The 2019 elections to the European Parliament will take place between May 23 and May 26. Many in the Union prepare for this election with trepidation. It threatens to be shaping up as a battle between the forces of integration an fragmentation. A Reuter poll, executed in June of last year, projected that Eurosceptic political parties could well expand their representative strength in the Parliament by more than 60%. These largely critical, sometimes entirely anti EU, movements operate outside of the traditional mainstream support structure within the 28 nation bloc. If Brexit does happen before the election, 19 members of the United Kingdom Independent Party, which openly opposes the EU, will leave. However, Italy's coalition of populist parties, "5-Star" and "The League," combined with the rise of "Alternative for Germany," the French "National Rally," the Dutch "Freedom Party," and the recently surging "Forum for the Democracy," as well as Poland's "Law and Justice Party" are anticipated to more than make up for the British absence, and increase their collective representation from the current 80 to a potentially consequential 122 seats.
To say the least, this situation is awkward. EU member states could end up with a governing body seating a very significant percentage of representatives ideologically opposed to its essential objective. Outsiders with suspect intentions also join the fray. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's former White House Chief Strategist, even set up shop here, launching a project intended to coordinate and bolster the anti-EU vote across the continent. While a 2018 "Eurobarometer" survey commissioned by the Parliament indicated that 67% of EU citizens thought that membership had benefitted their country, and slightly more than half continue to express strong support for the Union - possibly stimulated by the Brexit vote - the Eurosceptic movement and its electoral success has exhibited steady growth. The question is: "why?" The temptation has been to blame the outcomes on populism fed by immigration. While this is important, it is only part of the answer.
EU leadership has become a haven for technocrats. The government in Brussels is filled with obscure bureaucrats few Europeans recognize or know by name. Post-war Europe was rebuilt on the strength and vision of charismatic leaders. German sociologist Max Weber referred to charisma as "a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities." After World War II Europeans looked up to leaders with these qualities, men like Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill and Alcide De Gasperi. Some of these inspired the development of the European Union project, aiming to end the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors.
Ultimately, the EU grew to what it has become today. However, it appears to be suffering some consequences of its success. Europe has not seen wars for decades. Its crises have become largely economic. Its technocratic leadership will solve economic issues, but it does not articulate these for popular consumption, and does not really inspire. Hence, ordinary citizens in membership countries are less inclined to develop an emotional connection with Brussels than with their native institutions.
Opposition parties competing in parliamentary elections are clearly taking advantage. Globalization, immigration, and the transfer of power to a source outside of their own country, gradually generated erosion of native cultures. This has often led to identity crises, a perceived loss of direction, and becoming a ripe environment for populist politicians. Political scientists have asserted that the charismatic bond between leader and follower is central to populist parties. Populism advocates the power of the people, yet relies on seduction by a charismatic leader. Populist politicians clearly articulate these identity crises, cast blame on the supranational government in Brussels, and justify their leadership by challenging its legitimacy and pontificating against it. By its nature, their messaging is more focused, and the messengers tend to be skillful and inspirational orators. By using fear and focus their messianic demeanor forges trust, a stable emotional connection with domestic citizenry, and develops a reliable electoral base. People understand what eurosceptics stand for.
Between Brussels and most of Europe, this connection is lacking. Many remain unclear about the direction mainstream parties want to take them. As far back as 2012, Frederico Castiglioni, an articulate member of the European Federalist Movement, warned that "Europe's technocrats might solve the economic conundrum, but they cannot restore trust between Europe and its citizens. We need a charismatic, democratic leader before illiberal and nationalistic forces gain ground." ("Europe's need for a charismatic leader," The European, Nov. 29, 2012). Others have issued similar warnings. Brussels continues to hope to convert dissatisfaction into democratic zeal rather than more political apathy. Thus far with little success.
Lacking major changes in campaign strategies, the upcoming election threatens to remain a confrontation between technocratic competence and charisma, a battle charisma very often wins. In the mean time, the pro EU centrist majority in the European Parliament hangs by a thread, lucky that eurosceptics thus far appear unable to unite under one political umbrella.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Monday, April 8, 2019
OBAMACARE ON DEATH ROW - AGAIN?
Attorney General William Barr's cursory summation of the long awaited Mueller Report appears to have emboldened President Donald Trump.
