Politikk

Since the parliamentary election here in Norway on Monday I have been feeling a political post brewing. I'm not quite sure what it is I want to say, but I'll just dive in. Here are some basic premises:

1. I think all humans are inherently selfish and egotistic. We have philosophy and the arts (among other things) to help counteract those impulses. Religion is supposed to do that too, but it (as an institution) has an unfortunate tendency to get tangled up in power structures to a greater degree.

2. I also think all humans are inherently corruptible, and that political (and economic) power corrupts. As the saying goes: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's all just a matter of time and degree.

So, if you take those two thoughts as a point of departure and apply them to contemporary U.S. politics (on a very abstract level), I think you could make the arguments that:

1. Both the Democratic and the Republican parties are riddled with corruption because both are human institutions, and both institutions exercise power. No one should be surprised to see politicians doing stupid and exploitative things.

But if you take a step back and look at the primary motivations and fundamental philosophical principles that the two parties stand for, I think it's pretty clear that the Democrats have the moral high ground. In general, the policies they have advocated in the past 100 years have been more altruistic and democratic than those advocated by the Republicans, because they were intended to benefit the greatest number of citizens. Many of those policies as actually implemented are terribly flawed and don't function as intended, but at least the intention generally appears to be good. The Democratic party was generally on the morally right side on issues like social security and civil rights. (They were also on the wrong side of lots of issues). My perception has been that Republican policies have in general been less altruistic and more self-serving. Given that both sides are corrupt, I still think that a Democratic vote is slightly less morally reprehensible than a Republican one.

If we relate these thoughts to the current health care/insurance reform debates in the US, it seems pretty clear based on empirical evidence from other countries that it would be more altruistic (more morally correct) to offer universal health care than to maintain the current system, which is heavily biased in favor of the wealthy and the permanently employed.

Does anyone but me find it really hard to understand why Obama is being accused of being the devil incarnate for propounding a policy change that falls far short of the universal healthcare that we enjoy here in Norway? Why is the right wing fringe starting to agitate (at least under their breath) for what sounds a lot like armed rebellion over these reforms?

A lot of people on the left are just accusing the right wing of being racist. I suppose that could be valid for some, but for me it sounds a lot more like pure and simple greed and egotism. People don't want to give up anything they've got, and they don't want anyone else to gain benefits if they're not perceived as earning it.

Meanwhile, in Norway (and lots of other countries) healthcare is a human right. KE mentioned the perfect comparative example:

Our friend T broke his arm in a soccer game in the US. He was in between jobs (literally--he was already hired at the next place) and thus had no health insurance. He had to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. KE broke his ankle at a soccer practice here in Norway. He was unemployed at the time (though he would have been covered by health insurance through my job had we been in the US when it happened, thankfully). Because we were in Norway where everyone is covered, regardless, the entire event was covered: ambulance boat, ambulance, complicated operation, three days in the hospital, etc.

Which brings me to my last point: why, oh why do Norwegians flirt so promiscuously with the same kind of right wing populist politics that have been so disastrous in the US, and as we currently are seeing play out yet again, this time with healthcare (the very kind of healthcare that Norwegians take for granted)? Why does Fremskrittspartiet get more than even the handful of lunatic fringe votes that one might expect?

I'm starting to think that we have to go back to my first point to find an answer: selfishness and egotism. Of all the people I heard in the news media debating the various political options, not once did I hear an argument for a Fremskrittspartiet policy that wasn't based in simple greed or egocentrism. I am not at all saying that the other parties are without their bad sides. Just that I can't seem to find a single good side to Fremskrittspartiet. It's interesting how often their voters are embarrassed to admit which party they're voting for. There's good reason for them to feel ashamed of their egotism, dammit!