Psychology of a Nation
|
A post by "J. Mal" To see more posts click here |
I recently read this article by Paul Murdock entitled, “Where has the Future Gone?”. The article goes on about how government policies influence the minds and expectations of the nation. While I don’t agree completely with all of the author’s reasoning, I think the general idea is pretty correct. Government policies can, and do, sway the mentality of the country. If you have some time give it a read. Below are some thoughts from the article I’d like to bring attention to.
Uncle Sam will foot the bill for our ineptitude:
“Cash for Clunkers, extended unemployment, and government bailouts constantly reinforce to Americans that Uncle Sam will pick up the bill… reinforced Americans citizens will increasingly seek out handouts from those who are productive. The end result is that only socially orientated politicians are elected in the future. This pattern is destructive to human motivation, production, and destroys the work ethic and creativity of generations. Most importantly, it crushes individual liberty.”
To be clear, I think the author is trying to analyze this from a psychological approach. He is definitely a right leaning voice, however he has a doctorate in psychology. The overall point to be taken away is that government policies mold the psyche of the nation.
If the government upholds policies geared toward individual liberty and self-preservation, it seems to follow that people will have no choice but to adopt the same mentality. They will know they are the only ones who can help themselves. This motivation would teach people to take care of themselves.
On the other hand, if the policies are geared toward constant assistance and bailouts when you fail, the minds and collective psyche of the people adopt this same mentality. If I know that someone will help me if I go broke, then I’m likely to lose at least some motivation that the fear of failure was driving inside of me.
If you are in your 20’s, think about your friends who live at home with their parents as opposed to the ones who work for everything they have and live on their own. Sure the ones who live at home may not be struggling to put food on the table, or pay the bills, but will they ever learn to be self-sufficient living that way? I think not. It takes being on your own to learn how to survive. Otherwise you become dependent on the source. You compromise your own identity in order to rely on the source.
On American’s dependency on government:
“You will also notice that Obama has quietly slid into the shadows during the health care debate in congress, except to promote “any” bill and meet with democrats in the house for a special closed meeting. Although, Obama may truly want a one payer system, the true goal of his administration is to pass any health care bill that will survive the House and the Senate. President Obama knows that once health care is expanded, no legislator in the future will be able to reverse this reckless program. Americans will become too complacent to object and eventually dependency will set in. Even President Clinton recently declared that no bill needs to be perfect, it just needs to be passed. In other words, the goal is not good legislation; it is to foster American dependency forever at the expense of American Liberty and economic freedom.”
Again, don’t be distracted by the political point of view of this quote. Even if you’re for the health care bill I think this reasoning makes sense when you look at what’s going on. President Obama probably has his own personal thoughts on what the system should be, but he’s not going to say anything on the matter. The potential rift that could arise from clashes with fellow democrats would be against the overall goal of the democratic party which is political power.
The truth is that policies geared towards handouts will always beat out a policy that requires people to do for themselves. Very few people I’ve met understand how important the principles of liberty are compared to almost all other aspects of our government. Most people will sacrifice their liberty and they don’t even realize how dangerous it is to sacrifice something so important.
Also, most so-called “Republicans” don’t even know what conservative principles and limited government are about. That is why today there is no real difference between the two parties. The party of individual liberty has all but disappeared. Instead now, you just have two parties that want to expand the nations dependence on the government. The only difference is what they want to spend the money on. One wants to expand wars and corporate welfare, while the other wants to give free handouts to the people from a stash of money that doesn’t exist. Both sides have come to realize that the only way to get people to vote for you is to promise them something for nothing.
During the last Presidential election I think the most inspiring thing I noticed was the sense that the people of this country were waking up and realizing that we are all in this together. People everywhere talked about sacrifice and helping others. Let’s help the poor, the sick, the homeless, the jobless, etc. The idea of a community was gaining momentum. I thought that after the election we would see a new American dedication to helping build the communities around us.
Instead, what do I see? People going back to the same old ways. Instead of helping people around the community most people just passed the buck and want the government to do it for them. If helping people is the right thing to do, why do we need the government to do it. All of those taxes, bailouts and handouts do not go directly to the people who need it the most. The programs line the pockets of the people at the top, while advertising how much they help the average American.
These are not the principles our nation was founded upon.
Instead of relying on the government, I think the real message should be as follows:
Take care of yourself. Work hard. Don’t expect anyone to help you out, but be gracious when good fortune or help comes your way. And above all else, if you make it, if you work hard, if you realize the American dream, how about helping those around you?
Let’s foster a national mentality of individual accountability as well as a a desire to build up the communities we live in. Then we won’t have to look to the government for help, because we will all be helping ourselves and each other.
Call me idealistic if you want to, but for the Republicans who whine about government, and the Democrats who whine about the people without, it seems like a win-win. Get the government out of the equation and let’s help the people in need without a middle man. The middle man always makes things cost more than they should, just so they can take a cut.
Udothedishes…
I agree with your conclusion John. All too often I see people taking advantage of handouts to fund their lifestyle. I know people who have their rent payed by their parents, collect unemployment from their state of origin and from NYC. It’s a shame b/c these are, for the most part, college graduates who have unlimited potential and choose to live off of the system or their support group. They are very motivated people and many are perplexed by their lack of personal success and blame their situation on bad luck, the economy or whatever. From a personal standpoint I can tell you that I was not successful until my back was against the wall. With no financial support to fall back on everything became clear, I became focused on what I needed to do to succeed and executed. This transition affected my personal beliefs on government handouts and individual liberty. The left/right dichotomy is no longer relevant because outside of public transportation I am not dependent on the state This health care mess is unfortunate and until our society collectively sees through left/right politics I don’t see a real debate as a possibility. I guess a good question to ask is whether or not our society really wants to be free? No strings, no attachments just self determination. Seems long gone but not entirely impossible
“If the government upholds policies geared toward individual liberty and self-preservation, it seems to follow that people will have no choice but to adopt the same mentality. They will know they are the only ones who can help themselves. This motivation would teach people to take care of themselves.”
