We're citizens of the United States. United? Lately, not very.
Sure, after a traumatic event, we can unite in common cause. But not always with entirely good results.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 caused Americans to rise up as one - almost, but not quite. Hard-working loyal American citizens of Japanese descent were rounded up and imprisoned in camps for the duration of the war. Their property was confiscated and never returned to them. Even with that, many Japanese Americans volunteered for the Army and served in combat with distinction.
African Americans served in segregated units. Those who served honorably returned to a nation that did not afford them equality under the law.
During WWI, discrimination against citizens of German descent impelled many to Anglicize their names - "Braun" to "Brown" and "Schmidt" to "Smith," for example. There were scattered incidents of burning German books.
The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 caused Americans to unite in anger, though not in a rational way. This included incidents against Muslims in general, and invasion of Iraq that, in the opinion of many of us, contributed nothing - was even counterproductive - to stabilization of the Middle East and protection from terrorists.
Yet, even with exceptions such as those cited above, WWII united American citizens in ways that are no longer. As the two oceans and limited range of enemy aircraft prevented direct enemy attack on our citizens and industrial plant, Americans prospered from war-induced government spending.
Incomes of a broad segment of American society increased dramatically. As production was oriented to wartime needs, income that could not be spent on consumer goods was saved, strengthening household balance sheets. These savings enabled post-war civilian spending to satisfy pent up demands accrued through a decade of economic depression and four years of war.
Accumulated savings, bargaining power of labor unions, and emergence of America as the production powerhouse of the world, all contributed to generally rising prosperity of working people. Compared to today, corporate culture was oriented more toward labor than to the demands of Wall Street. A progressive income tax reduced disparity of after-tax incomes relative to the 1920s, and the increased disparity existing today. While not quite everybody shared in the prosperity, the post-WWII era through the 1970s is generally considered the Golden Age of American Capitalism.
Another unifying aspect of WWII not generally recognized is that military service was a common experience among our nation's lawmakers. Whatever their differences in how to solve problems, they were Americans, had faced death, and wanted to solve problems. For example, South Dakota's liberal Democratic Senator, George McGovern, and conservative - well maybe not by today's standards - Republican Kansas Senator Bob Dole could work together and put nation above political party. Both were decorated combat vets, McGovern a bomber pilot and Dole an Army infantryman.
It's not that all was peaches and cream - political divisiveness is not new. Some of us still recall the ranting of Wisconsin's "Titus Oates," tail gunner Joe McCarthy, and his Communist witch hunts. But generally politicians such as the prairie state solons McGovern and Dole respected each other and could put nation above partisan politics.
This kind of common experience and desire to solve the nation's problems no longer exists. My previous column discussed the cultural divide between armed forces personnel and a shrinking minority of civilians who have ever had that experience. But there are many other kinds of "divides" working against cooperative solution of problems and issues. One of these is the unhealthy - no pun intended - division and rancor over access to health care.
The nation is divided between those who have affordable access to health care and those who don't. Fortunately, most Americans have access, either through employer provided, or government provided plans, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. Others are affluent enough that they can purchase private plans. The insured includes most middle class families, nearly all upper middle class, and virtually all wealthy people, lawmakers at state and federal levels, and the chattering class of the national media through which the news is broadcast - er, filtered.
If our lawmakers and the babbling class, including those in the commercial media and NPR, didn't have access to affordable health care, you can bet that the "news" delivered to us on this issue would be entirely different than what we have been fed.
Those who don't have affordable health care include the working poor, most part-time workers, people with pre-existing conditions, and workers whose jobs have been off-shored or outsourced, and who are not yet eligible for Medicare. As a group, they are not politically well connected, hence generally ignored. Without access to affordable health insurance, the uninsured either go untreated, or eventually end up in emergency rooms and, one way or another, somebody picks up the tab. Either case is undesirable.
In other words, it's a matter of responsibility for everyone to be insured, including the apparently young and healthy. And if an individual can't afford health insurance, it is lower cost and more efficient to publicly subsidize purchase of insurance than to let them go untreated or to pick up the tab in other ways.
Yet, if these polls are accurate, a significant number of people who have health insurance are opposed to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
If politicians opposing the ACA wanted to solve the problem of the uninsured, they would work with those who do, or produce their own credible plan. Their credibility on this issue is reduced as the ACA contains the basic elements that present critics proposed a decade ago, insurance and provision of health care both provided by the private sector.
Affordable access to health care is essential on both equity and efficiency grounds. But clearly, the nation is divided on this issue. Sadly, instead of seeking solution, too many politicians seek power through this division.
Next week: More national divides.
