Why America Needs A Monarchy: Some Vague Thoughts On The US Healthcare Debate

I’ve recently been reading a large book on the ‘History of Modern Political Thought’, and came across a section entitled ‘The Federalist’, which refers to a series of newspaper articles published in New York newspapers between 1787-88. The articles sought to persuade New Yorkers to vote in favour of a new constitution drawn up over the previous summer in Philadelphia, which sought to fix problems with the ‘Articles of Confederation’ – the original document defining the collective identity of the new American states following the War of Independence (…or something like that).

Anyway, apparently one of the problems with getting the new constitution agreed to was the general suspicion among Americans with regard to anything resembling strong central government. This suspicion is pretty understandable given that the Americans had just fought a war against the British to GAIN liberty from a strong, central (albeit overseas and imperial) government. The new American States weren’t about to give that liberty away again by acceding to another strong central government, even if it was this time on their side of the Atlantic.

While describing this background, however, the author of my book threw in a random aside which got me thinking about America’s big healthcare debate. (It’s worth noting, if you don’t know, that a lot of opposition to Obama’s public healthcare proposals are on the grounds, broadly, that too much central government power is dangerous and interferes with individual liberty). My author pointed our, that a major contrast between the public perception of governmental authority in Britain and America in the late 18th Century had to do with the recent history of the two countries. I quote:

“Because the British had used the supremacy – or at least the independence – of Parliament twice in the seventeenth century to overthrow royal absolutism, they tended to identify parliamentary supremacy with political liberty itself. Because the Americans had suffered under the actions of an unrepresentative imperial parliament, and had fought against its authority to achieve their liberty, no such identity was possible. Liberty was identified with rights held against government…” (p.204)

Now, I don’t mean to overplay this historical point (fear of an absolutist monarchy is not particularly potent in Britain these days), but it does seem to encapsulate something of the differences between Britain and America ideologically, and perhaps explains a little of the pre-rational, presuppositional ‘background’ which is shaping the American healthcare debate – a debate which has been, at times, quite unintelligible on the British side of the Atlantic.

In Britain, the political right, which is associated as in America with minimal central government (lower taxes, unfettered markets etc.), is represented by the Tory party. And the Tory party is traditionally associated with the British aristocracy. This connection with the aristocracy – or what we might call the traditional English upper class (inherited, as opposed to earned, wealth) – among Conservatives is definitely not as evident today as a century ago, but it still lingers in the background. For instance, many on the Tory ‘front bench’, including David Cameron, were educated at prestigious English public (that is, independent) schools such as Eton, and it is not without significance that this is regularly pointed out by left wing political commentators. Moreover, the aristocratic connection of some Tories was typified by the (Tory) mayor of London, Boris Johnson (full name: Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson – of distant royal blood), when in a live TV interview he off-handedly referred to a £250,000 annual wage as “chicken feed”, much to the dismay of his interviewer, and most of the British public. Such a remarkable statement, so perfectly out of sync with the sentiments of the common man, could only come from someone brought up in the monied ranks of the English upper class.

Suffice to say (and note that I have no substantive research to back this up), perhaps the connection drawn above re. 18th Century Britain, between popular political liberty and a strong central parliament acting as a buttress against the conservative forces of aristocracy and monarchy, remains somewhat in contemporary Britain. This connection would never be articulated as such today, but it may well form part of the presuppositional background of the contemporary British political landscape. Indeed, it may explain a little of why the British public are nowhere near as jittery when it comes to the influence of central government in areas such as healthcare, as many Americans. What’s more, this theory is perhaps supported by the fact the political left in Britain – where there has been a much stronger socialist movement in any case – is associated (traditionally – not so much with ‘New Labour’, of course) with protecting the interests of the ‘common man’ (especially the working classes) against the claims of the wealthier classes (f.1). Here as well, therefore, the liberty (f.2) and interests of the ‘common man’ in Britain would align with the proposals of the political left regarding a certain redistribution of wealth through taxation and public services, that is, with proposals for greater central government power (f.3)

This seems to stand in stark contrast to the American situation where, traditionally at least, the ‘liberty’ and ‘interests’ of the average American are associated with individual rights held against government, rather than upheld by government (f.4). In this sense, maybe the historical lack of a wealthy, American aristocracy, or even a monarchy, explains a little of why many Americans today are so resistant to proposals for state-funded healthcare (or anything which might enlarge central government power). Without any lingering resentment of a landed, monied upper class (f.5), there is no consciousness of the need for a democratic central government to promote equality and (positive) liberty through taxation and the provision of public services. Rather, in the popular consciousness equality and liberty are associated with minimal government interference. And so, evidently, many millions go without healthcare. Maybe there needs to be a realisation that America has matured and grown to such a size that, while individual responsibility – laziness – is indeed often a factor, many of the causes of widespread poverty and inequality in large, developed nations (and in many ways globally) are actually systemic, and therefore require central government intervention to be properly addressed.

Or maybe Obama should just find some wealthy New England aristocrats to scapegoat… that’ll get the masses revolting.

_________________________________

(f.1) (…although, some Romantic 19th Century Tories of aristocratic roots, such as John Ruskin, who were aware of the plight of the lower, working classes, were actually deeply socialist – and on quite Christian grounds. Ruskin’s work was eventually a major influence on the young Labour party).
(f.2) Liberty understood ‘positively’; that is, not simply as ‘freedom from outside interference’ (‘negative liberty’), but more like freedom understood as having the necessary resources fulfil one’s own potential – true equality of opportunity. Isaiah Berlin’s phraseology.
(f.3) This is not to say that a lot of Brits are not very worried by recent attempts to increase central government power further in Britain, especially under anti-terrorism legislation. Many Britons are as scared of an Orwellian-style society as are Americans. Too much central governmental power can, of course, be deeply oppressive. The key seems to be balance.
(f.4) Much more the ‘negative’ concept of liberty.
(f.5) Of course it was not just resentment at the upper class which fuelled left-wing movements in Europe, but resentment at the ‘wealthy few’ more generally, in terms also of wealthy, bourgeois industrialist (whose factories mimicked the older system of Lord/landowner and Peasant/field-worker).