In this project, we were tasked to write an op-ed and create a project about an American ideology. Our projects had to be biased and convince our audience of our perspective. My op-ed and project were both about why the United States should adopt socialized medicine and education. Here is a link to my video on youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMAr3dQ32Og&list=PLjmKXPORP5gRCFkmOYU8e3T0n-AYWCzzB
Socialism is Right for US
Find any uninsured adult in America. It's not difficult, there are a lot. On average, adults without healthcare insurance are less healthy than those with insurance because they do not receive preventative treatments from hospitals. For example, a study found uninsured adults to be far less likely than insured adults to have received a screening for cancer within the last 5 years. These are lower-middle class Americans who can't afford good healthcare under our current system.
If these adults were in Germany, they would be forced to buy healthcare, but at an affordable rate. The government would be helping them to survive, giving them care that America currently cannot. Because Germany has a socialized medical system, all citizens pay what they can to secure a basic human right for their fellow countrymen. Unlike America, they put the people before profit.
But we're a democracy, right? Why, then, is this system still alive? Why haven't the lower classes taken matters into their own hands? The simple answer: they can't, at least not under capitalism. In our two-party system, the profit-based industry thrives no matter who is in office. Capitalism is inherently catered toward gluttony and prosperity, not taking care of the populace. Although a corporate-run capitalism is responsible for much of America's historical wealth, a socialist state could ultimately be more fruitful for the people.
Capitalism has certainly had its positives for America. Its most enticing quality is the immense wealth that can be gained by a competitive atmosphere where resources fall into the hands of the hard-working businessmen. Socialism, on the other hand, lacks this kind of competitiveness, as highlighted by Dennis Prager: "Socialism teaches its citizens that they have a plethora of rights and few corresponding obligations -- except to be taxed. And that is why. . . America give[s] more charity per capita and per income than do citizens of socialist countries."
Capitalists claim that, without the competitive atmosphere to push society forward, it stagnates and creates lazy citizens incapable of doing great things. They say that capitalism promotes progress by allowing anyone to gain their own wealth without the government taking it away.
This is great in theory, but less effective in practice. The U.S. thinks of itself as a very capitalist state, but what does the government do for us? Roads are built, national parks are staffed, and huge amounts of money go toward education and military. Yet we still think of ourselves as the independent capitalist state, criticizing the government's constant involvement while driving our fancy cars on the highways that it funds.
Because we think of ourselves as capitalists, the government spends on the wrong things. According to Michael Harrington of Chicago Democratic Socialists, the U.S. government allocates over 15 times more on highways than it does on public transportation. Why? A population that can cheaply travel by subway or train is more environmentally sustainable, but severely damages the car and gasoline industries. And what kind of capitalists would we be if the environment came before profit?
A more positive, less money-based system can be found in Germany. The Germans use very high tax rates and government spending to make life better for citizens. . For example, gasoline is taxed immensely, making it twice as expensive per liter than in America. This gives the government immense sums of money, which it spends on cheap and timely public transportation. Not only does this eliminate the ever-present problem of finding a parking spot, but it reduces fuel use and is environmentally healthier than relying on cars.
Similarly, healthcare is based around profit in the United States. Again, it sounds okay in theory; people should be able to choose the cheapest services from hospitals because it's a free market. However, when you have a broken limb and need medical attention, money is the least of your worries. According to PBS Newshour, U.S. hospitals charge upwards of 85% more than other developed countries, not because hospitals provide more services but because they can set their own prices.
Modern medicine is a great scientific achievement and should not be privatized, but available to every citizen. Again, Germany has a much better socialized system. It is mandatory for every citizen to have ample healthcare, but they can choose to have extra if they can afford it. The poorest citizens pay much less than the richest in what the Germans call "solidarity." This makes it possible for the country to insure all of its citizens under a universal system while avoiding the communist mistake of giving everybody the same coverage.
Socialism, in the modern sense, is the middle of capitalism and communism. In Europe, it takes the good parts of both systems; the free, competitive aspects of capitalism and the government involvement of communism. Socialism won't sacrifice the American spirit of freedom to buy whatever we want with our money, but it could certainly lessen the outrageous gap between the poor and the rich.
It's time for us to give up the dream of riches beyond measure. It's time to focus on what the people need, putting education, healthcare, and human rights before profits. It's time for the United States to show some "solidarity" and finally allow the government to do its job and help the people.
Sources
Harrington, Michael. Why We Need Socialism in America. New York: Norman Thomas Fund, 1970. Print.
