Why did the sixties lead to a more conservative movement in America? What were the characteristics of this movement and how do they connect directly back to the sixties?
Conservative leadership dominated the political scene in the years after the sixties in an attempt to recover ideals threatened by the sixties vision. These conservative ideals were basically everything which sixties activists opposed, including objectivity, uniformity, rationality, and capitalism. While the sixties served to legitimize emotion and morality, the policies of conservative leaders, specifically Reagan and Bush, trampled on this democratic vision. Conservatives refused to recognize flaws in American capitalism and presented immoral propaganda to the public, such as claiming American “victory” in the Cold War and declaring “longest peacetime prosperity.” In reality, the conservative mentality resulted in low points such as a revival of the KKK, an increased desire for material acquisition, and corporate excess. Additionally, Reagan’s “privatism” reflects the schism between his policy and the sixties as the sixties stressed the importance of community.
Since the election of President Obama, the concept of privatism has taken a severe blow as we march closer and closer toward socialism. The broader social policies that President Obama and the Democratic Congress are trying to pass such as single payer healthcare, cap and trade environmental controls, employee free choice and mandatory paid sick leave (to name a few) will have a negative impact on U.S. society as more and more dollars are needed to pay for these massive social programs. As has been stated by several Democratic leaders in Congress, the goal is a massive wealth redistribution from the "haves" to the "have nots," which will only hurt our society. Rather than following a capitalitic agenda where entrepreneural spirit, innovation and risk taking are rewarded, the present socialist agenda forces everyone to the lowest common denominator.
Lauren...well stated, and your response is what I like to see, even though I disagree with much of what you have say. Do you-- or does anyone-- think that the excesses of "privatism" (which certainly helped bring about our economic problems, our environmental problems and our "broken" health care system) need to be addressed in some way? Just wondering.
I come from the other end of the political spectrum I suppose so here we go.
First, privatism has made the United States one of the least efficient systems in the world (if not the absolute least). Under the private healthcare system we spend around 16% of the GDP on healthcare, whereas all the other socialist systems (Read: pick and choose any developed nation except the US) generally spend somehwere around 7-8% of their GDPs largely because socialized systems can't be gamed for money like they are here. Second, the lack of controls over private company growth leads to rampant bad business practices. I mean, you can look far back to Antitrust laws back in the days of Rockefeller for obvious examples of why private industries need at least some government control to prevent things like monopoly, but in the current system, we see that excessive privatism not only allows for bad practices like subprime mortgages and preexisting conditions to go unnoticed, but it also hurts the general economy when large corporate powers have the free reign to do it excessively for profits (i.e. recession). At the same time, a lack of controls on privatism destroys the rest of the private sector when smaller companies is boxed out of competition, especially since healthcare costs are exorbitantly expensive and largely forced into the hands of employers.
But even if you ignore the pragmatic benefits of government regulation over economic endeavors I think there's a moral immediacy to expanding healthcare... I don't think you need to talk in pragmatics to understand that all people just ought to have healthcare. It seems vastly unfair to say that because you got sick and you didn't have enough money to afford good health coverage that therefore you should be left in the abyss (especially since once again, pragmatically, that hurts the general economy when people don't use preventative healthcare due to costs). Yeah. Some socialized system in my opinion is a moral necessity.
Conservative leadership dominated the political scene in the years after the sixties in an attempt to recover ideals threatened by the sixties vision. These conservative ideals were basically everything which sixties activists opposed, including objectivity, uniformity, rationality, and capitalism. While the sixties served to legitimize emotion and morality, the policies of conservative leaders, specifically Reagan and Bush, trampled on this democratic vision. Conservatives refused to recognize flaws in American capitalism and presented immoral propaganda to the public, such as claiming American “victory” in the Cold War and declaring “longest peacetime prosperity.” In reality, the conservative mentality resulted in low points such as a revival of the KKK, an increased desire for material acquisition, and corporate excess. Additionally, Reagan’s “privatism” reflects the schism between his policy and the sixties as the sixties stressed the importance of community.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone think that the "privatism," as a counter-reaction to the sixties, affects us today?
ReplyDeleteSince the election of President Obama, the concept of privatism has taken a severe blow as we march closer and closer toward socialism. The broader social policies that President Obama and the Democratic Congress are trying to pass such as single payer healthcare, cap and trade environmental controls, employee free choice and mandatory paid sick leave (to name a few) will have a negative impact on U.S. society as more and more dollars are needed to pay for these massive social programs. As has been stated by several Democratic leaders in Congress, the goal is a massive wealth redistribution from the "haves" to the "have nots," which will only hurt our society. Rather than following a capitalitic agenda where entrepreneural spirit, innovation and risk taking are rewarded, the present socialist agenda forces everyone to the lowest common denominator.
ReplyDeleteLauren...well stated, and your response is what I like to see, even though I disagree with much of what you have say. Do you-- or does anyone-- think that the excesses of "privatism" (which certainly helped bring about our economic problems, our environmental problems and our "broken" health care system) need to be addressed in some way? Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteI come from the other end of the political spectrum I suppose so here we go.
ReplyDeleteFirst, privatism has made the United States one of the least efficient systems in the world (if not the absolute least). Under the private healthcare system we spend around 16% of the GDP on healthcare, whereas all the other socialist systems (Read: pick and choose any developed nation except the US) generally spend somehwere around 7-8% of their GDPs largely because socialized systems can't be gamed for money like they are here. Second, the lack of controls over private company growth leads to rampant bad business practices. I mean, you can look far back to Antitrust laws back in the days of Rockefeller for obvious examples of why private industries need at least some government control to prevent things like monopoly, but in the current system, we see that excessive privatism not only allows for bad practices like subprime mortgages and preexisting conditions to go unnoticed, but it also hurts the general economy when large corporate powers have the free reign to do it excessively for profits (i.e. recession). At the same time, a lack of controls on privatism destroys the rest of the private sector when smaller companies is boxed out of competition, especially since healthcare costs are exorbitantly expensive and largely forced into the hands of employers.
But even if you ignore the pragmatic benefits of government regulation over economic endeavors I think there's a moral immediacy to expanding healthcare... I don't think you need to talk in pragmatics to understand that all people just ought to have healthcare. It seems vastly unfair to say that because you got sick and you didn't have enough money to afford good health coverage that therefore you should be left in the abyss (especially since once again, pragmatically, that hurts the general economy when people don't use preventative healthcare due to costs). Yeah. Some socialized system in my opinion is a moral necessity.
Gotta go again. Be back later.