Conservatism and reforms.

Politics is full of contradictions. The common assumption is that traditionalists want to maintain the status quo and, therefore, supporting them is the best way to guarantee that things will continue to be as in the past. Yet, as Halstead and Lind explain, perhaps reformism is a better way to implement changes in a non-intrusive manner while keeping the essence of what worked in the past:

Indeed, it is reformers rather than reactionaries who have a better claim to the label of conservative. Who are more conservative —those who would sacrifice the part to save the whole, or those who would prefer to lose the whole rather than to alter it in any way? The true patriots in American history have always understood that when conditions change it is necessary to pursue perennial goals by new means. Renovation is conservation by means of innovation.

(Halstead & Lind: p. 208)

It's, after all, Giuseppe Lampedusa's old statement, according to which "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change". The conservative approach, desperately hanging onto any and all tradition as if they are supposed to be considered good simply due to age, regardless of whatever else changed in society and people's minds, is, contrary to what some people believe, the best way to promote radical changes and revolutions. And these, for the most part, have never brought about anything worthwhile other than in the revolutionaries' feverish imagination.

How the American health system came to be.

I found the following paragraph quite interesting:

The employer-based portion of America's current social contract is not the product of intentional design but rather of historical accident. During World War II, wage and price rationing prevented American companies from raising wages. In order to attract workers, companies began taking advantage of a loophole in the tax code that gave them a tax break if they provided health insurance for their employees. This minor loophole then expanded to become the basis of the American health care system for the adult workforce, creating a type of welfare capitalism without parallel in other societies. Subsequently, the major reason for the failure of repeated attempts —by Presidents Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton— to establish a single-payer system like those of other advanced technological societies was the fact that many Americans already had health inurance through their employers.

(Halstead & Lind: p. 66)

Taking into account how strongly Republicans advocate the current system, one would think that it somehow reflects a very deep American conviction over how these issues should be managed. Yet, it seems that the system came to be in a very haphazardly manner. I suppose it is one of those instances where today's reform (or even revolution) will be tomorrow's status quo, firmly defended by conservatives as the "traditional way to do things". One way or another, it definitely puts things in perspective.