Charlie Rose

REMant  08/17/2009 06:12 PM Report

I've never thought Snow's dichotomy the correct one. Rather the two cultures are the culture of religion and the culture (actually a misnomer as it can't be one by definition) of philosophy. The one believes in history or evolution, the actions of a jealous creator, and the other, a self-balancing design or "truth." Attempts to put the two together - and there have been many from the Roman Stoics to Jonathan Edwards and in the two centuries since - have never been successful, altho it is clear that human beings seem to contain the ability to believe in both, altho this may be a matter of genes and of degree as much as development. The one is better at analysis or making distinctions, and the other at synthesis or arriving at concepts. It is often said, for example, the English are good at the first, but lack the second, and the French the opposite, but it is difficult to say which is more "willful" or involves a higher or lower degree of freedom. Parkinson, that acute observer of bureaucracy, joked that his compatriots were content to pigeonhole and never do anything, while the French attacked problems without first determining what they were. One would think both are necessary to advancement. It would be difficult for most ppl to argue that amoebae are freer than human beings, but some would argue against taking such an individualist perspective. English-speaking academics expostulate about the formality of French gardens compared with the "naturalness" of English ones, which are about as natural as the Hitler youth, or about the "French disease" and the terrors of the Revolution, while conveniently forgetting the "Norman Yoke" and the English Civil War. In Plato (properly understood), the Stoics and their Protestant successors, the development of rationality is supposed to restrain willfulness, or the "animal spirits," while at the same time exemplifying free will. The Catholic church, on the other hand, has largely found that anathema, as have the Jews, and many of today's more liberal evangelicals. Not surprisingly this has its application in economics, where we find the irrationalists lined up on the side of mercantilism, and the rationalists on the side of free trade, as well as in the healthcare debate. Earlier the evening this interview aired I wrote the following on the Moyers blog. It sums up a lot of what I written previously and I believe it answers his question:

"While I agree that Gingrich and Limbaugh and others are beyond the pale. And I regret that unlike in the presidential campaign McCain has not come forth to correct some of the exaggerations. But there is no doubt that Keynesianism, which is rife in this govt, does and has in the past supported command economies like the Nazi's. I should also mention that even very republican Switzerland saw this kind of controversy over healthcare reform. In America there are too many ppl, who, no matter what is said, are simply NOT going to told what to do. It has been here from the start. When we thought we had money, in any case, a majority was for healthcare reform. Now that we know we don't, a majority do not, which suggests to me that the protest shows that ppl ARE acting responsibly.

Healthcare reform can be divided into two parts: 1. the inefficiencies, which ought to be correctable without spending; and 2. the lack of coverage for a large number of Americans, a welfare issue, the money for which will have to come from somewhere, either redistribution or rationing or more debt. If the savings from the first will pay for the second, fine and dandy, but no one yet has been able to make it come out like that. More debt will increase prices, not lower them. Ms Jamison's perspective seems to me therefore to be entirely biased. But there is no doubt in my mind either that the insurance cos and the healthcare industry would just as soon have us in more debt as well, but THEY want to be the recipients of it, not the govt.

We do need the reform, but we must have responsible reform, especially at this time. Aside from the cost of the welfare portion, the main problem with the proposal on the table, is that it falls far short of correcting the inefficiencies, and worse, it has confounded it with the welfare issue. Thus we are told we must have a public option in order to force competition. But you cannot force competition in an industry where demand is essentially infinite, because either the govt or the Federal Reserve always picks up the tab. The reason why we cannot afford heathcare - and that is the point, we cannot afford healthcare - is because when we run up our debt we increase prices so that fewer and fewer Americans can afford things. No economy, no country, can be succesful unless the ppl can afford what they make. If they cannot it is because of the inflation caused by debt, no other reason."