Despicable Conduct

The out of control shouting matches, mud-slinging, and misinformation campaigns have reached their predictable climax. Liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, voter or activist, no individual has the right to violate another person in this way. Resorting to violence in lieu of thoughtful arguments is not proper, respectful, or democratic. It is a disgrace.

Disengaging Citizens

I have long refused to embrace the liberal attempt to label the Republican Party as the "Party of 'No.'" It is true that the overall aim of a large number of recent conservative initiatives has been simply to stymie the efforts of the Democratic Party. It is certainly tempting -- and politically expedient -- to use this resistance as a marketing tool for the Democratic brand. This appears slightly unfair, however, when one considers the universe of possible options for legislators in the minority in response to bills that they oppose. At the most basic level, behind all of the political maneuvering, bargaining, and compromising, lawmakers are ultimately faced with two options -- "Yea" or "Nay." Thus, it may be unfair to criticize Republicans in Congress for voting against legislation that was crafted almost entirely by individuals with whom they staunchly disagree (this is ignoring, of course, the possibility of bipartisan initiatives that by definition require some measure of sacrifice from both parties -- concessions that Republicans have been remarkably averse to making and in that some respects may actually warrant the above label). Still, the conservative opposition to President Obama's planned speech to students goes a long way toward justifying this criticism.

It is completely understandable (even expected) that the political party in the minority will attempt to make a serious issue out of each and every available opportunity. Both Democrats and Republicans engage in this type of warfare constantly, and the less influential the party is the louder one can expect the myriad complaints to be. It is also understandable that one ideological camp will attempt to ensure the integrity of its own message while challenging that of a competing faction. This tension and interplay of ideas in our society is what spurs discussion and, more than anything else, serves to safeguard citizens' intellectual and expressive freedoms. The conservative opposition to the President's proposed address to students, however, goes too far and transcends the bounds of reason.

The vociferous response that this event has elicited is nothing short of startling. Such a proposition is certainly not without precedent; several previous presidents including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush have addressed students with impunity. It is also difficult to see how "speak[ing] directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school" and "challeng[ing] students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning" will have a detrimental effect on the student population. In fact, one would assume that encouragement from the leader of our country would have uniquely positive effects.

Conservatives insist that this speech is reprehensible because its true aim is to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda." They decry what they term "the idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans" and claim it "is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power." If valid, this assertion would indeed be a serious concern, but granting credence to this suggestion is irrational and completely unwarranted.

First, to assume that a simple speech by President Obama would have the power to instantly "indoctrinate" America's youth is simply preposterous. This claim would have more credibility if the White House were suggesting, for example, a regular program of morning addresses that were required to be shown to students each day during the school year. A single, optional message wishing good luck and expressing encouragement to students simply does not have the ability to brainwash the whole of the student population.

Second, an attempt to manipulate students via a single televised address would be poorly conceived and ill-advised. Many children are likely too young to appreciate the significance of the moment, much less complicated justifications for policy positions (were any even intended to be offered). Students who are old enough to comprehend these arguments are probably also adept enough to seriously consider and reflect critically on what they mean. One would hope that they are also intelligent enough to think about the issues facing the nation and to based their conclusions on their own understanding, analyses, beliefs, and principles.

Finally, it is important to remember that the speech being offered is to be given by the elected leader of the most powerful country in the free world -- not some dangerous, unstable individual intent on harming the nation's children. It is a public message meant to encourage students, and which is able to be viewed by students, parents, teachers, seniors, and anyone else who wishes to tune in. Though teachers are encouraged to incorporate the moment into their lesson plans, it is by no means mandatory and the White House has no control over if or how teachers choose to discuss it. It would be beyond idiotic for any elected official to abuse such a public event by indulging in shameless personal promotion or campaigning, and there is no indication that this is the President's goal.

All available evidence tends to show that this address is intended to do what countless public servants have done before -- encourage America's youth, draw attention to the importance of education in our society, and provide an opportunity for civic engagement. Why say no?

An Evangelical Education

Republican candidate Bob McDonnell has recently been fending off attacks that stem from his 93-page thesis that was written prior to his graduation from Regent University. Rather than attempting to vigorously defend the paper, McDonnell has largely back-pedaled from many of the paper's outlandish claims, arguing that his views have changed in the 20 years since it was written.

This possibility should not be discarded without consideration. Twenty years is certainly a sufficient amount of time for views -- even those that may be fundamental to an individual's personal ideology -- to change in response to new stimuli and novel experiences. In fact, it would be difficult to imagine that McDonnell has not adjusted at least some of these beliefs. Though Democrat Creigh Deeds and his campaign team protest that McDonnell is attempting to hide his background in order to appear to be a more moderate candidate (a claim that may in fact have some validity), it would be impossible for McDonnell to maintain even that charade without actually having abandoned some of the more alarming beliefs contained in the paper.

