When did Conservatives become as dogmatic as Socialists?

My problem with the conservative position on health care reform is that it's all based off a misnomer - the automatic, dogmatic assumption that the unfettered free market is best for everybody.

That's simply not true - as recent history has uncompromisingly taught us.

Look at the housing market. Democrats like Barney Franks fought tooth and nail against regulation (which the Bush administration proposed, time and again) and, as a result, the market blew up into a bubble...

...and collapsed.

By this time next year, half of American mortgages will be 'underwater' - with borrowers owing more than their house will ever realistically be worth again.

[Wait - didn't Militant Ginger blame the collapse of the housing market on too much government interference before? Read this post and see if he's contradicting himself. Editorial Bear]

Unregulated, the free market is a permanent cycle of 'boom and bust,' which is is simply not an acceptable model to adopt when dealing with something as essential as a nation's health care.

That's not to argue against private industry, capitalism or the free market playing the largest part in the health care. It just can't be the only part - because if it is, what happens when the 'free market' goes wrong?

Which is does, infrequently, but catastrophically.

Take Social Security, for example. During the election, conservatives often proposed 'privatizing' Social Security, by giving people the opportunity to pay up to 75% of their mandated payroll payments into private funds rather than the Social Security itself.

(In fact, I advocated the exact same thing in March 2008.)

It was a great idea, before 'the crash.' In 2007, 401k and private retirement accounts offered considerably bigger payouts than Social Security, which was (and continues to be) heading towards bankruptcy.

But last year's devastating economic collapse wiped out some people's private savings accounts and 401ks. Mine lost something like 94% at one point - which is terrifying considering that some people were forced to cash in their private retirement funds when they'd lost 50%/60% of their value.

Imagine if they didn't have the cushion of boring, bankrupt, dependable Social Security? Imagine if they'd taken their 75% of payroll payments and put them into those private retirement fund instead? Ask THEM whether the free market worked better than government-run Social Security, when they'd watched almost half of their life savings dissolve away before their eyes.

In this instance, the free market system didn't work better.

And that's the rub, really.

While I believe the emphasis on society should always be entrepreneurship and private enterprise, it's become increasingly apparent that the free market can't be relied upon to 'always be right' - and however bad the government 'solution' to the free market weakness might be, they've usually got enough taxpayer clout to make it work.

Regular contributor Tom, for example, recently used the example of 'cash for clunkers,' suggesting it was a failure:

"Take a look at cash for clunkers. The program is 200-300% over budget, because the government overestimated demand for its services...

...and it would be further over budget if it hadn't been shut down early. Payment for the dealers, which was promised to happen in 10 days, has been overdue for weeks, causing several dealers to drop out of the program.

Now, ask yourself... are these the people you want managing your health care?"

Are you kidding? By those standards, 'cash for clunkers' was a blistering success!

It actually got people into the showrooms - and buying cars. That's why it ran out of money so quickly, because it worked!

Certainly, there are criticisms of how slowly it paid out and how bureaucratic it was, but 'cash for clunkers' still boosted sales for GM and Ford in a way that - you guessed it - the free market couldn't.

The 'free market' had led to the virtual collapse of the American car industry, whereas the much-criticized ‘cash for clunkers’ boosted sales for the first time since 2007. That means it wasn’t a failure, judging by it's impact on the car industry..

The simple fact is that the unregulated free market GETS THINGS WRONG from time to time - and, in a mixed economy, the government's there to pick up the pieces.

Now, I'm not advocating a socialist state, or expanding the powers and influence of government until they reach the same level as, say, Britain or France. One of the reasons I love living in America is because it embraces the opportunities of the free market (as well as its risks.)

But I just don't know where the conservative's dogmatic insistence that the free market is always right comes from. It's not.

If the events of the last year have taught me anything, it's that our 'mixed' economy in America is something of a blessing - and that the conservatives who believe the 'free market' is entirely infallible are simply no better than the idiots who believe in socialism or communism.

"Moderation in all things," said Benjamin Franklin. "Including moderation."

Today's message from the Conservatives...

* except for publically funded, government operated; police departments, refuse collection, postal service, public schools, public libraries, metro transport, regional trains, the subway, state and federal highway agencies and many other all-American 'socialist' institutions .

Thanks to Danimo for inspiring this post.

Who Am I? The Answer!

I'll admit, I tried to lead you all down the garden fence with yesterday's competition - but I'm still surprised nobody got it.

The answer wasn't Barack Obama, despite the similarities with the quotes and policies I highlighted.

