FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022985068> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022985068 abstract "During the 2000 Democratic presidential primary, battle erupted between Bill Bradley and Al Gore over universal health care coverage. Gore argued that universal coverage could be achieved only incrementally, on step-by-step basis (www.algore2000.com). Beginning with children, he gradually would expand coverage to the entire population. Bradley criticized this approach, arguing that it was too little too late He proposed a bold and comprehensive plan that will help everyone (www.billbradley.com). (I will put aside the question of whether his plan really would have accomplished his goal.) The debate between Gore and Bradley reflects deeper debate, over the relationship between incremental reform fundamental change, which progressives, including social workers, have long debated. Although this issue clearly cannot be resolved within the confines of this column, it is not something we can ignore. The elections are quickly approaching, and their outcome will affect our profession and our clients. As social workers, we recognize that phenomena such as equilibrium and disequilibrium and chaos and order are opposed in relative, rather than an absolute, sense (Sommer, 1995). The same, of course, holds true for biological, psychological, and sociological factors. Our social and psychological experiences so fundamentally affect our biological makeup that we must really talk about social--psychological biology (Hamer & Copeland, 1998; Schwartz, 1996; Wilkinson, 1996). Conversely, our (social--psychological) biological makeup drives and limits our social and psychological behavior and experiences. Clearly, the differences among these factors are of relative, not an absolute, nature. Unfortunately, we often fail to consider the relationship between incremental reform and fundamental change from this perspective. By this I mean, many social workers, and progressives generally, tend to engage in all-or-nothing thinking, which exaggerates the differences between these phenomena and overlooks their underlying identity. EXAMPLES: PAST AND PRESENT To illustrate my point, I briefly consider two examples of how, in my view, progressives have misunderstood the relationship between incremental reform and fundamental change. The first dates from the 1930s, the second from the 1990s. After the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the appointment of Harry Hopkins, Frances Perkins, and others to key positions in his administration, many social workers believed that their profession had arrived and would provide in welfare matters (Reynolds, 1964, pp. 159-160). Others were more skeptical. Under the leadership of Mary van Kleek, Bertha C. Reynolds, and others, the Rank and File Movement emerged (Bombyk, 1995). Members of the Rank and File Movement believed that the New Deal had done little to address the real issues facing the country. They argued that capitalism was beyond repair and should be replaced with socialism (Bombyk, 1995). At the 1934 meeting of the of the National Conference of Social Work, Mary van Kleek urged social workers to aban don their 'Illusions Regarding Government' and recognize it as defender of property rights (Reynolds, 1963, p. 160). With the rise of government social welfare programs, social workers had become aligned with the status quo--against the their own interests and those of their clients. She believed that the real task was replacing our failed economic system (Reynolds, 1964). This argument is persuasive. The New Deal did not end the depression, and it failed to transform [ldots] capitalism in any genuinely profound way (Brinkley, 1998, P. 33). Roosevelt also did little to help African Americans, and recent evidence suggests that he shared the anti-Semitic prejudices of many members of his socioeconomic class (Freidel, 1990). Despite this, I believe the Rank and File Movement exaggerated Roosevelt's flaws and failed to grasp the real choice facing the country. …" @default.
• W2022985068 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022985068 creator A5060274501 @default.
• W2022985068 date "2000-05-01" @default.
• W2022985068 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2022985068 title "Progressives and the 2000 Elections" @default.
• W2022985068 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/25.2.139" @default.
• W2022985068 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10845148" @default.
• W2022985068 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W2022985068 type Work @default.
• W2022985068 sameAs 2022985068 @default.
• W2022985068 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2022985068 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022985068 hasAuthorship W2022985068A5060274501 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C197487636 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C2778120072 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C124952713 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C142362112 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C144024400 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C149923435 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C15744967 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C17744445 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C197487636 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C199539241 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C2778120072 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C2908647359 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C555826173 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C77805123 @default.
• W2022985068 hasConceptScore W2022985068C94625758 @default.
• W2022985068 hasLocation W20229850681 @default.
• W2022985068 hasLocation W20229850682 @default.
• W2022985068 hasOpenAccess W2022985068 @default.
• W2022985068 hasPrimaryLocation W20229850681 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W1232677303 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W1267582568 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W1496234203 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W1578700844 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W1978328015 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W1982830980 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W2031123261 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W2054031012 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W2064340464 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W2065017738 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W2077692296 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W208623133 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W2157656108 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W2261083399 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W2315590198 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W268076667 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W3121149660 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W312786110 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W3202113648 @default.
• W2022985068 hasRelatedWork W2096141614 @default.
• W2022985068 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022985068 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022985068 magId "2022985068" @default.
• W2022985068 workType "article" @default.