There's a story I heard a long time ago in academia.
A mother, interested in getting her son into a certain
prestigious college, visits the Dean of Admissions for an
informal chat. Knowing the purpose of the visit, the Dean
eventually asks the mother if her son is a leader.
The mother thinks a moment, and then she says: "Well, he's really
not a leader, but he's a very good follower."
The Dean nods, makes a few notes, shakes hands with the woman and
bids her goodbye.
As they planned, the mother and her son forward an application to
that college, and they wait on edge for the academic decision.
Finally, after several months, the letter arrives addressed to
the mother:
"Dear Mrs. Smith," the letter says. "We're happy to inform you
personally that your son has been admitted to our college. The
Freshman class will consist of 389 leaders and one follower."
In American politics, too many people think they're looking at a
political leader, when in fact the prime characteristic of
American politicians is that they devote much energy to
determining what the public wants and then offer that to the
public. That's not leadership, that's followership, the political
game of considering the American public as one huge focus group.
Never mind what they need, just give them what they want and you
get a free ride down to Washington, free lunch, free health care
for the family, free whatever you can lay your hands on -- and
hardly anyone looks to work as a senator or congressman unless
they can lay their hands on plenty.
So the problem for a democratic society is clear: We want
politicians sensitive to what the public wants, but we also need
these same politicians to be intelligent and dedicated enough to
public service to also take into account what the public needs --
not just what the public wants. We need leaders.
What we desperately require in this country at the moment is a
health care system that adequately takes care of people. The
rightist propaganda that involving the federal government in
health care is creeping socialism is cold baloney -- already cold
when it was used as the argument against Social Security during
the 1930s.
Another rightist argument that's cold baloney is that physicians
and hospitals are entitled to operate as free-market
entrepreneurs. But every medical school in America is partly
subsidized by the states or the federal government, and the same
is true for nearly every hospital. Sometimes the subsidies are
direct and sometimes indirect. Taxpayers subsidize medical
education and hospital care just as they subsidize the basic
scientific research that's applied by pharmaceutical companies to
create and market new drugs to treat disease. Do we label the
indirect and direct subsidies of medical education, hospital
care, and basic research as "creeping socialism"?
Americans need to stop worrying about whether an idea to promote
the public good is "socialist" when the idea involves nothing
more than regulated capitalism. Sure, we may need to increase
taxes in order to provide adequate health care, but that's what
the federal government is all about -- managing the country for
the greater good of all, and not merely for the good of a few.
We can look to Sweden, where private industry and capitalism
thrive. Sweden is 3rd in the world in global competiveness, 4th
in the world in technological achievement, first in the world in
the "democracy index" of the conservative magazine The Economist
-- and Sweden has the lowest infant mortality rate on Earth.
The Swedes have tax-funded childcare, parental leave, a ceiling
on health care costs, tax-funded education (all levels up to, and
including university), retirement pensions, tax-funded dental
care up to 20 years of age and sick leave (partly paid by the
employer).
Sweden is not and never was a "socialist" country. It's a "mixed
economy" society. What's interesting is that about one-third of
all Swedes on Earth live in America, most of them migrating to
America during Sweden's old "raw capitalism" years. We need to
keep praying that the Swedes in America will somehow help the
rest of us understand that taking care of each other by sharing
what we have is what the good life is all about.
We do that in our families. If we have a child who for one reason
or another falls behind, we take care of that child -- we don't
throw that child into the street.
Americans need to do the same for other Americans -- not by
capricious charity but by designed political policy. That's the
good life.