Kane, Jason. "Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries." PBS. PBS, 22 Oct. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
"Key Facts about the Uninsured Population « » The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation." Key Facts about the Uninsured Population. Kaiser Family Foundation, 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Prager, Dennis. "Socialism Makes People Worse." RealClearPolitics. N.p., 26 Mar. 2006. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Find any uninsured adult in America. It's not difficult, there are a lot. On average, adults without healthcare insurance are less healthy than those with insurance because they do not receive preventative treatments from hospitals. For example, a study found uninsured adults to be far less likely than insured adults to have received a screening for cancer within the last 5 years. These are lower-middle class Americans who can't afford good healthcare under our current system.
If these adults were in Germany, they would be forced to buy healthcare, but at an affordable rate. The government would be helping them to survive, giving them care that America currently cannot. Because Germany has a socialized medical system, all citizens pay what they can to secure a basic human right for their fellow countrymen. Unlike America, they put the people before profit.
But we're a democracy, right? Why, then, is this system still alive? Why haven't the lower classes taken matters into their own hands? The simple answer: they can't, at least not under capitalism. In our two-party system, the profit-based industry thrives no matter who is in office. Capitalism is inherently catered toward gluttony and prosperity, not taking care of the populace. Although a corporate-run capitalism is responsible for much of America's historical wealth, a socialist state could ultimately be more fruitful for the people.
Capitalism has certainly had its positives for America. Its most enticing quality is the immense wealth that can be gained by a competitive atmosphere where resources fall into the hands of the hard-working businessmen. Socialism, on the other hand, lacks this kind of competitiveness, as highlighted by Dennis Prager: "Socialism teaches its citizens that they have a plethora of rights and few corresponding obligations -- except to be taxed. And that is why. . . America give[s] more charity per capita and per income than do citizens of socialist countries."
Capitalists claim that, without the competitive atmosphere to push society forward, it stagnates and creates lazy citizens incapable of doing great things. They say that capitalism promotes progress by allowing anyone to gain their own wealth without the government taking it away.
This is great in theory, but less effective in practice. The U.S. thinks of itself as a very capitalist state, but what does the government do for us? Roads are built, national parks are staffed, and huge amounts of money go toward education and military. Yet we still think of ourselves as the independent capitalist state, criticizing the government's constant involvement while driving our fancy cars on the highways that it funds.
Because we think of ourselves as capitalists, the government spends on the wrong things. According to Michael Harrington of Chicago Democratic Socialists, the U.S. government allocates over 15 times more on highways than it does on public transportation. Why? A population that can cheaply travel by subway or train is more environmentally sustainable, but severely damages the car and gasoline industries. And what kind of capitalists would we be if the environment came before profit?
A more positive, less money-based system can be found in Germany. The Germans use very high tax rates and government spending to make life better for citizens. . For example, gasoline is taxed immensely, making it twice as expensive per liter than in America. This gives the government immense sums of money, which it spends on cheap and timely public transportation. Not only does this eliminate the ever-present problem of finding a parking spot, but it reduces fuel use and is environmentally healthier than relying on cars.
Similarly, healthcare is based around profit in the United States. Again, it sounds okay in theory; people should be able to choose the cheapest services from hospitals because it's a free market. However, when you have a broken limb and need medical attention, money is the least of your worries. According to PBS Newshour, U.S. hospitals charge upwards of 85% more than other developed countries, not because hospitals provide more services but because they can set their own prices.
Modern medicine is a great scientific achievement and should not be privatized, but available to every citizen. Again, Germany has a much better socialized system. It is mandatory for every citizen to have ample healthcare, but they can choose to have extra if they can afford it. The poorest citizens pay much less than the richest in what the Germans call "solidarity." This makes it possible for the country to insure all of its citizens under a universal system while avoiding the communist mistake of giving everybody the same coverage.
Socialism, in the modern sense, is the middle of capitalism and communism. In Europe, it takes the good parts of both systems; the free, competitive aspects of capitalism and the government involvement of communism. Socialism won't sacrifice the American spirit of freedom to buy whatever we want with our money, but it could certainly lessen the outrageous gap between the poor and the rich.
It's time for us to give up the dream of riches beyond measure. It's time to focus on what the people need, putting education, healthcare, and human rights before profits. It's time for the United States to show some "solidarity" and finally allow the government to do its job and help the people.
Sources
Harrington, Michael. Why We Need Socialism in America. New York: Norman Thomas Fund, 1970. Print.
Kane, Jason. "Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries." PBS. PBS, 22 Oct. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
"Key Facts about the Uninsured Population « » The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation." Key Facts about the Uninsured Population. Kaiser Family Foundation, 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Prager, Dennis. "Socialism Makes People Worse." RealClearPolitics. N.p., 26 Mar. 2006. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Project Reflection
This project gave us as students a lot of freedom to do what we wanted to. We were allowed to focus on any topic in American ideology, as long as we had a strong bias that transmitted in our op-ed. Before starting into this project, we studied many masters of rhetoric and read their perspectives, learning about the most effective tools used to convince audiences of one's bias. This project was a great culmination of all the things that we had learned because we were able to implement fallacies, argumentation, and devices into our work to (ideally) achieve maximum rhetorical effect.
