Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.
We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don’t get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values. ...David Brooks
David Brooks is right in spirit but dead wrong about what he calls "vibrancy" in America.
Anyone who has lived outside the US in another genuinely "vibrant" country returns to a nation which is more often characterized as childish and brutal, obsessed with violence and wallowing in narcissism. We set up bloody contests in colosseums like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Most of all, we aren't our own masters anymore: we are hemmed in on every side by a politically powerful corporate sector, from financial institutions to communications giants. Anything which turns our attention to fair treatment of others and which puts cartels (media, insurance) on notice is a good thing. Health care reform is only the first step.
