The right-wing points to Greece as an example of what happens when social democracies go back, but they fail to point out the obvious free-market examples of what happens when the free-market works: Brazil and Chile. Both countries have strong free market economies, and considered great countries to do business in, but both have serious problems with poverty. The poor live in filth and disease. The wealthy live in gated communities for their own protection. The is no middle class to speak of.
Is this what Americans want as their future? Social democracies such as Canada, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the Scandanavian Countries, all enjoy a standard of living on a par with the US, especially Canada, but without the extreme poverty you see in the US. Schools and universities, as well as health care are all managed by the government, without the corruption we see in the US. As a result, tuition is much lower and health care costs are lower. There are SOME things the government does better than the free market, and education and health care are two of those things. Ownership of public utilities is another.
The Republican leadership has been in thrall to Milton Friedman since Nixon, and where is the US today as a result. A high rate of unemployment, huge corporate profits, struggling middle class, increased poverty, health care spending out of control, and the government running a huge deficit. And yet the Republicans are convinced that if they continue on the path of cutting social spending and taxes, the economy will be fine. It's worked in a number of countries to be sure, but at what cost? Why the middle class of course. Brazil, Argentina, Chile: The rich got richer, and poor got poorer, and the middle class ceased to exist.
Now that people are smartening up to the real costs of Friedman's vision, and they're rejecting it, the right has gone into a frothing frenzy as the Democrats put a halt to the re-distribution of wealth via tax codes that the Republicans put into place under Bush II. This is why Obama is a communist in their eyes. Friedman is an extremist, and he was wrong. His policies may be great for corporations, but they aren't good for the people of the country. So there are the distractions of vilifying the poor, calling leaders who favour a socially democratic approach to economic issues "communists and Marxists", none of which is true.
I used to envy the generosity of spirt of my American friends. Now, too often, I see people suggesting that the poor deserve whatever happens to them, we have to save ourselves. This attitude, will see the US continue to lose ground, economically and socially, and deservedly so. It is not our wealth and our achievements that determine whether others respect us, but rather how we treat the least amongst us.
