NORMAL VS THE NORM

In the Winter 1993-94 edition of the American Educator, there was a compelling article written by one of the foremost authorities on social movements and socio-political issues, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He addresses a trend which was of concern then and is decidedly of concern today. While the article is a bit academic in nature , it is worth the read and worth comparing the theory proposed much earlier to our modern day America. The overall premise, based on earlier works by French sociologist/philosopher Emile Durkheim, takes a look at stages of deviant behavior in a societal setting. It is true that his theory focused on criminal behavior, but by extrapolation, we can consider destructive behavior as similar with its impact on societal networks and how they choose to contend or not contend with it.
The article parses the theory into three stages: Altruistic, Opportunistic and finally, Normalizing. The first two pose interesting theories on how a social community may choose to operate either around or with a segment of criminal or deviant behavior. The third, Normalizing, is the one which by far causes the most concern. In terms of destructive deviant behavior, while altruism may be shallow and opportunism may be distasteful, normalizing goes far beyond in its impact and its very nature makes it very very dangerous.Examples of widespread destructive behavior are all around us. However, there is no place that exemplifies how far into the realm of destructive behavior we have travelled than that of our national politics. While there is plenty of blame to go around for this phenomenon, one can argue that behavior inside the Beltway often paves the way for the surfacing of seriously deviant behavior down the entire social structure. What is of most pressing concern is that much of this behavior has now become the norm, in effect being normalized by not only the insiders but also by the electorate outside the beltway.

Headline after headline provides accounts of money laundering schemes, extra marital affairs, kickbacks, contract fraud and influence peddling. Fabricating and twisting of actual events to suit one’s own agenda has become such an accepted art form that one White House advisor coined a new phrase – “alternate facts” – as being an acceptable way a Press Secretary to explain the antics surrounding the Oval Office. As an example,
In recent testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former Assistant Attorney General Sally Yates revealed a conversation she had with White House Counsel regarding the then National Security Advisor and his connection with Russian intelligence during the campaign and his subsequent lying to several senior staff, including the Vice President. The reply of the WHC was a question as to why DOJ cared about whether WH advisors lied to each other.
These behaviors, inappropriate at best and possibly criminal at worst, have now become the benchmark for conducting business. What is more than amazing is that, in this day and age, the unbelievable is believed, the far fetched is accepted, the outlandish is the conventional and what was utterly neurotic is now the normal. To add to the confusion are not just the behaviors being what they are but the explanations and excuses for them. Yes, the aberrant is being normalized. This is, in the opinion of scholars and political scientists alike, a very dangerous climate to be in. That being said, one might ask how did we arrive at this condition.

While I suspect there might be several theories out there, there is one which seems to be of particular relevance. In an article titled” The Age of American Unreason”, Susan Jacoby, paraphrasing Moynihan in her article in the Washington Post notes that “ dumbness has been steadily defined downward for several decades by a combination of forces. Video culture over print culture and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism are specifically highlighted.
There is a cult of ignorance across the U S and there is a strain of anti-intellectualism winding its way through both our political and our cultural life. Journalists Charles Pierce, author of “The Dumbest Generation” looks at the idea that there is a trend to trust the least those people who actually know what they are talking about Rational thought is considered the enemy and critical thinking has become the devil’s tool. One suspects that enhancing ability to learn and cultivating interest in anything outside the realm of producing income are a thing of the past. There are numerous studies that support this contention but the studies that have to cause the most concern are the ones that show the widespread lack of knowledge in regard to government and the social structures impacted by decisions made by government – aka social policy. This lack of knowledge coupled with the gullibility produced by the rampant anti-intellectualism has brought us to this condition of “normalization” which is so dangerous. After all, it is so much easier to accept and not question than it is to take a critical look at issues, parse them out into their component parts and then decide if and how one will be affected and what, if anything, needs to be reviewed, reevaluated and revised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Social Security Act was passed in 1935. It was a monumental piece of legislation and its immediate effect was to lift millions from the edge of poverty. As early as 1936, the GOP began a fight to repeal the Social Security Act – a fight which in several ways, continues until today.
Nonetheless, in spite of two GOP administrations stealing funds from the Trust, it survives and millions of the elderly and disabled are kept from destitution.
The Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010. It, too, was a monumental piece of legislation designed to bring access to affordable health care to all across the board. It was, admittedly, flawed form the beginning, with certain critical compromises made , one suspects, in order to at least get it passed with the aim of adjusting or amending it down the road. However, with the turn of the election, prompted by a major smear campaign, the Act was never adjusted and the flaws took their toll. Key to it all was the ability to opt out for two key components – the states, who could opt out of Medicaid expansion and the insurance companies, who could opt out of providing “essential services”. Both these elements were critical to the success of the ACA but the insurance lobby had its way. Eliminating the “Public Option” was also a key contributor to weakening the Act and so, the drive to repeal it began as soon as the 2010 election was over. Just as in the case of the Social Security Act, the GOP immediately began to push for the repeal of the ACA and, instead of discussing and debating with the purpose to amend, the House spent the better part of its energy – unsuccessfully, one should add, trying to repeal the ACA, calling for a floor vote over fifty times. The votes were strictly along party lines but the Act remained.

