Champagne For My Real Friends AND My Sham Friends
Is a reference to a Fall Out Boy song from 2005 funny in 2019? Yes. It's called a "Callback" idiots.
At the most recent Democratic debate Bernie Sanders declared that he believes in the principal of universality. In a race filled with candidates promising partial student debt relief, healthcare for some, and [atrial housing reform, a candidate saying that means-tested programs belong in the past hit like a breath of fresh air. Ever since the dark days of Clinton-era Third Way Centrism Democrats have refused to embrace universal programs. Every Dem moving forward should include truly universal service programs as a key plank in their platform from here on out.
The idea of universality, that everyone receives the benefit of a program, did not start with Bernie Sanders. Countries around the world have universal healthcare, universal pre-K, and retirement benefits. The U.S. has, supposedly, universal K-12 schooling. In theory Medicare and Social Security also fall under the branch of universal programs. Recently however, politicians – including Republicans, Democrats, and others – have worked to strip away the universal elements of these, and other social programs. This process, known as means-testing, requires that people need to meet certain standards in order to receive the benefits of these programs.
Others have fully documented the problems with means-testing. They create in-and-out groups that politicians can exploit for gain. Some programs force people to stay in poverty in order to receive the things they need. Others limit the ways in which people can use their benefits. Means-testing also increases the costs of the programs. People have also written about the benefits of universality. Universal programs cost less to administer, require less specialized knowledge to use, and have higher popularity numbers. Politicians also have a harder time getting rid of universal programs. But the real reason to support universality doesn’t rest on tactical reasons but on ethical ones.
Pete Buttigieg has said that he does not support public college for all because “I think rich people should pay for college.” On the one hand, this shows either an alarming misunderstanding of how the proposed funding would work, or a pernicious misrepresentation of the program. Sanders’ plan for universal programs, like college for all, funds them through progressive taxes on the rich. So rich people end up paying for college for their kids, and everyone else’s kids as well. But Buttigieg’s political handwringing doesn’t matter. The ethical considerations of universal programs matters.
Universal programs remain the best option, not for any economic reason, but because they help everyone. No healthcare system should deny care to anyone, for any reason. The same goes for retirement care, food needs, housing, jobs, and education. The list goes on and on. Any system that denies someone something they need to live is a bad one. Simply by being born, by being a human, you deserve a full, healthy life. No person or program should have the power to deny someone else what they need to thrive. And that’s what means-tested programs do. They exclude people from a full life. That refusal to serve often gets framed as “they don’t need it” or “they’re better than that,” but make no mistake, it’s a form of denial. During the New Deal and the reforms of FDR government officials often denied the benefits of new social programs to African-Americans and other minorities. This happened because racist administrators did not seem them as being worthy of the benefits. Today the argument has been reframed. Now, people who do receive benefits from social programs, the majority of them black, often get called burdens to society. Means-testing creates divisions among people. The have and the have-nots. The worthy and the unworthy. This should not be. Universal programs unite, bringing people together, everyone receiving according to their need.
But does universality go to far? Does everyone, even murders, or terrorists deserve to reap the rewards of such programs? This question, while often used in a “gotcha” manner, deserves an answer, if only because so many people think it. The answer is threefold. For one while I may not enjoy the fact that someone, I hate can reap the rewards of a universal system, it’s not really about me and my personal hangups. An individual’s opinion on who gets food or not should not matter. Secondly, if people start getting excluded, who says where exclusion that stops? A rejection system immediately becomes a political tool, allowing individuals to create harmful hierarchies. Finally, these systems provide basic human needs/rights. Hussein, McVeigh, take your pick of bogeyman, for all the awful and evil they’ve done in the world remain human. While dealing with their actions may require other measures, no one can deny their humanity during that process. No one asked to be born so we might as well make it as comfortable as we can.
Universal programs have to be the end goal. More so than any other type of program they have a strong moral grounding. We all have to be in it together. Exclusion is a dead end.