Conservatism

This blog essay was done in collaboration with friend Michael Slager. I created the armature and he fleshed it out.


[Read time: 3:30]

This article that appeared in the Guardian last week got me thinking. I began pondering conservatism. Now, my area of philosophy that I specialize in is political philosophy. My competence would be in question if I had not read my Edmund Burke—which I have. 

His Reflections on the Revolution in France is the founding text of political  conservatism. And while I do not agree with him to the letter, I do agree with him occasionally; he makes some good and compelling points in that book.

What is called conservatism today bears no resemblance to what Burke was talking about. What is meant by conservative anyway?

This is what had me thinking. What does that mean? More to the point, what do they want?

This is not to suggest that all conservatives are the same. Of course, they are not. To some degree, I am a conservative. I’ve read my Burke, I believe children should have good manners, and so on. So, you can count me among the conservative set.

But is this what is meant? Is this the agenda? Is this what we see on Capitol Hill and the legislative program pushed by congressional Republicans? (And no, I am not in any way suggesting the blue team is wonderful. I feel Clinton, Biden, and Obama should all die in prison, in case you were wondering.)

I think it’s worth taking a look at the major ambitions we see (and hear) over and over again.

One seems to be tax cuts. These apply to corporations and the rich. What does that mean? The top marginal tax-rate cut applies to earners bringing in over $640,000 a year. Savings are usually in the tens of thousands—not much for someone who makes over a half-million a year. Estate tax cuts, on the other hand, apply to multi-million-dollar estates. 

Moreover, the top 10 percent will see total tax savings of $1.4 trillion over a decade. On average, they would gain an additional $13,600 every year. For those in the lowest 10 percent of the income distribution, they lose $1,200 in benefits. One fails to see the fiscal conservatism in funneling resources from impoverished people to the already well-off. 

If we didn’t give $140 billion away to rich people every year in tax cuts (1.4 trillion dollars over a decade) and got back the additional estimated $160 billion in tax money that wealthy people hide every year, we could do the following and have over $100 billion left over.

Four points:
 
1. We could make a huge dent in homelessness. It would cost an estimated $9.6 billion to get individuals and families out of shelters and into stable housing, complete with decent follow-up services.
 
2. Child poverty could be eliminated. It would cost around $180 billion every year to lift all kids currently living in poverty out of it. The benefits would pay for themselves. Alleviating child poverty today would greatly reduce the chances of future homelessness, boost school attendance, decrease lost economic productivity in adulthood, and decrease the chances of health problems. Some estimates put the downstream costs of child poverty at one trillion dollars a year.
 
3. Millions of people are uninsured. Medicaid expansion to the 10 states that did not accept earlier expanded coverage would cost about $30 billion every year and cover approximately 3 million people. Providing preventative care can save billions more in healthcare costs down the line.
 
4. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) makes up about 1.6 percent of the total federal budget. That’s not a lot when one considers it keeps human beings fed. Children can grow and learn well thanks to good nutrition.
 
So, if we add all this up, what are we left with? Handing out free money to the wealthy, and taking away support for social programs relied upon by the working poor. This and contempt for caring of any kind? Global warming? Trans rights? Women’s rights? Rights? 

Is this how these politicians stay in office—and entities like Fox News stay in business? 

Conservatism seems to be based on an ethos and the assumption that “I made something of myself. And anyone with problems I do not have is at fault for those problems.” Is this conservatism?

Corporate power. Wealth. White supremacy. Disgust with anything that smells like sympathy. Have we seen anything like this before in history? I believe we have. And it could happen here tomorrow. This country is ripe for the pickin’.

I suspect most Americans do not know the details. I suspect most Americans are not familiar with what we review in this essay. Like US involvement in the Middle East, I have said for years if Americans could really see what is happening they would not stand for it.

The same goes for conservatism. If Americans actually knew the agony suffered by those with nothing while people with multiple homes buy a new horse, they wouldn’t stand for it.

And like I’ve said before, you can be a white supremacist and support progressive legislation at the same time. Most of the working poor are White. No one’s saying you can’t still be a racist; just be a smarter one.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/25/food-stamps-children-trump

"It's just a movie."

 

Odyssey Translation

I found this video by "Daniel" (I don't know his last name) to be an informative discussion of Emily Watson's translation of Homer's The Odyssey. Check it out.

Also, there are a number of interviews with Watson herself on YouTube that are quite interesting. In a couple of them, she recites entire passages from the text in ancient Greek. Your jaw will drop; it's something to see—and hear.