The answer to 'Who Am I?' is actually 31st President of the United States: Herbert Clark Hoover.

For a guy who's been dead for almost half a century, old 'Wonder Boy' Hoover has been getting a lot of column inches in the press recently: I'm not the only one who sees spooky similarities between his stratospheric rise to power and the career of modern wunderkind Barack Obama.

The criticisms Hoover's detractors made against him are also awkwardly similar to the attacks conservatives are currently making against Obama.

"There could not a be a finer candidate for President." So said Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, of the brilliant Hoover when he considered running for office in 1919. In the end, though, Hoover rejected joining the Democrat party, admitting he "couldn't run for a party whose only member in his boyhood home had been the town drunk."

Herbert Hoover became a registered Republican (although not above ditching the party for political expediency) but certainly didn't act like one, if you'd judge him by today's standards.

Hoover believed that government had a role in everything - and he had a role in just about every government department. The last president to have ever held a cabinet position before his election, the bossy, opinionated and forceful Hoover, pre-White House, defined his position as; "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else."

He was a brilliant man with a forceful personality and when he finally ran for election, on the 1928 Republican ticket, his popularity was similar to Obama's in the 2008 election.

For example, if you think the media was biased towards Obama, think what rival Frank Lowden thought whenever he opened a newspaper: "They're full of of nothing but advertisements for Herbert Hoover."

Back in 1928, the south was as politically itinerant as always - but favored the Democrats (what had been the pro-slavery party) instead of today's Republicans. Hoover performed astonishing 'Obama-like' upsets by winning traditionally Democratic states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas and Tennessee.

When he entered the White House after his triumphant victory, he boasted: "We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land."

He said that just months before the Great Depression.

Hoover's Failure. Obama's Opportunity.

The reason so many people spot similarities between Herbert Hoover and Barack Obama is because they both found themselves facing the greatest economic crisis in their generation's history. It was Hoover's greatest failure. Conservatives today warn that Obama could follow in his footsteps.

Herbert Hoover's attempts to stop to U.S. economy circling the toilet-bowl included slapping tariffs on imported goods - which slewed exports to a halt and crippled the economy still further.

Then, as employment reached nearly 25% and the government found itself practically bankrupt, Hoover attempted to rescue the budget by overturning his treasury's popular tax cuts: That sent the top-level of taxation to an almost unprecedented peace-time rate of 73%.

Hoover matched these tax hikes with an explosion of spending, which Franklin D. Roosevelt described as "reckless and extravagant." The 1932 Emergency Relief and Construction Act attempted to ease unemployment by providing construction jobs, building public works across the country. In fact, all it did was contract the economy still further.

Modern-day Republicans might find it astonishing that one of their party is so famous for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the government payroll. Conservatives attack Obama with the same accusations levelled at Hoover, such as Roosevelt's would-be Vice President accusing Hoover of "leading the country down the path of socialism."

In fact, Franklin D. Roosevelt would surpass all of Hoover's government intervention when he lead America out of the Great Depression - and the foundations of The New Deal were laid firmly during Herbert Hoover's administration.

Roosevelt quietly proved that Hoover's greatest failing wasn't in spending too much government money in order to help the economy recover. It wasn't spending nearly enough.

Nevertheless, with 25% unemployment and nationwide poverty serving as the backdrop to the 1932 election, it was unsurprising that Hoover lost. When Franklin D. Roosevelt took the oath of office, Herbert Clark Hoover was generally considered; "the most hated man in America."

So here we are, 76 years later. In many ways, the script is the same, just with different actors taking the lead roles. George W. Bush is leaving office with dismal approval ratings and a legacy of Free Market Economics gone sour. As Barack Obama steps in to fill his shoes, it'll be up to him whether he's going to follow the route Herbert Hoover took, or emulate the legendary success of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It's moments like these that make me so glad to have studied and maintained an interest in history. Liberal or conservative, I think it's always important to remember the words of poet and philosopher George Santayana:

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

In Defence of Barry Obama #2

America's talk radio is dominated by the conservatives - and when they're attacking Barack Obama (which is pretty much all the time) they love to throw words around like 'socialist' and 'Marxist.'

As a Brit, I find the whole idea of labelling Obama a socialist to be laughable. These poor Republicans have no concept of what a real socialist is.

Back when I was a boy (before Tony Blair made the Labour Party all cute and fluffy) there was a real socialist movement in the UK. The sort of thing that would have driven the likes of talk radio presenters Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Mike Reagan running for cover.

