For the last thirty years, in much of the English-speaking world [...] when asking ourselves whether we support a proposal or initiative, we have not asked, is it good or bad? Instead we inquire: Is it efficient? Is it productive? Would it benefit gross domestic product? Will it contribute to growth?
I agree that these are important considerations, but should we give these questions greater weight than, say, ethical considerations or questions of human dignity?
A recent example, of course, is the debate in Congress regarding extension of unemployment benefits. The tone of the Right's argument (in addition to being generally offensive) was that unemployment benefits were "too expensive" and that the unemployed were "too lazy," and therefore, extending unemployment benefits was not acceptable--end of debate. Obviously, this idea didn't play well with their constituents, so eventually unemployment benefits were renewed, but it left me wondering how we've managed to convince ourselves that if something costs money and doesn't directly benefit corporate financial interests, then somehow its "too expensive" and "un-American"?
The answer is pretty simple--we're a brainwashed nation that will believe anything we see on TV. But in all seriousness: When did the "the American Dream"--i.e., "freedom" and pursuit of happiness--become inextricably linked with finance? Is this really what we mean by the American Dream? When we say "freedom" do we mean "freedom to make a profit"? Similarly, when we say "pursuit of happiness" do we mean "pursuit of our own interests regardless of what implications those interests might have for the common good"?
Recently, I posed these questions to a fellow American who told me that basically Americans just want to be left alone. They don't want to be bothered by government intrusion because they only care about their own interests. The emphasis of the "American Dream" is therefore on individual pursuit--in opposition (one assumes) to collective well-being. My response was, of course, to point out that for a society that claims to be based on Christian values (regardless of whether or not these claims are true), our rejection of social well-being seems a tad hypocritical.
When you think about it for a minute and deconstruct the word "society," you get "social," "socialism," "socialist." But unfortunately, we're told in America that Socialism is a terrible solution (because we saw it on TV) and that Capitalism (which leads to centralization of power and the exploitation of the working class) is the only system of government worthy of our consideration.
I find it ironic that we think of ourselves as a "democracy." Without the "social" aspect of democracy, aren't we basically just slaves to the corporate plutocracy? What would be the harm in taking some of the "capital" out of our capitalist democracy and reinvesting it in collective, social policy? We pay nearly the same taxes as a socialist democracy but with none of the benefits. Instead we get endless oil wars (because someone somewhere is making a profit) and no healthcare (because you make a better profit in denying care than giving it away for "free"). Are financial costs really the only costs worth considering?
