“Communism, Bolshevism, Fascism and Nazism”

These are the words that the National Association of Manufacturers used in 1938 to denounce the proposed federal minimum wage, something most of us don’t even think about today. In 1935, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called Social Security a plan to “Sovietize” the United States. Public education itself wasn’t an obvious sell either. Republican President Benjamin Harrison always carried support for public education close to his heart. While a senator, he unsuccessfully tried to get federal education aid for the post-Civil War south, especially for the children of former slaves, because he considered such efforts to be a great social equalizer.

In 1892, he even asked a famous former Baptist minister of the time, Francis Bellamy, to help him sell the concept of expanding the federal government’s role in public education – Bellamy wrote the now famous “Pledge of Allegiance” as a part of that marketing effort – but there was resistance to both the Pledge and such expansion as socialist. Bellamy had been forced out of his church as being too socialist. The original words of the Pledge included these words: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.” You’ll notice “equality” isn’t in the Pledge today; it was removed because it suggested that women and blacks were equal. Federal support for public education is fairly well-established, despite some contemporary extremists who still decry public education as un-American socialism, but even civil rights judicial action and legislation went down hard when the concept was pushed into law.

“After Brown v. Board of Education outlawed school segregation in 1954, 101 members of Congress signed a statement calling the ruling an instance of ‘naked judicial power’ that would sow ‘chaos and confusion’ and diminish American greatness. A decade later, The Wall Street Journal editorial board described civil rights marchers as ‘asking for trouble’ and civil rights laws as being on ‘the outer edge of constitutionality, if not more.’” New York Times (December 14^th). Again, legal equality for African Americans is simply the way it is and should have always been; it’s part of the definition of America today.

Republican President Ronald Reagan voiced his clear opposition to medical care for the elderly – Medicare – in this precious quote, noted in the NY Times: “‘We are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program,’ [said Reagan.] It is socialized medicine, he argued. If it stands, he said, ‘one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.’”

But just a few years earlier, his predecessor – Republican Richard Nixon – had tried, unsuccessfully, to bring universal healthcare into law. Here are his own words, given in a February 6, 1974 special message to Congress proposing such a comprehensive healthcare program: “Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job… Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk… Today the need is even more pressing because of the higher costs of medical care. Efforts to control medical costs under the New Economic Policy have been Inept with encouraging success, sharply reducing the rate of inflation for health care. Nevertheless, the overall cost of health care has still risen by more than 20 percent in the last two and one-half years, so that more and more Americans face staggering bills when they receive medical help today.”

As repeal of “Obamacare” looms as the major plank in the going-forward GOP platform, as now courts weigh in on the constitutionality of the law, it is interesting to note this seesaw battle between two inconsistent underlying American philosophies. The New York Times summarizes this split between free-spirit entrepreneurialism and free market individuality, on the one hand, and the concept of a higher standard of living for all Americans, on the other: “The opposition stems from the tension between two competing traditions in the American economy. One is the laissez-faire tradition that celebrates individuality and risk-taking. The other is the progressive tradition that says people have a right to a minimum standard of living — time off from work, education and the like.

“Both traditions have been crucial to creating the most prosperous economy and the largest middle class the world has ever known. Laissez-faire conservatism has helped make the United States a nation of entrepreneurs, while progressivism has helped make prosperity a mass-market phenomenon… Yet the two traditions have never quite reconciled themselves. In particular, conservatives have often viewed any expansion of government protections as a threat to capitalism.” The harsh lesson of history is that big social change almost always generates strong push-back, sometimes sweeping the changing politicos out of office. Canada threw out most of the politicians who introduced universal healthcare to that country, but while those elected officials are long gone, Canadian universal healthcare is now considered a “right” few Canadians would do without.

I’m Peter Dekom, and Americans are pretty used to that swinging pendulum of change.