Self-Evident

By Harry T. Cook

10/11/13

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are ... the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health ..."

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt, January 11, 1944

The Second World War against global fascism was within 16 months of ending with the Allies' victory pretty much assured when Franklin Roosevelt gave his 1944 State of the Union speech. It was an ambitious proposal for a country and a people that had given its all to put down the malign forces of Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. Roosevelt called it an economic bill of rights.

Roosevelt had seen people who, until the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, had lived from handout to handout go on to live from paycheck to paycheck and even better due to the mobilization of American industry. Along with his vision of global peace through what would become the United Nations, Roosevelt could foresee what actually came to be: a robust post-war national economy. He was determined that ex-GIs, the men and women who performed war-related work at home and all Americans regardless of race or class should share fully in it.

To that end, he declared, among other things, that all should have "the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." The latter had not been his for many years. In fact, his health was worsening to the point that he would be dead little more than a year later. Had he lived to serve out that fourth term through January 19, 1948, he might have seen his proposal come to some kind of fruition.

Those who had opposed Roosevelt's New Deal from the beginning took advantage of his death and the great vacuum it left to try to cleanse America of what they believed was essentially socialism. Up rose the bitter oppositionist Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio to challenge the more moderate Thomas E. Dewey in what Republicans hoped and prayed would send Harry Truman back to Missouri, an interim chief executive at best.

The famous Chicago Tribune headline on the morning after the 1948 general election ("Dewey Beats Truman") was, of course, dead wrong. Still, Truman had an uphill battle with the rising conservative movement whose leaders wanted nothing so much as to erase the memory and the effect of Roosevelt's benign and generous governance.

Roosevelt knew what he was about when he called "adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health" a right. He knew that the power to guarantee rights had firmly to be placed in the hands of the People's government. He knew that he could not count on business or industry to do it.

Neither Harry Truman nor later Richard Nixon (yes!) could succeed in getting universal health care off the ground. The political disposition against it was characterized by Ronald Reagan in his dismissal of Medicare in 1965 to the effect that it would enslave the American people. Similar base and foul canards have been committed against the Affordable Care Act.

Why in a country such as ours should not adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health be a right? If the pursuit of happiness is a right, it cannot very well be pursued by persons living with conditions that physicians and surgeons could treat if only the sick had the resources to pay for their services.

In the metropolitan area where I live, one can scarcely avoid the ubiquitous billboards advertising the wonders of this hospital and that hospital, which tell you with scarcely a self-deprecating moue that health care delivery is a business, a big business.

So along comes Barack Obama to do what Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon and Bill and Hillary Clinton could not get done: get an affordable health care plan through Congress -- no thanks to the Republicans. If the bill had not been over-ornamented like a megalomaniac's Christmas tree by this senator and that representative who wanted his or her fingerprints on it somewhere, and, in the end, had not been sabotaged by tea party fascists, the Obama plan would have gone some distance toward realizing Roosevelt's post-war hope.

Yet, the Affordable Care Act is a far cry from what Roosevelt envisioned. It is more than apparent that he was thinking of national health care the way he thought of Social Security. But Obama got us part of the way there. The trouble many people are having with the exchanges is due in great part to the overcomplication of the plan. It does not help that for-profit insurance companies have their mitts deep in the till. Thus, as so many intelligent people have said, "Why not Medicare for everyone?"

The answer given in no uncertain terms to that question is: "The American People don't want government to have anything to do with their health care." Oh, yeah? Ask anybody with his or her Medicare card about that. Ask the single mom living in poverty about her hard-won Medicaid benefit.

Roosevelt was right. The America for the salvation of which, as a Depression and war president, he gave his life -- he died at barely 63 years of age -- could and should guarantee its people the right to pursue not only happiness but good health as well. That could happen only by making available to all the superior medical care he knew his country could provide. A fairly apportioned tax would guarantee it.

If the flag wavers of the dead-end gulch Republican Party succeed in crippling or destroying this last best attempt at universal health care in the name of "freedom," they should be branded as traitors and put on trial for sedition.

One disciple of the toxic Texan Ted Cruz was heard to shout at an anti-Obama rally, "Give me liberty or give me death!" We should oblige him.

What a Friend They Had in Jesus: The Theological Visions of Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Hymn Writers

Have you ever found yourself humming a favorite childhood hymn, only to realize you could no longer embrace its message? Harry Cook explores how hymns reflect the religious beliefs of their times. He revisits the texts of popular hymns, posing such questions as: How true are they to the biblical texts that seem to have inspired them? What aspects of nineteenth- and twentieth-century piety have persisted into the twenty-first century through the singing of those hymns? And, how does one manage the conflict between the emotional appeal and the theological content of such hymns?