One thing I have learned about rhetoric is that it is present everywhere and has been from the earliest days of America. George Washington, when speaking to his troops before crossing the Delaware, surely used rhetoric to make them feel patriotic enough to die for their country. Through rhetoric, Martin Luther King led millions of people in peaceful protest to gain rights for blacks all over America. Rhetoric is a great force, whether used for good or for evil, and will always be used for both. America has been shaped by great rhetoricians and it's fascinating learning about all of the different ways that it has been. The main lesson that I learned is that it matters less whether you're right or wrong. It matters much more that you're able to convince people that you are right.
I primarily connected to this project as a rhetorician, putting myself in my audience's shoes to try to convince them with a combination of logic, theory, and emotion. If I were reading an article that I didn't agree with, I would want to see both sides addressed thoroughly with evidence to support claims. So I did this the best I could in my piece. I would also want to see the author take an emotional stance, appealing to the common good in his/her argument. I used anecdotes about people living in America and Germany to back up my points in this way. My favorite, and most challenging, part of the process was trying to imagine how I would react to reading my piece and making it have maximum audience impact.
The most difficult part of this project was the same as the most fun part. Trying to maximize rhetorical impact is a multistep process with a lot of thought involved. Logical argumentation must be balanced perfectly with emotion and evidence supporting the claims. Powerful repetition of words can be added, but not distract from the intention of the piece. In all, it's a difficult task to make writing that can impact a wide range of people, and I should have done a better job of it. I think that, if I could do this project over again, I would make sure to change the order of my points and paragraphs multiple times in order to achieve maximum effect. This could have immensely helped my project overall.
I have discovered, through this project, that I am much more socialist than either party in the U.S. I don't think that either party has the right ideas, so I won't subscribe to Democratic or Republican views. I have learned a lot of things in this project, but the most important thing that I will take with me in life is not to trust the mainstream media. All sources have biases, but many are worse than others, and Fox News and MSNBC are among the worst. In the future, as a good voting American, I will thoroughly and critically examine unbiased sources to come to my decisions and avoid mainstream media solely focused on making the news more exciting than it actually is.
This project gave us as students a lot of freedom to do what we wanted to. We were allowed to focus on any topic in American ideology, as long as we had a strong bias that transmitted in our op-ed. Before starting into this project, we studied many masters of rhetoric and read their perspectives, learning about the most effective tools used to convince audiences of one's bias. This project was a great culmination of all the things that we had learned because we were able to implement fallacies, argumentation, and devices into our work to (ideally) achieve maximum rhetorical effect.
One thing I have learned about rhetoric is that it is present everywhere and has been from the earliest days of America. George Washington, when speaking to his troops before crossing the Delaware, surely used rhetoric to make them feel patriotic enough to die for their country. Through rhetoric, Martin Luther King led millions of people in peaceful protest to gain rights for blacks all over America. Rhetoric is a great force, whether used for good or for evil, and will always be used for both. America has been shaped by great rhetoricians and it's fascinating learning about all of the different ways that it has been. The main lesson that I learned is that it matters less whether you're right or wrong. It matters much more that you're able to convince people that you are right.
I primarily connected to this project as a rhetorician, putting myself in my audience's shoes to try to convince them with a combination of logic, theory, and emotion. If I were reading an article that I didn't agree with, I would want to see both sides addressed thoroughly with evidence to support claims. So I did this the best I could in my piece. I would also want to see the author take an emotional stance, appealing to the common good in his/her argument. I used anecdotes about people living in America and Germany to back up my points in this way. My favorite, and most challenging, part of the process was trying to imagine how I would react to reading my piece and making it have maximum audience impact.
The most difficult part of this project was the same as the most fun part. Trying to maximize rhetorical impact is a multistep process with a lot of thought involved. Logical argumentation must be balanced perfectly with emotion and evidence supporting the claims. Powerful repetition of words can be added, but not distract from the intention of the piece. In all, it's a difficult task to make writing that can impact a wide range of people, and I should have done a better job of it. I think that, if I could do this project over again, I would make sure to change the order of my points and paragraphs multiple times in order to achieve maximum effect. This could have immensely helped my project overall.
I have discovered, through this project, that I am much more socialist than either party in the U.S. I don't think that either party has the right ideas, so I won't subscribe to Democratic or Republican views. I have learned a lot of things in this project, but the most important thing that I will take with me in life is not to trust the mainstream media. All sources have biases, but many are worse than others, and Fox News and MSNBC are among the worst. In the future, as a good voting American, I will thoroughly and critically examine unbiased sources to come to my decisions and avoid mainstream media solely focused on making the news more exciting than it actually is.