John McCain's vote against Martin Luther King Day was no mistake, and you need to understand this because race plays a BIG role in the modern conservative movement. It plays a big role because the modern conservatives first began in the late 50's to play on the racism of white Americans in order to turn what was once a very tiny sliver of the Republican Party into what we now know as the GOP.

There was a time, in the mid-fifties, where white voters in the south were just as likely to vote Democrat or Republican. The reason they did so was because, from the late 30's through the 50's, Republicans had generally accepted the successful policies of the New Deal. Republicans HAD to accept these policies because they, along with pro-labor, pro-union reform, America had reached what economist Paul Krugman refers to as "The Great Compression," a society where financial inequality was at its lowest in our nation's history. Everyone was beginning to benefit, thanks in no small part to the large union movement (helped by the government's pro-labor reform), which helped guarantee fair wages for union members and had the effect of positively affecting wages in competing non-union jobs.

But there was always a small minority dedicated to eliminating the New Deal policies, including cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating the government's pro-labor reforms. This movement--Modern Conservatism--saw its chance in the late fifties when Democrats were pushing for civil rights reforms. In 1957, The National Review published an editorial arguing that whites could suppress African-Americans because whites were the superior race:

"The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizen, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race ... sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalance of its will worth the terrible price of violence." 

 Not only did the National Review make a point of noting our Constitution as "merely ... a catalog", it made a point of affirming that whites had the right to commit violence in order to retain their superiority, a right many racist whites agreed upon late in the fifties and during the sixties. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights act into law, the entire South became lost to the Democratic Party and continues to this day to be almost impenetrable (although the racial barrier is collapsing in recent years).

And slowly, Modern Conservatism grew, despite its interest in appealing primarily to the richest one percent of Americans. Slowly, the fringe group became the Republican Majority, and the Republican Party began its attempts to tear down the New Deal policies while cutting taxes for the rich despite having no evidence at all to suggest it would help the economy (there were, in fact, no economists at all in the early days of "supply-side theory," confessed Irving Kristol.). "Liberal Premissiveness," according to Richard Nixon, were at the heart of America's problems.

Modern Conservatism leaped into the fray with Ronald Reagan, who announced his bid for president in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where three civil rights activists were killed in 1964. His speech centered on "states' rights," and there was no denying what the underlying tones were. They were present in another famous speech, one in which he described a so-called "Welfare Queen"--and story that was elaborate fiction to begin with--that never mentioned race, and yet everyone knew what color this woman's skin was. It continued, spreading even into the most libertarian gospels, like those found in Ron Paul's own self-published newsletters.

Through it all, there was always an I'll-scratch-your-back mentality, which was necessary for Modern Conservatism to survive. Loyalty was rewarded above all else, and once Modern Conservatism dominated the Republican Party, Republicans were almost forced to go along with the policies (especially once Karl Rove jumped into the mix and proved himself capable of gutting the Republican Party of anyone who supported New Deal policies). Cronyism was always rewarded with new jobs, and the Bush administration is a clear example at every single level. Even John McCain is learning this now, going out of his way to flip-flop on every single ideology that once made him a "Maverick." Now he'll cut taxes for the rich. Now he'll cozy up to the religious right. Now he'll sell himself out to lobbyists.

Through it all, Modern Conservatism has remained true to its roots in helping only the richest one percent of Americans, and yet the Republican Party has continued to garner strength. While topics like national security and religion and abortion rights have always had a minor role in that popularity, only race has has stood the test of time. John McCain knew the rules back in the day, and he knows them now. 

Now he'll apologize for voting against MLK Day. But you know what? He knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he voted against it. He was following Modern Conservatism in order to reap the rewards of its growing power. Had he not, he would be nothing but a footnote in history by this point.

The good news is that racism is losing its popularity even in the deepest heart of the south, and tolerance has grown by leaps and bounds. It's only a matter of time before a significant majority of Americans realize that our country has spent the last 35 years helping only the richest one percent. Once that time comes, Modern Conservatism will desperately clutch at straws before finally disappearing (and indeed already does, preying on our various fears), taking John McCain with it. 

 For those of you interested in learning more, I heartily suggest "The Conscience of a Liberal," by award-winning economist Paul Krugman. The information detailed here represents a fraction of information you'll find in his book.

Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

I just read an article by everyone favorite Free Market neoconservative, Patrick McIlheran, and was somewhat dismayed by his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the health care issue. So I think it's time to clear some misconceptions up.

First, don't be surprised to see a number of links inside Patrick's column. He's good at providing information to back-up his flawed arguments. The problem is all of the information he provides comes from, well, sources that are hardly regarded as unbiased or even intelligent. He uses Web sites like the National Review  and Fraser Institute and freemarketcure.com. "Freedom!" the privileged white man screams, brandishing his sword. "You'll never take our freedom!"