- John Waelti's column appears in the Times every Friday. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
Sure, after a traumatic event, we can unite in common cause. But not always with entirely good results.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 caused Americans to rise up as one - almost, but not quite. Hard-working loyal American citizens of Japanese descent were rounded up and imprisoned in camps for the duration of the war. Their property was confiscated and never returned to them. Even with that, many Japanese Americans volunteered for the Army and served in combat with distinction.
African Americans served in segregated units. Those who served honorably returned to a nation that did not afford them equality under the law.
During WWI, discrimination against citizens of German descent impelled many to Anglicize their names - "Braun" to "Brown" and "Schmidt" to "Smith," for example. There were scattered incidents of burning German books.
The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 caused Americans to unite in anger, though not in a rational way. This included incidents against Muslims in general, and invasion of Iraq that, in the opinion of many of us, contributed nothing - was even counterproductive - to stabilization of the Middle East and protection from terrorists.
Yet, even with exceptions such as those cited above, WWII united American citizens in ways that are no longer. As the two oceans and limited range of enemy aircraft prevented direct enemy attack on our citizens and industrial plant, Americans prospered from war-induced government spending.
Incomes of a broad segment of American society increased dramatically. As production was oriented to wartime needs, income that could not be spent on consumer goods was saved, strengthening household balance sheets. These savings enabled post-war civilian spending to satisfy pent up demands accrued through a decade of economic depression and four years of war.
Accumulated savings, bargaining power of labor unions, and emergence of America as the production powerhouse of the world, all contributed to generally rising prosperity of working people. Compared to today, corporate culture was oriented more toward labor than to the demands of Wall Street. A progressive income tax reduced disparity of after-tax incomes relative to the 1920s, and the increased disparity existing today. While not quite everybody shared in the prosperity, the post-WWII era through the 1970s is generally considered the Golden Age of American Capitalism.
Another unifying aspect of WWII not generally recognized is that military service was a common experience among our nation's lawmakers. Whatever their differences in how to solve problems, they were Americans, had faced death, and wanted to solve problems. For example, South Dakota's liberal Democratic Senator, George McGovern, and conservative - well maybe not by today's standards - Republican Kansas Senator Bob Dole could work together and put nation above political party. Both were decorated combat vets, McGovern a bomber pilot and Dole an Army infantryman.
It's not that all was peaches and cream - political divisiveness is not new. Some of us still recall the ranting of Wisconsin's "Titus Oates," tail gunner Joe McCarthy, and his Communist witch hunts. But generally politicians such as the prairie state solons McGovern and Dole respected each other and could put nation above partisan politics.
This kind of common experience and desire to solve the nation's problems no longer exists. My previous column discussed the cultural divide between armed forces personnel and a shrinking minority of civilians who have ever had that experience. But there are many other kinds of "divides" working against cooperative solution of problems and issues. One of these is the unhealthy - no pun intended - division and rancor over access to health care.
The nation is divided between those who have affordable access to health care and those who don't. Fortunately, most Americans have access, either through employer provided, or government provided plans, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. Others are affluent enough that they can purchase private plans. The insured includes most middle class families, nearly all upper middle class, and virtually all wealthy people, lawmakers at state and federal levels, and the chattering class of the national media through which the news is broadcast - er, filtered.
If our lawmakers and the babbling class, including those in the commercial media and NPR, didn't have access to affordable health care, you can bet that the "news" delivered to us on this issue would be entirely different than what we have been fed.
Those who don't have affordable health care include the working poor, most part-time workers, people with pre-existing conditions, and workers whose jobs have been off-shored or outsourced, and who are not yet eligible for Medicare. As a group, they are not politically well connected, hence generally ignored. Without access to affordable health insurance, the uninsured either go untreated, or eventually end up in emergency rooms and, one way or another, somebody picks up the tab. Either case is undesirable.
In other words, it's a matter of responsibility for everyone to be insured, including the apparently young and healthy. And if an individual can't afford health insurance, it is lower cost and more efficient to publicly subsidize purchase of insurance than to let them go untreated or to pick up the tab in other ways.
Yet, if these polls are accurate, a significant number of people who have health insurance are opposed to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
If politicians opposing the ACA wanted to solve the problem of the uninsured, they would work with those who do, or produce their own credible plan. Their credibility on this issue is reduced as the ACA contains the basic elements that present critics proposed a decade ago, insurance and provision of health care both provided by the private sector.
Affordable access to health care is essential on both equity and efficiency grounds. But clearly, the nation is divided on this issue. Sadly, instead of seeking solution, too many politicians seek power through this division.
Next week: More national divides.
- John Waelti's column appears in the Times every Friday. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