One needs to ask the question – what is it that makes the GOP so against safety nets, and in this case, access to affordable health care ? Was it, and is it still their record disdain for the then President Obama – a black, highly educated, articulate and engaged president ? Was it their need to take adequate care of the huge health insurance companies whose contributions keep them in office ?

Enter a new administration, led by a complete incompetent who started years ago with his attacks on President Obama, being a principal in the whole “birther” movement. The hallmark of his campaign was that he would immediately repeal the Affordable Care Act, only later taking on the added dimension of repeal and replace. His “promise” was to have better, lower cost health coverage for everyone. Not likely, as it turns out.
What it all ended up being was a floor fight of epic proportions among the GOP members. On the one side, the far far right so called conservatives who are full bent on repealing the ACA and making health care only accessible to those who can afford it. Sort of along the same lines as automobile insurance, without the discounts. This would include the complete repeal of Medicaid, health care support to approximately seventy-four million people. And on the other side, the moderates who, while wanting to reduce the debt and the debt ceiling, still are not willing to crush so many millions of people, especially those who are already receiving health insurance either through Medicaid or through Medicaid expansion under the ACA. The democrats, in this battle, simply do not figure as, by the numbers, the GOP can swing a vote majority all on their own.
The vote finally passed on the second introduction, laden with scary amendments, and then went to the Senate where the fight continues even though in the final floor vote, it failed once again. In the meantime, out on the street corners, people – some people – are awakening to the fact that many could very well lose their health insurance completely. The storm is continuing and even the strategy has taken a major shift from the campaign promise to repeal and replace to simple repeal and possibly replace down the road a year or two – probably after the next mid term election.
However, while one tries to follow all the ups and downs over health care and the fate of the ACA, one needs to ask the question – just what is the real agenda here. What one needs to look at is the ever present GOP agenda to have the top ten per cent pay little or nothing in taxes, contribute next to nothing to the betterment of the nation as a community and lay the burden of enlarging the wealth inequality even more.
If one takes a close look at the so called “American Health Care Act”, it is full of conflict and hidden agenda. It will cause the ending of insurance coverage for over twenty-three million people over the next several years, will defund Planned Parenthood, will accent the use of HSAs and will repeal all the taxes put in place by the Affordable Care Act.
One can see not only the drive to reduce the deficit by penalizing those who vulnerable populations which receive public dollar support – children, the elderly, the disabled – but will add to the coffers of that upper ten per cent by reducing the tax rates. In spite of the CBO scoring, the push is still on, under the guise of loyally fulfilling a campaign promise – one steeped in lunacy – to enhance earnings of the money crowd and step on the opportunities for every one else. Perhaps it is truly a conspiracy to pander to the upper ten per cent and as the same time, make quality health care accessible only to those who can afford it while their major contributors, the insurance companies continue to bilk the public with exorbitant fees and costs. Unfortunate that, in order to stay in office, the GOP has elected to punish the elderly, the disabled and  the children