This whole statement, if it were true, is an argument for having no government at all. Why would people need the government to “uphold policies geared toward individual liberty and self-preservation”? That makes no sense, especially if you believe those are entrenched human values which as a conservative I’m sure you do. And as an aside what the hell would policies be for “individual liberty and self-preservation”? Your first sentence is just a platitude, it doesn’t mean anything. We have a government that doesn’t ban speech, doesn’t ban guns, and can’t enter into your house without the due course of the law, I think that is upholding the status quo. What you’re describing is the dismantling of the welfare state, which in your argument would increase the liberty for everyone somehow. I’m sure there are some conservatives out there that can make that argument, but this isn’t it.
The other side of the argument for expanding health care, which you don’t even bother to discuss, is that if given health care for free by the government, will the people who had to worry about paying for it before now have more time to enjoy their new found individual liberty? That answer is obviously yes and I would figure a libertarian like yourself would at least flirt with that idea. Now if you have a problem with the structural issues of government granting health protection there are valid criticisms for that, but if your argument, and yours is, to expand the liberty of the people then defeating the health care bill is in opposition to those ends.
“If you are in your 20’s, think about your friends who live at home with their parents as opposed to the ones who work for everything they have and live on their own. Sure the ones who live at home may not be struggling to put food on the table, or pay the bills, but will they ever learn to be self-sufficient living that way? I think not.”
Everyone born after the year 32 Anno Domini has heard the “teach a man to fish” story, I thank you for doing it again here lest we forgot. Yes this is an anecdote and I shouldn’t even bother talking about it, but are you actually equating those on welfare to those moving back in with their parents in the worst job market in a generation? You cannot be serious. How many 20-somethings choose to move in with their parent’s because they like the idea of not doing anything but living at their parent’s house while their friends go get jobs and move to gentrified places, like Blake? That is a bizarre statement.
Lastly, “That is why today there is no real difference between the two parties.” This is just not true, it may have been true in 2006 pre-election, and maybe even before the 2008 election, but now it just isn’t. The GOP blocks every meaningful reform, judicial appointment and funding bill the democrats put into either chamber. So what you are saying is that the two parties are so similar that all the republicans in the Senate and all but one in the House voted against the health care bill? How does that work? You cannot make statements like that, the GOP may not be the Ron Paul version that you like but I assure you there are two parties, and they are different.
You have left many valid points, which I will not address all of, however the following is a random collection of thoughts after reading your comments.
“Why would people need the government to “uphold policies geared toward individual liberty and self-preservation”? That makes no sense, especially if you believe those are entrenched human values which as a conservative I’m sure you do. And as an aside what the hell would policies be for “individual liberty and self-preservation”?”
It’s not so much specific legislation (which is different than a policy) enacted for individual liberty and self-preservation as much as it is not enacting legislation because those should be the underlying policy concerns of our government. The policy of the government should focus on narrowly tailored laws that only seek to protect fundamental rights. Laws that don’t take from some to help others in an unequal distribution of our laws as protected by the 14th Amendment. Health Care is not a fundamental right. The federal government for the first time is using the commerce clause to justify changing the citizenship requirements. If you are an American citizen you will be required to have health insurance, if you don’t you will be penalized, with some exceptions.
That is not a law backed by a policy that focuses on individual liberty. Liberty policy types of laws would be tort laws protecting against medical malpractice. Antitrust laws that prevent large companies from cornering markets and limiting consumer choice. Fraud laws that protect consumers when corporations don’t conduct fairness in contracts.
Liberty in medicine would be ending the myriad of federal regulations that choked the life out of the free market of health care which created the out of control system we have today. But no one talks about how we got to where we are. They look at fixing symptoms instead of diagnosing and fixing the problem. Government intervention begets more government intervention.
That is where there is no difference between the parties. I will agree that they have different goals, but in a more broad sense, both parties have now become the parties of expanded government control. One likes war and corporate welfare, while the other likes social programs. Both have and underlying “policy” with aims to expand the scope of the federal government.
Also, there is a huge distinction between what the Federal v. the State governments have a right to do. My argument is specifically against the Federal Government in this instance. I believe that States should have a more broad power over it’s individual citizens. At least you would have options of where to live. If a state wants to provide health care for it’s citizens I think you can make a stronger justification.
And one of my major points of this whole post which seemed to go completely over you head is that the American people have become complacent and deferential to the Federal Government to cure the ills of society. Individuals and communities could spend their own resources much more efficiently in order to help those in need. Free community clinics, Drs. volunteering, food drives, shelters for poor, job training. All of these programs would be much more efficient if they worked on a state/city/local/ community level.
Instead people look to the government to do the hard work for us. Yet Republicans complain that their money is being taken. Well if they don’t like the government taking their money, then they should donate more so there isn’t a government need to tax them.
I’ll conclude by stating that I do have strong views on all of these topics, but more than that I crave to hear opposing points of view rather than concurring or joining opinions. I never want to be set in my ways and always want to hear the other side of the debate. Thank you for your feedback and I hope you continue to show me that there are many sides to an argument and that all sides are worth considering.
Lest we agree on one point. People need help, and as American’s we should see a duty to help those around us that are without.