Fear Comrade Obama

Part of the right wing campaign of mischaracterization stems from the conservative's desire to frighten voters.

Although 'the Red Menace' disappeared when the Cold War did, America still remembers the days of the McCarthy witchhunts and the fear that your next door neighbour could be a 'red.'

Socialism and Marxism are dirty words (whereas in England, they just make you think of angry young students trying to flog you copies of The Socialist Worker.)

There are two pieces of ammunition the right wing use to label Obama as a socialist. One of them is his call for 'Universal Health Care.'

The Spectre of the NHS

To the conservatives, the idea of 'Universal Health Care' is interpreted as some kind of nationalized health program akin to the National Health Service we have in the UK. The only problem is that Barack Obama isn't advocating anything of the sort.

'Universal Health Care' does not mean government run health care. It simply means 'health care for all.' And that's the crux of his health care policy. Obama wants to make affordable health care available for everybody, with guaranteed eligibility for those with 'pre-existing conditions.'

In addition to giving the 'uncoverable' access to medical treatment, he also wants to reduce the overall cost of health care by an average of $2,500 per family. He intends to do this by cutting the costs of actual medical treatment and reducing drug costs by eliminating patents pharmaceutical companies have.

I'm not in agreement with Obama's ideas. The idea of eliminating patents has the disadvantage of removing any incentive pharmaceutical companies have for developing new drugs, so like many of Obama's policies, it's blissfully naive. I think John McCain's health care strategy is more realistic and practical.

However, nothing Obama proposes could be interpreted as 'socialised' health care - even the government sponsored health coverage for children and those with pre-existing conditions.

What the conservatives attack as 'nationalised' government health care for the uninsured is nothing of the sort. In fact, Barack Obama isn't advocating anything that doesn't already exist.

Despite all the propaganda, America does offer free medical treatment to millions of uninsured people every single year - hospitals are forbidden by law from turning away the sick or injured. Because hospitals have to absorb the costs of treating these uninsured people, treatment costs go up and, as a result, so do insurance costs. We pay for it in our high premiums.

By actually organising and regulating health care for the people who fall through the cracks of the current medical system, Obama will hopefully save hospitals millions of dollars and those economies will be passed on to us, the consumer. Sure, we still have to pay for giving these people health care - but I'd rather pay less through taxation than more through health insurance premiums.

Misrepresented

Barack Obama is a lot of unlikeable things - misguided and idealistic in some respects (the other 'socialist' strategy the right wing attack him for, taxing the oil companies and redistributing that money to the tax payer, is certainly some kind of off-colour social engineering program.)

But he's not a socialist - no matter how much the right wing try to convince us he is.

The Changing Face of the High Street - via Weblog Awards 2007

Well, somewhat surprisingly, scrubby journalist Neil Clark managed to win the Weblog Awards 2007 'Best UK Blog' by a surprising margin, with sterling support by some of his blogging buddies (both of whom actually deserved to win the coveted price far more than Neil!)

To give the man his credit, he won fair and square and has been fairly gracious about winning. In his victory post, he printed an article of his from last week's Morning Star - the very same article I quoted in my post below (because of it's ridiculous opening line.)

The charge sheet against the Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal model is a long one.

If you can work your way through all of it (Neil's typesetting leaves something to be desired and there aren't any gaps between paragraphs) you'll see it's actually a delightfully suburban piece lamenting the destruction of the great British High Street.

You know the drill. A Starbucks on every corner, normally opposite a McDonalds and a Pret a Manger. The big businesses swoop in and try to make all High Streets look the same. The Daily Telegraph do this sort of stuff much better and never vomit out the word 'neo-con' once.

But to give Neil his due, his article has a point. Whether I was working in lovely Winchester or gorgeous Newbury, the cobblestone streets and medieval buildings were home to a uniform list of shops. Next. Phones 4 U. HMV. Pizza Hut.

It never really bothered me that much, since Winchester and Newbury had lots of lovely independent shops around the corner and down the side streets - it was brimming with the 'Mom & Pop' places Neil is lamenting the end of.

But the fact is, both streets DID kind of look the same. In fact, so do many High Streets up and down England. The same shops. The same crap. The same pedestrian precincts and various cookie-cutter clones hawking The Big Issue.

It's all rather sad, really.

Neil points out that things are different in Europe - and that's true.

In Niort, the lovely city near where my parents live, the city ordinance has kept the big, national chains out of the centre of the city and billeted them in the 'big sheds' on the outskirts of town.