Patrick McIlheran isn't Braveheart, and his arguments are, at best, fuzzy logic. At worst, they're an impassioned attempt to avoid a nationwide health care system in favor of a free market-based approach that would supposedly preserve our "Freedom." So I'm going to tell you about the market-based approach we have now (to some extent) and the version Canada has, and then I'm going to let you in on some additional information so you can help sniff out the bullcrap free market conservatives spew on a daily basis.

Here's my problem with a free market system: in a free market system, the private insurance companies compete and so do the hospitals (remember, Ronald Reagan deregulated the health care system so most hospitals are now "for-profit"). Consumers shop smart, choose what they want and don't want, and then pick the best plan, probably the most affordable. With competition, the prices drop and health care can be affordable and fast. On FreeMarketCure.com, there are a variety of reasons this isn't working yet in America, and it even cites a beautiful study conducted by the RAND think tank (a free market think tank) that--surprise!--happened to have a result that backed up the institute's claims that intelligent consumer spending can work better than a "free" version.

That's all well and good, but all of these points neglect one very important aspect of the for-profit private health insurance sector: that is, they make their wild profits by denying claims from their own clients. That is how private health insurance companies make their money. That is how private health insurance companies make their money. Monthly premiums are not a large source of profit. You can buy the cheapest, most amazing insurance in the world from a company like Aetna, but they can still deny your claim when you get sick, forcing you to pay out of pocket. The only way to change this is to regulate the insurance companies more strictly, but Free Market proponents steadfastly refuse this. So how free are you in a privatized system?

Don't get me wrong--the free market approach has its upsides, and it makes a lot of relevant points. The problem is that its arguments have a tendency to leave out very key facts that are essential to deciding what kind of system we should use. The fact that one of the largest private health insurance companies in America recently gave their CEO a 1.6 billion dollar retirement package seems important. How can an insurance company give away all that money? Why, by denying $1.6 billion in claims!

This still doesn't account for the extremely poor. How free are they? Or, if you refuse to help out any poor adults because you honestly think they're all lazy, then think about their kids. Why do children need to "Trust the Market" with their lives? Is that fair? Is it constitutional? Is a child truly "Free" if he or she cannot receive the basic health care necessary to make the most of his/her life? If you don't want to pay for health insurance for people who can't afford it, do you honestly think they'll simply roll over and die? Or will they go to the emergency room when they're sick and not pay the bill? Then who pays the bill? How do you win in this market-based system?

Here are some other things you need to watch out for when reading anything from the Free Market "experts":

1. Why do they always bring up Canada? Why do they always use such obscure examples of people who hate the system? Why is it their articles continually reference THE SAME PEOPLE? Canada's health care system is new, and it was started by one of its provinces and the system was so popular and well-liked that the rest of the country adapted it. In any system, there will always be a few people who hate the new changes. Canada is no exception. Finding someone in America who hates something the rest of us love would be just as possible.

So why don't any of these Free Market capitalists attack the German health care system, or Japan's? Both are universal health care systems. Germany's is the best health care system in the world. If universal health care is so horrible, then why can't these "Experts" spend more time attacking the systems at the top of the health care ladder? Because they're not vulnerable. They attack Canada's universal system because it's vulnerable.

2. But I should be "Free," they say. Any time you see a privileged white man complain he isn't "Free Enough," your bullcrap detector should immediately turn on.

3. But isn't this socialism? The Right Wing attempts to label any progress or any government program as "Socialism," including the raising of taxes for the rich for any reason. Universal Health Care does carry with it--like many aspects of any democracy--certain aspects that could be considered socialism. But does that make it socialism? Or is guaranteeing health care for every citizen a fundamental key to any Democracy? Free Market Capitalism shares a lot of commonalities with Fascism, but if I were to suggest Free Market Capitalism IS Fascism, there would be an all-out war. Every ideology overlaps with other ideologies, and politics is no different. Don't buy into the "Socialism" myth. Our government can do things to help us, so long as a majority of us want it. That's a fundamental point of democracy.

4. But isn't Universal Health Care just another bureaucracy? So are privatized health care companies. The questions is this: which would you rather have:

a) Health insurance run by a government bureaucracy run by elected representatives that WE THE PEOPLE elect. Those representatives must then answer to WE THE PEOPLE or be voted out of office.

b) Health insurance run by a private bureaucracy run by a CEO who answers directly to the shareholders.

5. Medicare is a universal program, and it has problems, they say. Not nearly as many as private health insurance companies do. The problem is bashing Medicare is easy, and there is a LOT of money being spent doing so. You want help with this, you'll need to do a LOT of digging through a LOT of Free Market Think Tanks to get to any relevant information.

There you go. I hope this was somewhat informative, and that you can take something from it. As always, I'll try to make a point of keeping an eye on our Neoconservative friends in Milwaukee to ensure not too many of you get ensnared.

Yours,

Ken Brosky