Really educate them. We educate the poor. We educate the rich. We educate the middle class. The individual benefits. The group benefits.

Conversely, what would happen if all education was privatized? The wealthier students would receive a good education but the poor students... well, who knows what happens to them. Considering that a proper education may be exactly what's needed to break the cycle of poverty for a family (of individuals), thereby reducing the social welfare burden on the whole group, wouldn't it make sense to make that investment to the benefit of everybody? It's good for the individual. It's good for the group. Everyone benefits.

This type of reasoning applies to countless other systems. Consider health care for example. Call me crazy, but I'm completely satisfied with my health care. It's provided through my employer. I see the doctor of my choice. I have a say in my treatment when I fall ill or hurt myself. It's working out perfectly for me. As far as my self-interest goes, my needs are met.

Someone with no health care isn't doing so well. She's happy with her situation until she falls ill or hurts herself. Then the lack of insurance becomes a significant burden. Worse, she becomes a burden on everyone else's health care costs; when someone can't pay for their emergency room visit, guess who foots the bill!

But the political discourse in this country is so polarized that we rarely hear of a policy for those who are currently uninsured that makes any sense. I don't have the perfect solution myself. If I did, I'd probably be a really popular guy. But can we not allow for people who have a system that's working for them, while providing for quality health care for people without an employer as generous as mine, yet limiting the burden on the whole group by acknowledging the responsibility of the aided not to use the system frivolously?

Is that so much to ask?

On a related note, why is it that in this polarized political discourse, nobody has the courage to stand up and say, "I don't have the perfect solution?" Why did "I don't know" become such political suicide? Why can't we admit that complicated problems require complicated discussions with complicated solutions that may not be right the first time? How are extreme positions on any of these issues actually helping any individuals or the larger group?

When can political discourse in this country start to include the center?

---Nick

vote FOR this article vote AGAINST this article flag as spam/abuse
Log in if you are spatula for more options. 
Find similar articles