If you want to go to Conforama, Gifi, Gemo or Geant, you drive out to enormous industrial estates with plenty of parking and all the stuff you need.

The centre of Niort, on the other hand, is filled with small, independent shops, little bars and restaurants and has a lovely atmosphere. On market day, it's a lovely, bustling community full of French spirit and joie de vivre.

But the downside?

During other times of the week, it's deserted.

An absolute ghost town. You can walk down the street and not see a soul. Shops shut at weekends and often on Mondays, too. Unless people are in 'for a jolly' they normally do their shopping in the cheap, convenient 'big sheds.'

Winchester High Street, on the other hand, was always bustling. There were crowds of people at all hours, plus buskers playing their music. It was vibrant all the time - even if you sometimes had to put up with some git from Phones 4 U shoving a flyer in your face (and I refuse to read anything that replaces the word 'you' with the letter 'u')

That's purely because the big name shops - the nationals Neil was complaining about - were there, in the High Street, offering people what they wanted.

And what people want is the crux of the issue - and why we can all lament the demise of the High Street, but short of a fascist revolution, there's not much we can do about it.

People go where they'll get what they want. And the sad fact is that companies like McDonalds and Starbucks became international superpowers because they cater to that.

If somebody could convince us all to give up our double mocha choca lattes overnight, the likes of Seattle's finest would soon disappear into the ether - but the fact is, we need our overpriced caffeine hit and we'll go wherever we can get it.

The problem exists in America, just like Britain and France.

Just this Saturday, Tina and I got up early and nipped to the Post Office. On the drive back, we were feeling peckish and fancied some breakfast. We were just debating between Burger King (who do these sausage-in-croissant things) and McDonalds (with their famous McMuffins) when we spotted 'Steve's Place' on Livingston Avenue, which was an apologetic little cafe just opposite 'The King's.'

We popped in there instead of the big name places and had two delicious breakfast bagels (two eggs and cheese for her, sausage patty for me) and it was made fresh on the griddle, right in front of us. The bagels were fresh baked and the whole meal - which was about twice the size of the apologetic McDonald's portions - came to under five bucks.

Yet despite the delicious food, great service and cheap price, customers would still see the big Burger King sign and drive right past Steve's to get the processed, frozen, reheated stuff.

And that's the crux of the problem. People.

People are the ones who make the choice and when they vote with their dollars (or pounds, or Euros) they put little places like Steve's out of business to support bright, shiny Burger Kings, Starbucks and McDonalds.

The only way to solve what Neil Clark laughingly coined 'turbo-globalism' is to convince millions and millions of people to stop going for the 'cheap and easy' big-business options and support the little 'Mom & Pop' independents he's so fond of. And the problem with that?

99% of the world won't.

Oh, for stuck up Telegraph readers like me, who lived in gorgeous places like Winchester, that was fine. We'd pay a little more and establish that we supported the independents (besides, the McDonalds in Winchester is the most poorly run and inefficient in the world)

But the rest of England, Europe and the world won't.

They want things cheap and easy. They earned their money and they want to get the most out of it - and that's why places like Wal-Mart and their ilk will always survive.

So 'convincing' people is out.

The only other option is to eliminate free choice and 'make' people shop at the independents. And to a certain extent, that's what's happened in France.

Laws and ordinances have protected the city centres and kept out the big businesses. In France, with their unique and delightful mentality, that's worked well. France has deep socialist roots and such buggering about the mechanics of local business is tolerable.

I don't think the same can be said of England or America.

Besides. The very idea of 'telling' people which shops can and can't exist in our High Streets is pretty miserable. If some self-important officials start telling us where we can and can't spend our money, we're not living in a democracy any more.

People deserve the right the choose where they shop. The fact that we're all idiots and make the wrong choice doesn't change that in the slightest!

All I can say is: Ignore Neil Clark's angry socialist rhetoric - but think about his point. The answer doesn't lie in Neil's gloriously outdated socialist fantasy (in which the government wisely spends and redistributes our hard earned money for us.) But we don't have to lie down and let the likes of McDonalds and Starbucks walk all over us, either.

We have a say. We have a voice. And next time you feel like a jolt of caffeine or a quick breakfast snack, look at the five pound note in your hand and ask yourself whether you want to give it to: The smiling shareholders or a hard working guy trying to earn an honest living.

Then shop (and, in effect, vote) accordingly.

We can't turn back the clock on the big-business blitzkrieg - but we don't have to contribute to it. The choice is yours.