The "Public" Means "We The People," Not Communism, Fascism or Socialism

Some commentators think Ted Kennedy's passing can reignite President Obama's health care bill. But I think it is likely to fail unless the President begins to defend the democratic principles undergirding the term "public option."What he and the Democrats need to do now, in Kennedy's honor, is tell the American public what it means to speak about them. About the public -- whether in the term "the public good" or "the public square" or the "American re-public" or, yes, in the phrase a "public option" in health care.

With little resistance, the American public and the American President have allowed the term public to be hijacked and turned into a dirty word. In the hands of the hijackers, public is about "them" or "it." It's about bureaucratic bullies trying to do in granny, or about fascist thugs trying to take away our freedom of choice. It's about socialism -- a command economy corporatist state taking health care decisions away from doctors and patients. It's about closet communists who want to put Stalin in charge of emergency room triage.

Well it isn't, and I wish President Obama was out front saying so. Because the public, folks, isn't them, it's us. It's "we the people," it's neighbors united to take care of one another, it's citizens doing together that they can't do alone.

The public square is our common ground. That's why in England they call it "the commons," the shared turf where in a democracy we stand together to overcome what keeps us apart and do together those public things (res-publica) that make us a republic.

Once we allow the word public to be vilified, however, then everything associated with it becomes pejorative. Like paying taxes. See, taxes is how we pool our money to do things in common that can't be done alone. Like building roads or educating the young or fighting wars or taking care of the poor and the sick and those with handicaps. Taxes are the common allowance we give ourselves as a national family so we can pay for the things that make us a family and keep us a family.

The attack on the term public is really an attack on democracy, on citizenship, on our efforts to come together under the banner of we the people to protect our liberties and secure our property and ensure our safety. Because centuries ago we figured out you can't do those things alone, one by one, even if you are strong. Behind the abstract term public stand your neighbors, your fellow citizens, your partners in common pursuits across the land.

Those who attack the public then are attacking you and me insofar as we want to think of ourselves as us. And in health care, us is critical, since the public health is at stake and only a public element can assure us a fair, efficient and cost-effective system.

It's really quite simple: the public option in health care is the public good in health care; and health care constitutes the core meaning of the public good. So let's out those who assail the term public: they are not protecting liberty, they are undermining the common goods and democratic institutions by which liberty is established and preserved.

Follow Benjamin R. Barber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BenjaminRBarber

Comments

[dclintn648]

Thank you, Mr. Barber! It's about time someone stood up for the public! I'm not sure when the Republicans gave up even pretending to care about the public, but it has become clear that their supporters don't mind losing everything they have, as long as they can get their party back into power.

[SonofLiberty1]

I hope that the huffpost moderators let my posts go through.

There is only one way we can win is to shout the conservatives down not just with emotion but facts and figures too.

If we don't get this passed this year and the jobs don't come back soon...

THERE WILL BE HELL FAR WORSE THAN WHAT IS HAPPENING AT TOWN HALL MEETINGS.

[pepper47]

If the President needs to explain the definition of "public" to the "public", then maybe the death panels idea should be given a second chance.

[Dosadi]

Public is a beautiful word, so is social. The human race depended on socialism for its survival for thousands of years. An every man for himself attitude would have driven us to extinction long ago. As we move into the 21st century it is time for man to finally ask himself the question; "Where are we headed?"

[quisp65]

Sorry libs, those showing responsibility have won this fight. The public option paid through tax dollars is too expensive. There is not going to be one during Obama's term.

[guajiro]

You don't understand. Just because you choose to pay straight out of your pocket into a system that has none, NO cost control structure, doesn't mean that it's going to lower prices on it's own. In just the last 6 years the cost of medical care has doubled and doing nothing about it, like you and the rest of you public option decriers are doing, will only ensure that the trend continues. Have you not noticed that the price for kilowatt hours are cheaper at electric co-ops? What strategy does the giant retailer "SAMS' use? What about "Walmart"? What about "Dollar General", and "The Dollar Store", and "Amway", and a million other huge retailers? That's right, they buy in bulk to be able to pass on the savings to their customers. It's a straight, common-sense approach to cheaper products. The same strategy is employed in the public option; buying pharmaceuticals and other items in bulk to pass the savings on to US, the consumer. This also serves as an incentive to those others who, if they wish to stay in business, will need to lower their costs as well. Of course, you can lead a horse to water, but ...............

[quisp65]

This article sums up my feelings about what you said nicely with a lot less work for me. I'm an RN and I don't see nothing wrong with its analysis like I do with yours.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2301.cfm

[CaveatMagnusFrater]

I'm sure about all the other stuf but I'm sure glad I don't drive on private roads. I couldn't afford for profit highways. Actually, I'm glad I don't have to hire a fire company to protect my house either. maybe public works aren't so bad.