Moreover, the very idea of exploiting a graduation thesis as a political tool many years after it is published seems inherently problematic. While it is true that McDonnell left Regent University at the age of 34 and would be more likely to have been confirmed in his beliefs than a younger graduate, the special qualities of universities that encourage imagination, innovation, and playful engagement with complicated topics advise against the immediate assumption that his thesis is an accurate portrayal of the man McDonnell is today.

All of this, of course, assumes that Regent University (formerly known as CBN University) is a typical academic environment that advocates individual thought and intellectual rigor as its primary goals. This is far from assured. As a school that was founded by the infamous Pat Robertson, and which proudly displays the motto "Christian Leadership to Change the World," it is hard to accept a priori that Regent does not educate students to place Judeo-Christian values before their intellectual pursuits. While religion and academics are by no means incompatible, excerpts from McDonnell's paper that harshly criticize feminists, working mothers, homosexuals, and 'fornicators' call into question how rigorous his analysis was actually encouraged to be.

Universities should never -- indeed must never -- be dissuaded from encouraging students to explore ideas and beliefs that run counter to norms and commonly accepted truths about society, culture, morality, etc., but it is also their responsibility to instill in their students a sense of responsibility that demands fidelity to honest academic standards. In other words, they must teach their students that they cannot simply 'make it up.' Such shoddy pseudo-scholarship leads to beliefs that are based on a false sense of rationality. More importantly, this type of work frequently unfairly maligns or disadvantages minority groups, and provides perverted justifications for personal prejudices. For example, as recently as 2003, McDonnell was "widely quoted" as having expressed the belief that homosexual activity cast doubt on a person's qualifications to be a judge. This is disturbingly close to the assertions found in his thesis.

Exploring old, new, and even stigmatized avenues of inquiry is how we move forward together as a nation. Avoiding challenges, blaming others in society, or failing to truly examine our own ideologies is how we fall back. Rob McDonnell has rightly distanced himself from many of the offensive remarks in his thesis, and he should not be judged prematurely on the basis of what he said as a student 20 years ago. This ordeal should, however, serve to highlight the importance of education and true academic discovery in our society. Without it, academic research is about as useful as Pat Robertson's premonitions.

A Tribute to the 'Liberal Lion'

My sincerest condolences to the Kennedy family on the passing of the Senator. The outpouring of compassion for the family from both the right and left honors the impact that this man has had on politics, on people, and on the nation. May he rest in peace.

Photo Source: http://filmgordon.wordpress.com/2009/01/page/7/

Standing Up

A hearty congratulations to Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who struck a blow for rationality amidst the cacophony of ill-informed and fear-driven accusations swirling around healthcare. While stern, Rep. Frank's response to the inane comparison between President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler was certainly warranted -- perhaps even provoked.

The First Amendment is undoubtedly one of the greatest freedoms accorded to the citizens of the United States, and its promises and provisions are sacred and expansive. The sentiments expressed by unruly attendees at recent town hall meetings arguably fall under the aegis of the freedom of speech and, in any event, these individuals clearly have a right to offer their point of view and to question their elected representatives about their legislative positions. Yet this does not necessarily mean that all inquiries are created equal.

The young woman in the video demonstrates the difference that might exist. Elected officials quite clearly have a responsibility and a duty to address the concerns of their constitutents; they should devote great care and attention to understanding the concerns and answering the questions of the electorate. Politicians cannot be reasonably expected, however, to rationally and seriously entertain notions that are so far removed from reality as to be almost laughable.

While it is unfortunate that a woman who is clearly interested and engaged in civic affairs was embarrassed at a large public meeting, it is equally regrettable that her poorly considered question precluded serious treatment by Rep. Frank. Hopefully this exchange will begin to re-center the debate where it belongs -- around the real (not imagined) issues in this controversy.

Killing Conversation

The previous posts have dealt, independently, with the issues of town hall disruptions and the propagation of misleading information about healthcare. Recent news reports demonstrate quite strikingly that these problems have become joined. The unfortunate result is an increasingly inhibited dialogue that has taken a nasty turn.

Suddenly absent from the political limelight since her resignation, Sarah Palin attempted to insert herself into the debate with a recent Facebook post. In addition to unabashedly ignoring facts and conjuring rumors about so-called "death panels," the former governor also introduced her son, Trig, into the fray -- relying upon his innocence to evoke concern and effectively exploiting her own child. Suggesting that her son could somehow be executed as the result of healthcare reform is patently ridiculous -- and a grotesque strategy.

