In a two party system, being a good person often means proving the other guy is a bad one. This has never been more apparent than in the healthcare debate. But despite their disagreements, both sides seem to agree on the rules of engagement: overly simplistic rhetoric, playground name-calling and fear-tactics.
What the argument comes down to is how one defines the term “right.” Before such philosophers as Locke and Hegel, the term right referred to “that which was right to do.” Over time the term evolved into something that was possessive. Someone could have a right.
That is the root of the debate: One side is arguing that people have a right to the money they earn, the other is arguing that it is right to help others.
I don’t claim to know whether or not the healthcare bill is going to lead us to utopia or apocalypse. What scares me is how both sides of the argument are exchanging their humanity for popularity.
Charles Taylor once said, “a self can never be described without reference to those who surround it.” The rights of the individual cannot be seen outside of the context of the other.
With a 99% change during the amendment process and a 405,898 word increase, this is hardly the same bill that the we saw at its introduction. Now it's just a platform for people to throw their opinions at. The healthcare debate may never be over. Sometimes, the only logical response is to laugh.
Ryan, I found your argument to be a very convincing one. There are many ways to define the term "right," and you seem to hit the two ways the two political parties are defining it. Your post was a bit of an eye opener for me and my opinion on healthcare.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, we've got the people who feel they have a right to the money they earn, which makes perfect sense, and is completely reasonable. We shouldn't force others to be generous with their money, especially if they can't be sure that the people receiving their tax dollars actually deserve it.
On the other hand, we've got the people who believe it is "right to help others." This made me think, "Are we really doing the healthcare reform to help others?"
I think the answer to that thought is: Yes. Yes we are. We are doing this to help other people so that we as a nation can come closer together. I think that over the years, we have grown more independent as a people, and we no longer feel the need to work together unless we get a direct benefit ourselves. Whether or not this is a step in the right direction or not is up to everyone to decide.
I definitely agree with some of the points made in this post, and the response as well. We have a right to our money, but we are also a part of the greater whole as a nation. The two party system is one that is completely flawed, and sets the two parties against each other, instead of being united.
ReplyDeleteThe health care bill has been completely changed since it started out, as it was stated they've added over 400,000 words to it. But at the same time, public opinion in the nation has changed just as much. The democrats' and republicans' opinions on the matter and subtle nuances of the bill are shifting constantly, and no one can seem to figure out what we really should be doing.
Health care is just the latest argument that the government is torn over. The democratic system is put in place to make decisions for us. The bill will be completely reformed time and time again until every tiny detail of it can be figured out, and the two parties can at least somewhat agree. They will never agree on it 100%, but as long as we can get a majority, the law states that that will suffice.
I don't think it'll end in apocalypse, but even if we find the perfect solution it won't be utopia either.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with you that Democrats and Republicans both try to prove that the other is bad. There is always a lot of name calling and finger pointing going on in Washing DC. The health care debate seems to be showing the parties true colors.
Television news stations such as Fox, CNN, and MSNBC also help to reiterate their political bias. All of the analysts try to prove that the other party has it all wrong and nothing seems to get accomplished. God forbid a politician or analyst admits to being wrong. We wouldn't want to disappoint our party.
I would think that in most cases that if you have the money you don't want to be told how to spend it, which makes sense. The other side thinks that the wealth should be spread out more evenly. Both sides of the debate make good points but I don’t think anyone can say that the other is totally right or wrong.
I thought your first link did a good job explaining the meaning of the word "Right". It showed how the word has transcended over time. Over all you made great points.