Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
Brainstorm Logo-Icon

Brainstorm

Ideas and culture.

Tax? Penalty? Item of Commerce? A July 4 Meditation

By Todd Gitlin July 6, 2012

The foolish and infuriating thing about the American political system is that it is reduced to debating 21st-century problems in an 18th-century vocabulary that has been only modestly modified since then.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

The foolish and infuriating thing about the American political system is that it is reduced to debating 21st-century problems in an 18th-century vocabulary that has been only modestly modified since then.

The republic was founded by 18th-century minds working with eighteenth-century materials, including eighteenth-century terms and concepts, themselves distilled from the work of earlier minds. They did not yet have 19th- or 20th-century experiences. This is not to find them guilty of anything but human limitation. With the very major exception of slavery, they weren’t especially sinful or stupid. (Of course, it took a bloody civil war to correct that very major exception, as a result of which a series of Constitutional amendments were passed, one of which severely limited the powers of the states forever after—a 19th-century recognition of what was already evident to part of the country in 1789, though not nearly enough.)

Those gentlemen of the late 19th century couldn’t see around corners. You need not be a pure historicist—someone who thinks that all thinking is stamped with a sell-by date, after which it sours— to wonder if their concepts are adequate to a world where the means of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have so considerably changed. Surely those who have founded republics since the late eighteenth century have, in a number of crucial respects, not thought so. It’s been rightly pointed out, for example, that subsequently founded republics have not imitated America’s strong presidency. They’ve gone parliamentary. They’ve done so for reasons that seemed good and sufficient for them in the light of their distinct values and what they learned from experiences accessible to them.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Constitution was written by men (not women) who decided that the Articles of Confederation, which had been the terms of their federation, were too weak to create a national government that would address their problems. They had determined to separate from Britain a generation earlier partly because they felt unrepresented by the British system and partly because they had ideals (many of them British in origin) that required, they thought, a revolutionary reconception of government. Following the success of their revolution, they experimented with a loose affiliation of state governments only to find them faulty. There were, they decided, taxes that needed to be levied “to provide for the general welfare.” There needed to be legislative and executive bodies empowered with the legitimate right to collect them. There we had it—American practicality in action. Yes We Could.

Health insurance did not exist in 1789. (Neither did giant concentrations of capital, convincing later governments that hitherto unimagined forms of regulation would be a good idea. But I digress.) The Constitution did not anticipate the cost of medical care, nor could it have done so, for whatever the genius of James Madison and the rest of his crowd, they did not imagine X-rays, abdominal surgery, CT scans, heart transplants, hip implants, chemotherapy, or antiretroviral drugs. Medicine in their time wasn’t good for much, though it was cheap. There were many things that could bankrupt a person or a family—which was why overwhelming debt inspired the first of the new nation’s rebellions—but paying for doctors was not one of them. So far as medical costs were concerned, there was no free rider problem because riding for everyone was cheap—unhelpful, in the main, but largely affordable.

Before then, a tax was a financial imposition by governments on their subjects. Under monarchies and tyrannies, taxes were measures imposed to bulk up the government at popular expense. Since the people played no part in choosing the government, they tended to experience taxes as unjustified exactions. But insofar as later governments governed with the consent of the governed, the ground of that objection fell away. It became routine for governments to require that citizens pay for the services that their government determined to be necessary for the general welfare. As circumstances changed, different governments made different judgments as to what those services ought to be. There were also, of course, debates about who should be required to pay how much. There continue to be all such debates. But the Constitution provided a means to answer those questions—republican means.

In the light of the fact that the governors of the republic, an elected president and Congress, after decades of debate, found it wrong, and correctable, that some 15 percent of the country should lack health insurance and should therefore lack the ability to participate in the “general welfare” afforded by modern medicine—that they should find so much of their well-being, in other words, hostage to fortune—it behooves us to take a step back and ask why the republic should care whether nine men and women find one necessary provision for the health care law to be a tax or a penalty, or to find justification for universal health insurance in a constitutional provision that has been upheld by previous generations of other groups of nine supreme justices.

So it’s alternately disheartening, infuriating, and crazy-making to behold intelligent people trapped in this superannuated contraption, the American political system, thrashing around trying to come to grips with a law that, among other things, requires citizens to acquire insurance.

ADVERTISEMENT

Everyone dies. Almost everyone resists dying. A primary means by which people resist dying is by arranging for health care they can afford. Since this is expensive, the general welfare benefits from pooling risks. We call this insurance. It is now understood that paying for it requires universal participation, or something close to it. (Ultimately, the gap between universal and almost-universal needs to be closed, but that’s another story.)

Can we stop playing label games now?

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Todd Gitlin
Todd Gitlin was an author and a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through a flat black and white university building and a landscape bearing the image of a $100 bill.
Budget Troubles
‘Every Revenue Source Is at Risk’: Under Trump, Research Universities Are Cutting Back
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome topping a jar of money.
Budget Bill
Republicans’ Plan to Tax Higher Ed and Slash Funding Advances in Congress
Allison Pingree, a Cambridge, Mass. resident, joined hundreds at an April 12 rally urging Harvard to resist President Trump's influence on the institution.
International
Trump Administration Revokes Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students
Photo-based illustration of an open book with binary code instead of narrative paragraphs
Culture Shift
The Reading Struggle Meets AI

From The Review

Illustration of a Gold Seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
What Trump’s Accreditation Moves Get Right
By Samuel Negus
Illustration of a torn cold seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
The Weaponization of Accreditation
By Greg D. Pillar, Laurie Shanderson
Protestors gather outside the Pro-Palestinian encampment on the campus of UCLA in Los Angeles on Wednesday, May 1, 2024.
The Review | Conversation
Are Colleges Rife With Antisemitism? If So, What Should Be Done?
By Evan Goldstein, Len Gutkin

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin