The battle lines are still drawn
One
of the biggest hoaxes of American history is that the Civil War ended
back in 1865. Unfortunately, it has not ended yet. What was achieved
back then was an armistice, similar to the situation between the two
Koreas.
As the current logjam in the U.S. Congress makes plain,
the Civil War is still very present in today’s America – and with
virulence that most other civilized nations find as breathtaking as it
is irresponsible.
There are plenty of U.S. commentators now who
try to make light of the current situation in their country. They argue
that it is just a bunch of crazy Tea Party Republicans that are causing
the current mayhem. Such an interpretation underestimates the forces of
history and the
continuing deep divisions of American society.
The
reason why the Civil War was declared finished, according to the
history books, is the military defeat of the South and its secessionist
forces. But can anyone seriously doubt that the same anti-Union spirit
is still to be heard loud and clear in the halls of the U.S. Congress
today?
Not just health care, rather a cultural battle
The
fight against Obamacare is cast by Republicans as fighting the
authoritarian – and, in the words of some conservative commentators,
“fascist” – views of the Obama Administration and what they label as the
American left. Meanwhile, in their own eyes, the Republicans are
fighting the good fight of staking out the democratic (!) and
libertarian political high ground, all in the defense of “freedom.”
This
underscores that what is really going on in Washington today is a
replay of the Kulturkampf, a period of German history that occurred in
the 1870s. At the time, that country’s modernizing forces resolved to
fight back against the economically retarding influence of conservative
religious forces, mainly the Catholic Church.
Germany’s mid-19th
century Catholic Church, a very powerful economic force at the time,
fiercely resisted any suggestions of modernizing the social structures
of society – just as many Republicans do now. It sought to preserve the
economic power of the well established, largely feudal-era interests,
i.e., its own – much as Republicans do now.
The
fight in Washington thus is not about any of the things in the
headlines, be it the budget, debt or “Obamacare.” These are merely
proxies in a much more fundamental battle over the future structure of
American society.
Democrats want those structures to be opened up,
to create more economic rights for the underprivileged, so that the
national economy can grow in the future. To Republicans, any investment
in these and other long-term causes is a net negative on what they see
as their core mission – defending the interests of rich Americans.
Really about who has economic power
Thus,
we are largely dealing with a battle over redistributing shares of
economic power, covered up in the clothing of cultural values. That is
why it is so bitterly fought. To either side, the entire future of the
country is at stake.
The proper way to understand the slavery
issue as well as the health care law, therefore, is to see them as
symbols of much deeper conflicts.
As it turns out, even the
parallel developments in the legislative process are amazing. Slavery
was formally abolished in the United States in 1865 and, for a few
years, in the period of Reconstruction, there seemed to be a will to
move the country ahead.
But even back then, the intended key
reform component was never really followed through. That step was
setting up a bank that would also get involved in granting freed slaves
loans, so that they could build a prosperous future for themselves and
their families.
The so-called Freedman’s Bureau met a fate similar
to what today’s Republicans have in mind for the health care law, which
they call “Obamacare.”
The Freedman’s Bureau lingered on for a
few years, before it essentially faded away. The economic, social and
cultural consequences of condemning freed slaves essentially to a life
of continued servitude, albeit of another kind, are well known. They are
the root cause of the culture of dependence that sadly continues to
this day – and that today’s Republicans are quick to use as a
justification not to do more for African-Americans.
The Affordable
Health Care Act passed the U.S. Congress, just as the Freedman’s Bureau
had been established in 1865. With their countless defunding moves, the
Republicans are pursuing a similar strategy, as was the case with the
Freedman’s Bureau before. In today’s case, they are trying to prevent
that nationwide access to health care can truly become reality in the
land. Amazing how history repeats itself.
Fundamental shifts in the two parties
Of
course, there is one very important distinction – and one that should
truly make today’s Republicans squirm. In the case of the U.S. Civil War
of 1861-65, it was the Republicans, who were mostly found in the north
at the time, who were the political force aligned against slavery
(President Lincoln was a Republican), while it was Southern Democrats
who fiercely resisted its abolition, as well as resisting the Civil
Rights Act one hundred years later.
In essence, now the South is once again rebelling against modernizing shifts of American society. Today,
in one of the great political realignments of modern politics, that region is the power base of Republicans.
The
equivalent of politically and economically freeing the slaves back then
is now granting health care access to all Americans. In either case,
the old order is about to be toppled and that leads especially
Southerners and white conservatives everywhere, to fear for the end of
the United States, as they know it.
Back then, they felt the
abolition of slavery and the economic independence of blacks had to be
prevented at all costs because the Southern state economies and their
leaders’ personal wealth depended on slavery and the economic
suppression of the ultimate underclass.
Now, the move by Obama to
declare that the state plays a role in securing that all Americans are
under the umbrella of health insurance plays the role of the
secessionist cause.
The old confederacy and Medicaid
Look
at the list of state governors who refused to expand the medical program
for low-income people (Medicaid) and compare that to the list of states
that fought to preserve slavery. There is an amazing overlap.
Ten of the Eleven Former Confederate States Are Not Participating in the Expansion of Medicaid
Participating: ArkansasNot Participating:
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee (may reverse rejection), Texas and Virginia |
Medicaid
expansion plans (as of July 2013) versus historic Confederacy: Opting
in = blue, opting out = red, under debate = gray. Flags = ex-Confederate
states. (Medicaid map by Sb101 –
Wikipedia. Adapted by The Globalist.)
There
is one more big irony to be pointed out in a historic context: It would
be a great injustice to conservatives anywhere on the planet to agree
with U.S. Republicans that opposing health insurance coverage for the
entire population is conservative in any sense of the word.
One of
the world’s greatest archconservatives, the then German Chancellor Otto
von Bismarck, introduced health coverage for all Germans as far back as
1883. What is it about U.S. “conservatives” that, by 2013 – 130 years
after Bismarck –
they cannot muster the same degree of enlightenment as Bismarck?
The present state of affairs runs amazingly counter to
America’s global ideology.
According to its self-promotion, the United States casts itself as the
modernizing vanguard of humanity. In light of what’s going on in
Washington today, it is evident that close to half of the U.S. Congress
wants an America that is more conservative than Bismarck’s 1880s
Germany.
This article originally appeared on The Globalist.
No comments:
Post a Comment