Available at:

Polebridge Press

Amazon.com

* * * * *

What reviewers said:

"Important and heart-warming ... Cook's keen insights into the most familiar of old-time gospel hymns ... help you do theology like a grownup."
--Robin Meyers, author of Saving Jesus from the Church

"A compelling look at centuries of Christian theology and practice, at how particular hymns have shaped American faith and religious thought."
--Richard Webster, Director of Music and Organist at Trinity Church, Boston

"A call to integrity in worship ... This exciting, penetrating and provocative study explores the theology we sing, which re-enforces the dated and pre-modern theology from which the Christian faith seeks to escape."
--John Shelby Spong, author of Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World

Readers Write

Essay 10/4/13: Powerless in the Land of the Free

Jack Lessenberry, Huntington Woods, MI:

One of your best, I think. Mazel tov.

Sara Bartlett, Glencoe, IL:

Thank you for giving me hope. Whoever your Mr. Joyce is, tell him to sign me up.

Mark Bendure, Grosse Pointe Park, MI:

As always, I enjoyed your essay. The third option chosen by the tribal expatriates of long ago brought to mind a solution available to those who detest the existence of American government. They would be welcome to move to a place where government and taxes are apparently nonexistent: Somalia.

Diane Tumidajewicz, St. Clair Shores, MI:

How well you express my own feelings of helplessness. I agree with your friend Frank Joyce and would like to know more about him.

Cynthia Chase, Laurel, MD:

Tired, worn out really, by the shenanigans in Washington. I can't watch it anymore. Circuses, but no bread. I will not move to Canada. I will plant a butterfly garden here in Maryland, set up our rain barrels, use the dryer as little as possible, turn out the lights, waste as little food as possible, cook more vegetables-beans-and-rice, tote donations to the local food pantry and help organize the shelves, adopt a poor family through a community organization at Thanksgiving and Christmas, learn magnificent anthems in choir and sing them with a voice like Rose Kennedy's with laryngitis, hear tales of hill-country socialism when the Bible is read, help my resistant grandson with his homework and donate money to the Democrats and environmental causes. That's all.

Charles Howe, Grand Haven, MI:

Frighteningly, those who represent the electorate in some parts of this great country are being responsive and accountable the People at Large (in their venues). Southern conservatives are cheering for a government shutdown, and more. Meanwhile, Boehner and Company are hiding behind the tea party, who likely don't have the votes to force their hand, anyhow. (They won't tell just how many TPers there are, anyhow.) The Dems may be blaming the GOP, but the GOP is blaming the TP in order to get their party back. Fortunately, according to American Family Radio's "Nothing but Truth," only a third of our 60 million Evangelical Christians that are eligible are actually registered to vote. Have you noticed that the GOP prefers to spend their money keeping other people from voting, rather than tapping their treasure-trove of unregistered "patriots"? Rush Limbaugh did not invent irresponsible speech in 1992. Even Paul Harvey (R.I.P.) did not invent it in 1952. But, Roger Ailes, et.al., have refined the practice to the point that they hold sway over the minds of more and more good, well-intentioned people. They have bred a generation of "patriots" who don't believe in our representative form of government, and "patriots" who believe that the Second Amendment allows them to "protect themselves from the government," which can only mean their "high morals" would justify them drawing down on American troops. I personally find high morals irrelevant when not expressed in ethical behavior. I, for one, am ready for your call to action.

Dr. Robert J. Causley, Roseville, MI:

Great essay! Please sign me up for the revolution. I was very unhappily fighting for the rights of the American People when I left a very prosperous position with the Department of Defense. The massive contractors' influence along with the US Army's proposals to assure continuation of projects that assure work and future positions was too much for me to continue working. We now have situations that prove the strength of the programs. The spending continues unabated in those areas determined by the very ones who profit from the continuation. The programs designed to be transitional are instead excessively drawn out and given a hidden life. The situation in Detroit is a prime example of the type of corruption rampant in the government. The so-called "Manager" put into Detroit is a shell game player who really provided a way for the take over of the city to take place. If indeed the "Manager" was truly capable, the correct method is to use all available currently employed individuals to get things back on track. Instead there are plans to sell off valuable pieces of the city's assets that will further decimate the city. To truly provide the strength and methods desired to revolutionize, correct, and ultimately place Detroit on a path of correction it will require everyone to participate. This is not possible in the financially driven society we live in today. Just think about the last election and how many millions were donated to assure that the politicians would do as the donation providers desired. Yes, revolution is needed but to really fight and make a change will incur costs that the public has no way to pay. The hardships and funding required to support movements and changes are so massive that only a regrowth of the unions would be able to facilitate it. The laws have diminished unions, thus this tool was dulled and basically taken away. Thank you for insights.

