Let's Look at the History of Social Change...Please!

Elaine in Roanoke — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:24:02 GMT

Oh, boy. The rhetoric surrounding the health reform proposals before Congress seems to get hotter and hotter every day, with partisans on both sides angry and unsatisfied. It takes a real effort for me to seek a broader vision of what is taking place.

As I have listened to the infotainment talking heads on what purports to be "cable news" declaring almost every day that health care reform is almost dead...revived again...almost dead...As I have listened to my liberal friends and the man who first got me personally active in politics, Howard Dean, declare that we might as well start over...I sometimes felt like throwing up my hands and saying, "That's it. I quit this. I don't need the stress."

Then, I stumbled upon a comment by another person I deeply admire: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), who certainly qualifies as my kind of Democrat.

Tom Harkin reminded all of us a day or two ago that the same wrangling and political battles went on when Social Security was first enacted in 1935 and when Medicare was passed into law in 1965. Neither program was passed in anything like the form it has today.

So, I decided to look up the history of those two wonderful programs since I benefit from both. I was heartened by seeing that Harkin knows what he is talking about. None of us should be surprised that tempers flare, people jockey for the best they can get out of the debate, and compromises no one particularly likes are made. Once again, history can show us the way.
The Social Security Act was drafted by Gov. Robert Moran Jr.'s committee on economic security, under Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, and it was passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. (By the way, FDR's labor secretary, Frances Perkins, has never received her due credit for being the force behind most of the social advances made during the first two Roosevelt administrations, including child labor laws and a 40-hour work week.)

Social Security was extremely controversial when it was originally proposed. One argument against it is still used today every time there is an attempt to raise the minimum wage: it would cause a loss of jobs. That is ludicrous on its face. A program that will assist people to retire will create jobs, not lose them.

Conservative historian Edward Berkowitz later even contended that the Act was a cause of the "Roosevelt Recession" in 1937 and 1938, something obviously untrue.

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions under the original act, which had very modest pension amounts. Employment definitions in the act reflected typical white male categories and patterns.

Job categories that were not covered by the act included agricultural workers, domestic servants, government employees, teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers, jobs that were held mostly by women and minorities. Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force at that time and just over half of all women employed were not covered by original Social Security.

Part of the bias in the original act was undoubtedly caused by the stranglehold that southern white Democratic senators had on key committees in Congress.

Court cases against Social Security worked their way up to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the constitutionality of Social Security in two cases decided in 1937.

All of this history seems to put a new light on what is taking place in Congress with regard to health insurance reform. Actually, it's pretty tame this time around, plus the final result will be a heck of a lot better than the first draft of Social Security. And, that was Sen. Harkin's point. All programs that will change society greatly never achieve their final form the first time around.

All the parties to the debate will haggle and threaten to get as much as they can in the final product. That doesn't mean that people are always selling out their principles, either, when they agree to a compromise. For example, Nancy Pelosi was not turning her back to all women when she agreed to put a stringent abortion provision in the House bill. She was simply trying to get passage of the bill. Women will still be able to purchase a rider with their own money to provide abortion coverage, plus there are many private groups who offer assistance to poor women in need of abortions.

Now, let's look at Medicare:

When Medicare was being debated in the years prior to its passage in 1965, it was adamantly opposed by the American Medical Association and every prominent conservative politician and pundit as being an affront to "American values." Here's a sample:

Ronald Reagan: "If you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, 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." (Wow. That one would qualify as a quote from "tea baggers" or Glenn Beck today.)

George H. W. Bush, then running for Congress, called Medicare "socialized medicine."

Barry Goldwater: "Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink." (Hyperbole, anyone?)

Bob Dole, when running for president in 1996: "I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare...because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965." (And Bill Clinton thanked you very much for that gem.)

What Tom Harkin was reminding progressives of is that government programs that improve the quality of life for all of us always face opposition from those who want to stop social change. Those changes that are passed into law are never what they really should be. This health reform debate is no different. It is a start toward real reform. I never expected it to be otherwise. Neither should you.

Blue Commonwealth - congressional debate on social programs

Let's Look at the History of Social Change...Please!