Since the beginning of recorded history, two notions of politics have endured. One suggests that politics is about the good of the community. The other argues that it is all about the self. Between the two, there is a consensus that politics is about “who gets what, when, and how?”
For the first notion, the community decides the question of “who gets what when and how?” and that decision is almost always favorable to the entire community. For the second notion, the community has no independent existence because it is made up of individuals and what each person makes is what he or she gets. Community has no right to the assets of its members except for the purpose of securing them.
Of course, this debate is an offshoot of democratic politics and therefore only makes sense therein. Monarchies care less about individuals who are not part of the divine inheritance. This ideological dichotomy between looking after the good of the community and the interest of individuals has driven the politics of the western world especially since the beginning of modern politics in the 18th century.
In the beginning, both sides argued their cases without blushing, and in defiance of any public opprobrium. In the vanguard of the politics of self-interest are the libertarians, the most radical of whom was Ayn Rand whose glorification of selfishness has fueled the passion of generations of libertarians, especially in the US and Western Europe.
Recently, however, while those who insist on the primacy of community have not felt embarrassed about their position, many politicians who would pass as defenders of self-interest now cover their core position with a deceptive facade of community interest. They argue, that is, that pursuing policies that promote the self ends up benefiting the general interest. Their position has two arguments with the same conclusion.
First, promoting the interest of individuals, as they see it, is the right policy for a government to pursue because individuals are the components of the community. Second, even if pursuing individual interests is not morally defensible in its own right, it is justifiable as an ultimate means to the promotion of the interest of the community.
While the first position is unapologetically a glorification of naked individualism, the second camouflages as anything but individualism. It is what I refer to as political deception. It has been elevated to the level of an art, and it has been the motivating force behind the politics of the last few centuries. With its center of gravity in the West, it has traveled wide to most corners of the world, including ours.
The sad part of the politics of deception is that it often succeeds in recruiting its actual and potential victims as its most prominent and reliable advocates. Concrete examples to prove the veracity of this claim are not out of reach. Just as charity veritably begins at home, however, we may start our journey to the mindset of political deception with our clime, in which it is certainly not a stranger.
The free education of every child has long been the passion of egalitarians like Chief Obafemi Awolowo. But in 1954 Awolowo faced the battle of his political life when his free primary education policy was the subject of opposition attack and blackmail in the federal elections of that year. Awolowo’s party, Action Group, had calculated almost to the penny what it would need for the policy to take off in January 1955. A special educational poll tax was imposed on each adult to raise funds for the new program. The opposition kicked and campaigned effectively against the ruling party.
The attack line was that Awolowo was going to deprive the parents of the services of their children on the farm. It was a low blow coming from the educated elite who certainly knew better. But it worked. Action Group lost the federal election. But it did not lose its focus; it implemented the policy and, with its success, stole the heart of the masses. Because our people were quick to discern the benefits of free primary education to their families, political deception backfired against its creative artists.
In other climes, including the most developed ones, the masses negatively impacted by its catastrophic grip have not been as quick in recognizing political deception.
Very early on, the Obama administration saw the plight of many US citizens who had no access to health care because health insurance was beyond their reach. They carried diseases without knowing until it was too late because they could not afford regular medical checkups. Then the cost of late treatment bankrupted them. Obama and the Democrats proposed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) bill and got it approved by Congress. Obama signed it into law and the difference in the lives of many was immediately clear.
But political deception fought back. Individual mandate, a key component of the law, was characterized as anti-freedom. This campaign rhetoric was sold hook, line, and sinker in the 2010 midterm elections. And many of the beneficiaries of the law bought the rhetoric. Republicans picked up enough seats to win back the majority in the House. Though Obama was re-elected in 2012, Senate was captured by Republicans and the repeal of the ACA was their major campaign issue. They passed repeal and replace bills multiple times but because of Obama’s veto power, none became law.
Then entered President Trump with the House and Senate as co-travelers in the “repeal and replace” train. Suddenly, the eyes of the beneficiaries were opened as the prospect of a real repeal with no good replacement became clear. They jammed town halls in protest. And the masters of political deception retreated. A great lesson in the art of the protest!
But political deception doesn’t give up easily. It comes back to fight again. If it is defeated by beneficiaries of Affordable Care Act, it comes back in the form of “a huge tax cut” for everyone. And so was born the Tax Reform Bill of 2017, which the CBO has determined will add $1.4 trillion to the deficit and make four million lose health insurance in 2019, and 13 million in 2027. While it is also determined that Corporate tax cuts will be permanent if the bill becomes law, many individuals especially in the middle and lower income group will have temporary gains in the short term but tax hikes in the long term when the life of the bill expires.
The central aspect of the tax reform bill is its targeting the ACA, again! It will repeal the individual mandate, leading to many young people neglecting to buy health insurance once the prospect of penalty for not buying is removed. Along with this is the availability of the subsidy that those who neglect to buy health insurance are entitled to receive under ACA. Such subsidies, estimated to be in hundreds of billions, are now targeted by Republicans to fund extra tax cut for the wealthy.
Sadly, some beneficiaries of the ACA are all for the repeal of the individual mandate. Note that these group will benefit the least from tax reform. But they are indoctrinated to believe that it is good for the economy, and therefore for them, and that the removal of individual mandate is only for the defense of their freedom of choice.
No one can infallibly predict the trajectory of American politics in the next few days talk less of few months. Will the masses know better and turn against the party in power for its assault on their interests in affordable healthcare? Will the same electorates that gave Obama and his party a shellacking for passing the ACA into law now see the light and give the GOP a revenge shellacking for its unbending efforts to kill the law which they (masses) have now undoubtedly recognized to be for their interest?
Time will tell. But one thing is sure. Political deception has a proven record of resilience. It will survive any temporary defeat provided its victims remain as gullible as they tend to be.
@SegunGbadeg2002
@HarvestDayPubs