[LMPE]

The attack on the public - meaning on democracy - is another example of how the right wing hates democracy (and by extension, hates America).

[Bladernr1001]

If I oppose the government takeover of our health care system because I think the private sector will do a better job than how does mean I hate democracy? That does not make any sense.

[Hiphopcrates]

What proof can you site that the private sector can do a better job, the current system? How many times does a bankrupt concept need to be resurrected?

[middleoftheroad]

That's all well and good, but the fear that the progressives are bringing us to socialism is legit. If all these democratic programs go through the amount of our GDP under GOVT control will be around 47%---like Germany. The math of the plan you want does not add up. Wait until they hit the MIDDLE CLASS with more taxes. You can't do Cap&Trade and Health Care, and buy the autos, and give a trillion dollars to special interests via tax payer money with the stimulus without blowback.

You would have gotten a great health care bill if the left wing of the House did not ram through these massive bills without reading them. The train has left the station. The health care bill THAT WILL PASS with be watered down. Progress will come in steps. It wont be another massive spending mess.

Obama needs to win the trust back of the middle or the Dems will be swept next year. that's the reality.

[usna73]

Germany? If only we could behave more like modern Germany. A nation of savers. A strong social safety net and high quality of life,.... by any standards.

Trouble is that your analogy to Germany is but 80 years too late. We are beginning to resemble the post WW1 Germany. People used their societal acrimony to find others to hate. There was demonization of teachers, artists and yes those darn Communists. Sound familiar.

The Germany which emerged was built of the kind of corporate cronyism and ultimately Fascism.

This nation needs a very large left turn to get back to anything resembling "the middle", given the huge right wing shift that has left us bankrupt. Yes, we already had "socialism." Since Reagan it was socialism for the rich. We privatized the profits and socialized the losses.

Progress for a few is not progress.

[oaktownadam]

"See, taxes is how we pool our money to do things in common that can't be done alone."

I'd like to clue you in on an amazing development: We have another way of pooling our money to do things in common now...it's called capitalism. See, how it works is that investors pool their money into a legal entity called a "corporation". Then that corporation is able to do things which the individual investors could not.

The best part is, you don't have to participate in someone else's corporation if you don't want to, unlike taxes. If I don't like what a company does, I'm free not to patronize it, or pull my investment out of it. If I don't like the war that the government started, well, too bad, because I'm going to pay for it whether I like it or not.

"Public" wouldn't be getting a bad rap if it weren't constantly being twisted by liberals to mean socialism. Stop using the word in an Orwellian manner, and it'll stop getting a bad reputation.

[jb4362]

Problem is, oaktownadam, that creating a corporation is just creating an authoritarian power structure and there's nothing new or amazing about those. They operate like other totalitarian structures--from the top down. A few people run it and others can rent themselves out and follow orders all day.
The last thing we need is to create more little power fiefdoms where "I'm in charge and you follow my orders--and if you don't like it, go to some other fiefdom and see if they treat you any differently!"
What you and other "capitalists" want and have had for centuries now is a continuation of the leader/follower myth. In authoritarian systems, leaders/owners do what they want without interference; in democracies, real functioning democracies, all participants have an equal say in how things run.
I think a freedom loving person would prefer a public option whenever possible because that means the institution created is accountable to everyone and amendable at any time-- something that is not true with corporations --operationally, corporations are pure tyrannies.
Let me "clue YOU in on an amazing development." The United States is NOT a political dictatorship--we are a representative republic. Anything "run by the government" or "public"
means it is owned and operated by all citizens of the U.S. -- you and me and everyone else TOGETHER -- and can be changed any time WE want. A person either believes in real democracy or is fearful of sharing power with other people.

[oaktownadam]

Corporations are not totalitarian in a free market, because they must compete with other organizations. Only monopolies can behave that way....government being the biggest monopoly of all.

"What you and other "capitalists" want and have had for centuries now is a continuation of the leader/follower myth. "

Actually, it appears that you're projecting your own views of how things work onto me. There's no reason that corporate organizations must be "top down", or "not democratic"....in fact, you have totally internalized the anti-entre­preneurial attitude that those in power try so hard to cultivate. You don't have to accept what you're offered; you can always go do it yourself. If you're unhappy with your treatment by any given corporation, you're probably not alone, and that means there's a market for the same service delivered differently.

I actually see the government as far less accountable than any corporation. Look at the past 8 years for countless examples. Bush simply decided that he liked Nixon when he said "When the President does it, that means it's legal.", and he thumbed his nose at the law, evading any punishment for his crimes even to this day.

At least you can sue a corporation for breaking the law. The best you can do for the government is whine to your Congresscritter.

I am not fearful of sharing power, I am fearful of concentrating power in the hands of a few. That is true whether it's a government or a corporation.

[Bittancurt]

Looking forward to a hip replacement from Apple.