(Make sure you search "Emily Watson Odyssey," otherwise you get the actress.)

Maybe I could have her on the Inquiry?

The Odyssey

I have read the book (the Fagles translation). I have not seen the film. The reason for the latter is an increasing disinterest. I’ll see it eventually; I’m just not in a big hurry.

Part of the thing that has contributed to my increasing indifference is all the controversy and silliness surrounding the film. This is admittedly unfair of me. The rightwing (“conservative”?) trolls bellyaching about the film being “woke” and “historically inaccurate” are mind-numbing.

The trolls are few in number. They are representative of nothing. The box office has spoken for itself; people love the film and are not upset by Helen being portrayed by an African woman (who was born in Mexico). Now I am to understand that some people are doubting the box office receipts and suspect Universal Pictures is buying up tickets to inflate sales. 🙄

Again, this is not representative of anything. Disappointment in Nolan’s casting Lupita Nyong’o as Helen assumes some people possess a grasp of Homer’s artistic intent. As something I said to a friend recently: “The number of people on Planet Earth who are familiar with Homer’s artistic intentions is zero.” Translator Emily Watson says the concept of pursuing a “real Homer” is “historically nonsense.”

And this brings me to another point: I intensely dislike filmmakers. I guess it’s a prejudice. But where racists do not have legitimate reasons for their bigotry, I have very specific reasons for holding filmmakers in disfavor. And one is when they interpret books, the assumption is “I’ve got this.” Nolan did not bring scholars and translators (namely, Emily Watson) into the project and consult them.

Watson is very kind about the film. She says it’s “a good time at the movies.” But she has a number of criticisms that Nolan could have easily improved in his film.

Homer was writing in the 700s BC. When he did so, he was rendering into text stories that had existed as oral tradition for five hundred years. So, we’re talking about events—if indeed they happened—that occurred in 1200 BC. And people want to argue about historical accuracy?? This is not a film about the Civil War. Our knowledge of the world in that area at that time is pretty thin—closer to nonexistent.

Did the Trojan Wars take place? No one knows. Significant archaeological digs have taken place in the area of Turkey where archaeologists think Troy was (in the west). Some spears and shields have been found. Is this evidence? Nope. It is not.

People are talking, and they seem excited about a work of ancient poetry. I think this is truly great. Folks are talking about Homer! This is astounding. But it does not make people scholars of Greek antiquity.

Philosophy Joke

I love this:

https://youtube.com/shorts/iYtm0SBKf8w?si=-o212zpH049QfFXk

Team Nyong'o

 

Universal Healthcare

 

I am always negotiating the American healthcare system. It is infuriating. Now I am helping Leah with medical issues, trying to get her into a cardiologist. I called Northwestern in Chicago. First available: January.

Americans get angry about gas prices, but not this. That’s like obsessing over a leaky faucet while a tornado hits your house.

Ten points about universal healthcare:

1. Universal healthcare systems commonly do make you wait in some non-emergency situations. Oh … and where they also make you wait is called the United States.

2. An MRI in the US costs around $1,200. In Japan it costs $95. And chances are your MRI machine was made in Japan (or Germany).

3. Universal healthcare is not socialism. Children riding the bus to school is socialism? Nope. Germany and France (and a long list of countries that have universal healthcare—see point 5) are market economies. Are Medicare and the VA socialism?

4. Government is inefficient? One of the contributing factors to healthcare costing the United States 19 percent of GDP is corporate inefficiency. The United States has a GDP of $20 trillion. France has a GDP of around $3 trillion and spends about 11 percent of GDP on healthcare. As for corporate efficiency, called customer service lately?

5. These countries have universal healthcare: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and the UK.

6. Canadians love their healthcare; approval among Canadians is well into the 80s. Do a few come here? Yes, many for cosmetic purposes.

7. According to a Yale study, universal healthcare would annually save $450 billion and prevent nearly 70,000 deaths a year.

8. We are not broke. We have a Treasury Department and the world’s largest economy (see point 4). I don’t feel like explaining this one. It’s stupid with two O’s.

9. Universal healthcare has mainstream support. According to Pew: “Most Americans (66 percent) say the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage.”

10. Number of Americans who declare bankruptcy a year due to medical bills: 700,000. Number of people in Germany and Japan who declare bankruptcy a year due to medical bills: zero.

PHOTO: The Greek god of medicine Asclepius and his ... um, rod.