During the immediate aftermath of the report's release to the Justice Department, Mr. Trump, among a number of ill-considered and counter-productive moves, decided to throw his administration's support behind the ruling of Texas District Court Judge Reed O'Connor, invalidating the entire Affordable Care Act.
By re-opening the "repeal and replace Obamacare" discussion, Trump blindsided most, if not all, of his supporters in Congress, who would rather not revisit a debate that effectively concluded when Senator John McCain famously killed the final attempt at repeal in the Senate by dramatically voting "thumbs down."
Perhaps by design, the administration's renewed effort stands in starks contrast to the political debate among many Democratic candidates contending to win the chance to compete with Mr. Trump in next year's election, promising "Medicare for all." This attempt at establishing universal healthcare, still a radical left-wing pipe dream in 2016, now appears to have moved into the mainstream.
The December ruling by Judge O'Connor is being appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country, almost guaranteeing that it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court. In a new filing, signed by three Justice Department attorneys, the administration held that the decision of District Judge Reed O'Connor should be affirmed, and that the entirety of the ACA should be validated. While a court victory would fulfill one of the president's campaign promises, it would potentially eliminate healthcare for millions of people with preexisting conditions, and for people who get their health insurance on the exchanges or through Medicaid expansion.
"This lawsuit is as dangerous as it is reckless. it threatens the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans across the country," said California A.G. Xavier Becerra, one of 21 Attorneys General from Democratic states stepping in to oppose the administration's decision and defend the ACA law.
While the heated heathcare debate appears to be re-emerging after Mr. Trump's announcement, the confrontation between proponents of private health insurance and supporters of single payer, government-run healthcare has been going on for a hundred years or more.
U.S. efforts to achieve universal healthcare coverage began with progressive healthcare reformers who supported Theodore Roosevelt for president in 1912. This attempt did not go anywhere when Roosevelt was defeated. Franklin Roosevelt initially included a national healthcare program in the Social Security Act of 1935. He removed it when he encountered opposition from the AMA and others.Harry Truman tried in 1945 and again in 1947. However, the opposition quickly labeled his proposals "socialized medicine," which, given the sentiment of the time, killed it. Lyndon Johnson did manage to achieve incremental progress by passing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Bill Clinton made a failed attempt with "Hillarycare" in 1993. Subsequently, Barack Obama succeeded in passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the adoption of which has led to contentious partisan arguments ever since. Although not perfect, implementation of ACA led to a reduction of the number uninsured citizens to roughly 28 million.Nevertheless, political opponents in Congress voted more than 60 times to attempt to repeal this law, something President Trump apparently intends to pursue again.
Supporters of universal access to healthcare argue that healthcare is a right, and should not be run like a business. They point out that the U.S. is the only developed country in which the population needs to worry about the cost and coverage of healh insurance.Comparisons are made with countries like Denmark and the United Kingdom.
In Denmark the underlying principle of its healthcare law is a "government obligation to promote the health of its population and prevent and treat illness, suffering and functional limitations. This includes ensuring high quality care, easy and equal access to care, service integration, choice, transparency, access to information and short waiting times." (Karsten Vrangbaek, "The Danish Health Care System," University of Copenhagen).All Danish residents are automatically entitled to publicly financed healthcare, largely free. Its system is 84.2% publicly financed, supported by an 8% national health tax. Healthcare spending per capita - 2014 numbers - is $5012 per year, about half of what it is in theU.S.
The U.K. picture is very similar. Its National Health Service, a single-payer system paid for with payroll taxes, guarantees care for all, and includes everything from ambulance rides, emergency room visits to long hospital stays, complex surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. It also spends less than half of what Americans spend per person on healthare, yet, life expectncy in Britain is higher than in the U.S. The NHS remains the most popular institution in the U.K., more popular than the military or royal family. A 2014 report by the Commonwealth Fund concluded that the U.K. was ranked as having the best healthcare system in the world overall. ("Mirror, mirror on the wall, 2014 update: How the U.S. healthcare system compares internationally.")
The arguments in favor of universal healthcare are powerful. While an erstwhile pipe dream may have gone mainstream, articulating the pros and cons of adopting a Medicare for all system, and actually getting a law enacted may look easy compared to implementing it.Yet, many seem to think that we are collectively moving closer to a Medicare for all system, which would signify a seismic shift, affecting the lives of of millions, and nearly one-fifth of our economy.
Killing Obamacare without offering a suitable replacement won't get us there.
During the immediate aftermath of the report's release to the Justice Department, Mr. Trump, among a number of ill-considered and counter-productive moves, decided to throw his administration's support behind the ruling of Texas District Court Judge Reed O'Connor, invalidating the entire Affordable Care Act.
By re-opening the "repeal and replace Obamacare" discussion, Trump blindsided most, if not all, of his supporters in Congress, who would rather not revisit a debate that effectively concluded when Senator John McCain famously killed the final attempt at repeal in the Senate by dramatically voting "thumbs down."
Perhaps by design, the administration's renewed effort stands in starks contrast to the political debate among many Democratic candidates contending to win the chance to compete with Mr. Trump in next year's election, promising "Medicare for all." This attempt at establishing universal healthcare, still a radical left-wing pipe dream in 2016, now appears to have moved into the mainstream.
The December ruling by Judge O'Connor is being appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country, almost guaranteeing that it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court. In a new filing, signed by three Justice Department attorneys, the administration held that the decision of District Judge Reed O'Connor should be affirmed, and that the entirety of the ACA should be validated. While a court victory would fulfill one of the president's campaign promises, it would potentially eliminate healthcare for millions of people with preexisting conditions, and for people who get their health insurance on the exchanges or through Medicaid expansion.
"This lawsuit is as dangerous as it is reckless. it threatens the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans across the country," said California A.G. Xavier Becerra, one of 21 Attorneys General from Democratic states stepping in to oppose the administration's decision and defend the ACA law.
While the heated heathcare debate appears to be re-emerging after Mr. Trump's announcement, the confrontation between proponents of private health insurance and supporters of single payer, government-run healthcare has been going on for a hundred years or more.
U.S. efforts to achieve universal healthcare coverage began with progressive healthcare reformers who supported Theodore Roosevelt for president in 1912. This attempt did not go anywhere when Roosevelt was defeated. Franklin Roosevelt initially included a national healthcare program in the Social Security Act of 1935. He removed it when he encountered opposition from the AMA and others.Harry Truman tried in 1945 and again in 1947. However, the opposition quickly labeled his proposals "socialized medicine," which, given the sentiment of the time, killed it. Lyndon Johnson did manage to achieve incremental progress by passing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Bill Clinton made a failed attempt with "Hillarycare" in 1993. Subsequently, Barack Obama succeeded in passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the adoption of which has led to contentious partisan arguments ever since. Although not perfect, implementation of ACA led to a reduction of the number uninsured citizens to roughly 28 million.Nevertheless, political opponents in Congress voted more than 60 times to attempt to repeal this law, something President Trump apparently intends to pursue again.
Supporters of universal access to healthcare argue that healthcare is a right, and should not be run like a business. They point out that the U.S. is the only developed country in which the population needs to worry about the cost and coverage of healh insurance.Comparisons are made with countries like Denmark and the United Kingdom.
In Denmark the underlying principle of its healthcare law is a "government obligation to promote the health of its population and prevent and treat illness, suffering and functional limitations. This includes ensuring high quality care, easy and equal access to care, service integration, choice, transparency, access to information and short waiting times." (Karsten Vrangbaek, "The Danish Health Care System," University of Copenhagen).All Danish residents are automatically entitled to publicly financed healthcare, largely free. Its system is 84.2% publicly financed, supported by an 8% national health tax. Healthcare spending per capita - 2014 numbers - is $5012 per year, about half of what it is in theU.S.
The U.K. picture is very similar. Its National Health Service, a single-payer system paid for with payroll taxes, guarantees care for all, and includes everything from ambulance rides, emergency room visits to long hospital stays, complex surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. It also spends less than half of what Americans spend per person on healthare, yet, life expectncy in Britain is higher than in the U.S. The NHS remains the most popular institution in the U.K., more popular than the military or royal family. A 2014 report by the Commonwealth Fund concluded that the U.K. was ranked as having the best healthcare system in the world overall. ("Mirror, mirror on the wall, 2014 update: How the U.S. healthcare system compares internationally.")
The arguments in favor of universal healthcare are powerful. While an erstwhile pipe dream may have gone mainstream, articulating the pros and cons of adopting a Medicare for all system, and actually getting a law enacted may look easy compared to implementing it.Yet, many seem to think that we are collectively moving closer to a Medicare for all system, which would signify a seismic shift, affecting the lives of of millions, and nearly one-fifth of our economy.
Killing Obamacare without offering a suitable replacement won't get us there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)