In today’s post, I aim to share a more personal narrative, touching upon my reflections shaped by past conversations and experiences. I will also come close to breaching Horowitz’s Rule: Never generalize from your limited experiences. Joel Horowitz, my freshman sociology instructor, instilled this principle in us many years ago. At that time, he was in his mid-thirties, transitioning into academia after considerable life experience. After teaching at our large state university, he dedicated nearly three decades to a smaller institution across the state. A proud native of the Clifton-Paterson-Passaic area in New Jersey, Horowitz influenced many of his largely Southern and rural students, guiding them to explore the vast world beyond their immediate surroundings.
Upon retirement, he was recognized as a remarkable teacher, mentor, and friend. He stood out in a community that celebrated talents like Carson McCullers. Her work, alongside that of Flannery O’Connor, offered a refreshing alternative to our English teacher’s obsession with Ayn Rand and James Michener. Many of Horowitz’s students embraced his perspective on society. A memorable incident involved a student who would debate class analyses with passages from the Bible during lectures. While he never preached, Horowitz’s classroom was anything but mundane. I often wonder if such engagement is still possible today, as he might have been seen as the first openly atheist teacher many students encountered, potentially considered un-American by some.
The impetus for sharing this reflection comes from a recent conversation with a local surgeon, whom I will refer to as “Dr. B.” He is not only an adept practitioner of his craft but also an enjoyable companion on the golf course, where we both share the belief that using motorized carts is a misguided deviation from the sport’s traditions. Unlike most of his contemporaries, Dr. B hails from a working-class background in the Mid-Atlantic, paralleling Horowitz’s roots. Following high school, he pursued his college and medical education across the Hudson River in the Bronx and Manhattan.
Both of our fathers learned the ropes as machinists in the early 1950s. Mine worked for a large chemical firm, while Dr. B’s father eventually opened a machine shop—a venture my dad often regretted not pursuing. We share the distinction of being among the first in our families to attend college, with our initial jobs within unionized environments. Our common backgrounds allow us to relate, especially in contrast to the local elite we often find ourselves surrounded by. Yet, there is much to learn about practical sociology from the experiences of everyday people, a reality often overlooked by the Professional Managerial Class, which tends to ignore the depth of non-caste members’ narratives.
However, our discussions do not always align. While strolling down the fairway, Dr. B criticized the notion of “free stuff” as a significant issue for the American left. This term has become a popular talking point among the MAGA right, but its roots extend deep into the neoliberal era that began during Jimmy Carter’s presidency with the appointment of Alfred E. Kahn. Historically, complaints regarding “those people” receiving free resources were not new and transcended geographical and demographic confines. As neoliberalism gained traction, this rhetoric gained momentum, echoing the belief that “the market is the ultimate judge of everything.” The most enduring myth surrounding “free stuff” is perhaps the so-called Obama Phone, which, contrary to popular belief, isn’t free nor exclusive to Obama’s administration, as it predates his presidency:
This specific program, SafeLink, originated under President George Bush, with support from a company established during Bill Clinton’s presidency, itself a legacy of an act passed during Franklin Roosevelt’s time, influenced by agreements made under Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson phones, anyone?
I have often highlighted this historical context, but my efforts seem to have little effect. In our affluent nation, it should be possible for everyone to have access to subsidized phone services, a living wage, and basic banking through the local Post Office, yet I digress.
What concerns Dr. B and others regarding “free stuff” includes essentials like healthcare, pre-k education, and elder care for those in need. The list also extends to subsidized housing for individuals often caught in difficult circumstances. Even amidst economic blame, shouldn’t we prioritize providing everyone with safe, adequate shelter? Furthermore, a political economy must ensure access to fundamental life necessities, including nutritious food [2] and a clean environment. While the fight for a sustainable future may seem daunting in light of the upcoming predicaments, we must remain steadfast.
My reply to Dr. B, stating, “These services aren’t free, nor should they be, but they ought to be provided at no cost at the point of delivery, similar to roads and public schools,” sparked his interest. His acknowledgment, “That’s a fresh perspective I had never considered,” highlighted a significant point. While I shifted the discussion, my point stood clear. Like medical education, progress often occurs one conversation at a time.
Indeed, Dr. B is correct that the American left struggles with its message. Many voices endlessly discuss “free” offerings without grasping the real implications in a world where the fortunate are laboring harder yet making less progress. Many among the unfortunate have nearly lost hope. Take healthcare as an example. Despite having health insurance that might fit within the flawed Obama Care parameters, my partner and I face considerable out-of-pocket expenses for forthcoming treatments. Thankfully, we can manage, but the average working family could not survive the burden of covering high initial costs for necessary procedures.
The solution to healthcare within our nation is unequivocal: universal healthcare funded through taxes, accessible to all at “no cost at the point of delivery.” This would not only reduce future expenditures but foster a healthier population. People are more inclined to seek medical attention when they aren’t burdened by fears of bankruptcy. This is not rocket science. Call it Medicare for All, implement it effectively, and let’s resolve this issue.
This sentiment is not confined to healthcare. I notice many friends disregarding the value of public schooling that has played a pivotal role in our success. Their disdain contributes to the deteriorating state of public education, which is increasingly not “no cost at the point of delivery.” Some of my peers forget their parents thrived in regulated housing, choosing comfort and community over modern luxuries. One friend’s mother remained in her subsidized home despite his offer to purchase her a new one, leading him to question her decision—something I can understand better now.
In my medium-sized city, the public school system has been neglected by an elite that once benefited from it. Their indifference extends to the once-efficient bus system, which has deteriorated into an unreliable service. The local library faces similar neglect, overshadowed by the idea that an Amazon Prime subscription can substitute for actual literature, even though many of these individuals rarely read. This trajectory cannot end well.
As I prepare my next discussion for Dr. B, I recall a pivotal moment from my childhood. One evening, at about ten years old, I watched the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite—a daily ritual, given the limited channels available to us. A report detailed a corporation laying off thousands yet experiencing a jump in stock prices. I saw this as fundamentally wrong then, and it has shaped my understanding ever since. I shared this realization with Dr. B, who responded, “That’s simply economics.” No, I countered, it reflects capitalism, distinct from political economy. Understanding this nuance is crucial, akin to teaching a fish to recognize water. But it’s achievable.
As for Horowitz’s Rule, I will maintain my position, confident that he would concur.
Notes
[1] While unfair to equate these writers, it’s essential to differentiate. Ayn Rand produced simplistic narratives in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, while James Michener authored thought-provoking pieces like The Source, The Drifters, and Kent State: What Happened and Why. From the latter, Michener’s iconic image endures over fifty years later, depicting Mary Ann Vecchio.
[2] Both health and whole food share the same root, underscoring their interconnectedness (OED).