Julie Eliason, Royal Oak, MI:

It seems the 1% have figured out how to take over even our right to vote, leaving us powerless as you say. I certainly don't want a bloody revolution. So what can we do? We need to get the great minds among the 99% to work together to come up with a plan for a nonviolent revolution. Then this needs to be communicated to all the 99%, so we can work together as a united force to gain back our vote -- in one way or the other. I can understand why the 1% is trying to take control! I don't understand what the 99% are waiting for!

Fred Fenton, Concord, CA:

Thinking, caring people are indeed powerless. We are always being told that we get the government we deserve. If we want change, we should write to our elected representatives, visit them when they are home from Washington, support the party of our choice, get politically active. Doing all of that, and more, does not change the fact that no matter what we do, a minimum of 40% of the electorate will vote Republican, vote for heartless disregard of the poorest people in society and for protecting and enhancing the richest among us. At present, things are even worse than that. A small minority of Republicans who despise government has put the whole system in danger of going over the cliff. Al Gore used computer language to describe the situation, when he said last week, "American democracy has been hacked."

Euni Rose, Southfield, MI:

This essay is a masterpiece. I have been screaming at the TV set (how come it doesn't answer?!) at the miserable excuses for "public servants" we have in Washington. Not only in Washington. Here in Michigan I am part of a group who has been fighting against the Magic Plus plan for our late, lamented, historic Michigan State Fairgrounds. Put before us by our governor and his buddies is a shoddy, outdated big box shopping center that will do nobody any good except for making a few millionaires happy. Worst of all is that our governor has taken this land away from the citizens of Michigan. He knows, as well as the rest of us, that this is state-owned land, and it is not for the taking. Charming. We are not giving up. There is a plan out there that features a public transit hub, already in place on that property, and includes a mixture of exhibition, education, entertainment, plus complete streets, green space, biking paths, and more. This property is the size of downtown Royal Oak [a suburb of Detroit], so it can accommodate something marvelous. Yes, the Michigan Land Bank voted to do business with the Magic Plus group, but there's still time for us to detour this plan. Wish this Donna Quixote luck!

Joan McDonald, Huntington Woods, MI:

As always, your words say it all. I have given up watching the commentators that spend a lot of time talking and cashing their regular checks ... nothing seems to be happening that might make a difference in Congress ... actually I think the Congress should quickly find another place to babble on and they should just collect their salary and get out of town as fast as they can and never show up again.

Rabbi Larry Mahrer, Parrish, FL:

And it will only get worse. We have developed a human system without human interaction. We use our devices instead of talking to each other. I live on a corner where kids gather for the school bus. There used to be talking, laughter and simple fun. Now it is totally quiet. Nothing happens except for the movement of fingers. One of these youngsters is a boy of about 13, who comes home to an empty house. Both parents work. We have played catch with each other after I saw him bouncing a tennis ball against the garage door. A week or so ago, I saw him waiting for the bus and called out to him when I went out for the morning paper. I asked him how come none of the kids were talking to each other. His response: "Why should we?"

Stu Chisholm, Roseville, MI:

Just to clarify one point: anything with sights does not qualify as a "weapon of mass destruction." Also, Congress didn't reject universal background checks, which as you know, even most of us NRA members support. What was rejected was a poorly written, politically constructed mess of a bill that would not have covered all private sales, implemented a de facto tax on private sellers only and created an illegal registry. Even with the Manchin-Toomey amendment, only that last item would've been corrected. Just as Obama wants a "clean" up or down bill to restore government operations, We The People demand a 'clean' and, above all, effective background check bill. I hope that one day they will decide to give us one. Thus far, I'm unaware of any "assault rifles" being used in a crime. If you're referring to the politically contrived term "assault weapon," please note that these rifles that are no more deadly, accurate or powerful than many standard hunting or sporting rifles are very rarely used in crime. They're a small subset of rifles in general, used in only 4% of all murders involving guns in the United States. Machine guns are already illegal for most of us.

What do you think?

I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me at revharrytcook@aol.com.

Click here to read previously published articles.