[Bittancurt]

Forgot to mention, I have Applecare.

[Jorge Al-Subbad]

"The best part is, you don't have to participate in someone else's corporation if you don't want to, unlike taxes. If I don't like what a company does, I'm free not to patronize it, or pull my investment out of it. If I don't like the war that the government started, well, too bad, because I'm going to pay for it whether I like it or not."

Actually what got twisted by the business conservatives who took control of the Republican Party under Taft and after Roosevelt was the concept of the chartered corporation which was a much more regulated entity, operating under an agreement with those who chartered it, the people of the state to whom it had obligations. Now you conflate "capitalism" and "corporatism" and suggest that government must be wedded to the goals of both ... fascism. There is no confusion here... public means access to all. It's hard to limit public access.. especially in the ways that southern white conservatives most wished to, by race and so when public accomodations law was upheld by the federal government during the civil rights era and when medicare and medicaid integrated all medical facilities which accepted it... that more than anything destroyed official segregation in the south and throughout the country. Maintaining unofficial segregation is requires a crony capitalism that has literally succeeded in robbing millions of Americans financial health. Obama fixing any of these things would remove the last bulwark of segregation. I hope he succeeds.

[hasheville]

And the right has redefined the "middle" - when will the Dems take it back?
Today I listened to Ed Shultz on the radio - he was exasperated by calls from people who think those wanting a public option are free loaders and he didn't understand how they could think that. The right has been very successful, thanks to massive corporate funding, in their propaganda efforts to convince some people that a nation's strength is found in competition for everything, a survival of the fittest ideology. Of course its all a lie since we the people cannot compete with the the rich and corporate power -- all we compete for are the leftovers. Also this view sees we the people as mere consumers - objects - to be exploited, without regulations to protect us, as producers of good and buyers of goods including healthcare. This ideology also ranks "successful" people as inherently better people, not just those who fate has been kind, so far. So some people with health insurance cannot imagine the truth - they could loose it in an instant OR discover it is worthless when they need it.

[TSop]

Great post Dr. Barber,

They are good at hijacking words; another good example is liberal....

[Vxx]

Sharing the costs on healthcare will also make our businesses more competitive on the global market since they don't have to worry about healthcare of their employees. This is why I do not understand why single-payer is off the table. It is a major reason many corporations are sending jobs overseas to stay competitive. Apparently, the insurance industry (which makes nothing) and their executives trump all other business sectors for the GOP and bluedog Dems.

[Tsckey]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barber, very, very much. I could not agree more. The great innovation in the American experiment in government was not, as the rabid right-would have us believe, the institution of unfettered capitalism. It was the establishment of a system of self government in which the people themselves were sovereign. What the rabid right has succeeded in doing is convincing the public, both right and left, that “The Government” is something external to themselves; a renegade monster whose sole aim is to enslave them. We must always reman vigilant to ensure that our representatives do not abuse the power we extend to them, but we need not fear the government. Instead, we must take it away from those, such as the mega corporations and theocratic totalitarians, whose model of society has its roots in the feudal era and who wish to return us there.

[perkunis]

The founding fathers did not think much of the 'public' either, and so they gave us the Electoral College and Senate (not originally elected by popular vote) in order to protect their wealth and status from the mob (i.e. public). Nothing has changed. The health care debate is just another milestone, and a very critical one, on the path towards greater democracy. "We the people" might someday actually mean what it says and not really be a euphemism for "we the oligarchy". Redistribution of concentrated wealth and privilege can happen peacefully through elections, or violently through revolutions. Our system has a built-in thermostat called elections, which makes peaceful change possible. Short-circuiting the system will cause a melt-down at the fuse box. Unfortunately, rich and powerful interests are doing just that and shorting-out democracy by manipulating gullible, uneducated, racist or just fearful people to work against their own interests. Smoke, fire and damage may be the effect upon our political house.

[billydog]

Bravo sir, very well written. I do hope Obama and the Democrats heed your words and go forth to restore the meaning of public to it's rightful place in America.

[TJCole]

Right Benjamin; I always thought, this was a Public Country...!

See what I mean...?

Maybe some of you can learn something here...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/milljs

[Bladernr1001]

Ah...there is this little thing called the constitution. There is nothing in this document that grants the government the authority to run a health care system. If the "public" wants" that then we should add an amendment to the constitution.

[Tsckey]

You see this alot among conservative talkers: "If it's not in the Constitution, the government can't do it." But of course it is in the Constitution and the government can. Article I, Sec. 8 provides that: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. . . .” Sec. 8 also provides Congress with power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” One must bear in mind that the Constitution is not a statute. It does not prescribe the specific programs, laws, or other acts that the government must pursue, but establishes the framework and parameters within which the respective parts of our government may operate. Providing for the general welfare is definitely within the powers delegated to Congress.