Health Care for My Masters

Haute Route - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman

Soon after his presidency began, Barrack Obama traveled the globe on an apology tour, apologizing to anyone who would listen about America’s shortcomings.  Hat in hand, he challenged the concept of American exceptionalism, an argument the Muslim world quickly embraced.  His cheerleaders of the Left called for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment and showered him with the Nobel Peace Prize.  Curiously, four years later he pleaded his case to the world to bomb Syria and proclaimed that the United States was–well, exceptional!  Is this a case of political flexibility or schizoid behavior?

So which is it?  Is America exceptional or not?  Obama Care, the cornerstone of his Presidency and harbinger of national health care, offers some clues.  But first some historical background:

Royalty and elitists were held in contempt by the Founding Fathers.  They believed in the exceptionalism of the common citizen and were deeply distrustful of politicians, who invariably maneuvered to consolidate and further their power.  The thought those who governed were entitled to live under different rules than those who elected them was abhorrent.

One of the most controversial aspects of Obama Care is the exemption of Congress to participate in the program.  A cynic could ask justifiably, “If the system is so superior, why would our leaders opt out?”  Yet more relevant questions are, “Why would anyone vote for a politician who denies them the same access to health care?  And why would the President, who favorite word is fairness, refuse to insist the Affordable Health Care be the law of the land?”

The President and his supporters of the Left do believe in exceptionalism–the exceptionalism of the politically elite.  This perversion is understandable from the point of self serving politicians, who do not trust the government to care for their families, but for the voters who support them it is a different story.  They truly must believe in their own unexceptionalism and nod in agreement as their President reminds them of it.  

San Joaquin River at Jackass Flats - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Mr. Mann's History

Seracs near Mt. Shishapangma, Tibet - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

After watching the video, If I Wanted America to Fail, I thought of one of my former teachers.  Mr. Mann taught high school level American history until his retirement in the 1960s. During the two years I attended his classes, he was nearing the end of his career, but I cannot remember a day when he did not wear a suit and tie.  The term “American exceptionalism” was not in vogue, but Mr. Mann believed America claimed this unnamed right.  Like many of his generation, his values were forged by the Great Depression and World War II, but by today’s standards, he would be considered a dunderhead.

Revisionist history played no part in core curriculum, so students were not led to believe primitive cultures in Africa and Polynesia were equivalent to those of Renaissance Europe or China.  Neither was there the illusion that there was any such thing as high German culture during the Roman Empire.  While my ancestors ran around naked in the forests foraging for berries and massacring each other, the Romans ruled the Western world, constructed ambitious public work projects, wrote poetry, and explored advanced mathematics - so much for assuaging delicate egos. 

Historical emphasis was primarily Euro-American centric, for while much of the world was governed repressively, intellectually stagnant, and mired in perpetual poverty, the American experience was decidedly different.  The United States, the culmination of nearly 2500 years of Western culture, was not without faults, but it was one of the few countries willing to go to extraordinary means to solve them.  

Mr. Mann actually taught his students that abundant natural resources, inexpensive energy, efficient transportation systems, and a skilled labor force under the umbrella of a constitutional republic are the building blocks necessary to sustain a powerful and prosperous nation.  How silly is that?  As a corollary, wealthy countries with skilled labor forces typically do not export raw materials overseas to be manufactured into products which will be resold to them at a marginally higher price.  Preposterous! 

If inexpensive energy fuels vibrant economies, and the United States contains vast quantities of natural gas and coal, why does it not exploit these resources rather than spend billions of dollars to import hydrocarbons from unfriendly countries whose world view is inimical to our own?  Despite promising small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear technology, the use of nuclear power is not seriously discussed, as scientific argument is once again overwhelmed by naysayers who exploit emotion and ignorance.

Public education, once the marvel of world, is losing the battle against foreign competition.  Review the comparative test scores, if there is any question of the descent.  Perhaps math, science, and reading better prepare students for the 21st century workforce than self esteem and social living classes. 

The balance between expenditures on infrastructure and transportation systems versus social programs has been lost.  Despite five decades of effort and six trillion dollars, the hardcore poor remain mired in a vicious cycle of poverty and hopelessness.  The reason is obvious:  They vote and enjoy broad based support from academia and the media.  Bridges, roads, and dams do not.

Since politicians are fallible and self serving, the Constitution provides a framework of checks and balances to control the temptation to exercise unbridled power and irresponsible profligacy.  Judging from the explosion of the national debt, this surly lot found a way to confound the Founding Fathers. 
    
No country can prevail if it does not exploit its inherent advantages.  Mr. Mann could have taught the scholars at the Brookings Institute a thing or two.