I have this queer interest in following US politics which I sometimes cannot adequately explain. It is somewhat the similar interest that people probably had some years back in Soviet Union. It was an example of a socioeconomic setup which tried so hard to be pure in their intent, but kept hobbling on its path as it found out that extremities either way, left or right, are difficult in any social setup. US is (and always was) in a similar position - it has always sworn by private enterprise and (barring monopolistic practices) success only on the basis of your merit(barring affirmative action, “reservations” in Indian parlance).
It is always interesting to watch to what extent this “American way” is pushed to make (or unmake) public policy decisions in the States. It somehow mirrors decisions taken beyond the Iron curtain in earlier days.
Take more instance, how Bush vetoed out a critical expansion of children’s health program today which would have increased the current spend by $35 billion over the next five years. And this is what he had to say:
“I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system. I do want Republicans and Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poorer children,” the president said, adding the government’s policy should be to help people find private insurance.
Of course, it doesn’t hurt him when he signed the war bill a few months back which sanctioned $95 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, only for the quarter ending September.
The only consistent thing in both these decisions is, that in both, the private enterprise gained at the expense of the lives of children - both American and Iraqi/Afghani(even though the official reasons for them could be really much convoluted). But such is the manner in which the free market operates. The need for free enterprise triumphs over any other social intention.comments powered by Disqus