Thankfully, many Republicans more interested in an intelligent and constructive conversation -- such as Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) and Jack Kingston (R-GA) -- quickly distanced themselves from these remarks (though Palin still found support among the more radical elements of her party). Far from instituting the mandatory euthanizing of older Americans and toddlers -- something which is, in fact, illegal in 49 states -- reform proposals provide for nothing beyond Medicare funds for concerns such as "designating a health care proxy, choosing a hospice and making decisions about life-sustaining treatment." Nowhere do they even suggest that doctors counsel their patients to refuse medical intervention.

This despicable dissemblance has woven a tapestry of fear and panic that has exploded into town hall meetings. For instance, while Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) was certainly expected to face significant opposition stemming from his defection to the Democratic Party, it was the issue of healthcare that forced him to repeatedly plead with his audience to remain civil. Interestingly, one constituent (likely drawing from President Obama's statement supporting rigorous debate) claimed, "I don't think we have bad attitudes... We're just being Americans." It is hard to accept this assertion. Shouting over others in the audience, disrupting the discussion, and booing politicians and questioners alike is harmful to the democratic processes that Americans hold so dear; such behavior is hardly representative of the noble ideals and high standards for society inherent in the American consciousness.

It is completely understandable that so many should be so concerned. As one sixth of the nation's economy and, more importantly, a system directly tied to the well-being of citizens and their loved ones, the topic of healthcare is an extremely sensitive issue. There are very good reasons to engage in a vigorous debate of the proposals being considered in Congress, and it is inevitable that even reasonable, well-informed individuals will vehemently disagree on the right course of action. The solution, however, is not to descend into a state of chaos that precludes the realization of some type of reform. Nor, as several conservative groups seem to have expressed, is the solution to reject compromise, halt negotiation, and kill any chance for actual reform. According to the notes of the AFL-CIO, one conservative organizer acknowledged that "the purpose of Tea Parties is not to find a solution to the health care crisis." What then, might one ask, is the purpose of generating so much fear and anxiety?

A viable proposal for healthcare reform must be effective, attainable, and beneficial to most Americans. Any system will have flaws, but a good proposal will not have failings that seriously harm even a small number of individuals. Finally, a good proposal must not lose sight of the ultimate goal, which is to improve the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of the citizens of the United States of America. There are perhaps many ways to accomplish this goal, but a resolution will only be reached through open, honest, intelligent debate. This is not encouraged by the current state of affairs and one would hope that the tenor of the controversy changes very quickly. When the most powerful nation in the world fails to provide the best healthcare for its citizens, it is a disservice them, to the dedicated healthcare professionals who struggle to work within the system, and to future generations of Americans.

Campaign of Confusion

It is striking how much anyone following the healthcare debate must wade through information and attempt to discern fact from fiction. It is also interesting to note that most of the misleading "facts" about healthcare and the proposed plans to reform the system seem to emanate from conservative sources. The Drudge Report, for instance, recently featured an astonishingly blatant misrepresentation of the the truth that attempted to encourage the belief that healthcare reform translates to the obliteration of all aspects of the current private system. This was an unfair characterization of reformers' intentions that was created through cheap video-editing techniques and the rampant use of false innuendo.

Perhaps one of the most shameless examples is a recent column by Bill O'Reilly, which is ostensibly constructed around a quote from Benjamin Franklin stating that "when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." The article demonstrates the questionable trend of lifting irrelevant and often misleading tidbits of information and haphazardly disguising them as critiques of non-conservative ideas. It is quite a stretch to assert that this quote reveals Benjamin Franklin's opposition to affordable healthcare, and the spurious argument is not saved by Mr. O'Reilly's attempt to link the ideas by saying that "free healthcare is free money." Even if one were to overlook the logical fallacies in this proposition, it completely misses the mark as Congress is far from considering healthcare coverage that is completely "free."

Moreover, throughout his article Mr. O'Reilly unfairly paints healthcare reform as an attempt to provide free medical care to the the poor. In doing this, he purposefully and disingenuously chooses to ignore the large proportion of the middle class who will benefit from lower premiums, more access to affordable care, and less trepidation about the health of their families in turbulent economic times. It is unclear from the article how these people "continue to fail to pursue happiness effectively."

The article ends with the poignant flourish that "The argument [for healthcare reform] has its emotion. But remember, Benjamin Franklin would not have supported national health care." Such a humorous conclusion is far from assured and the obvious appeal to patriotic love for a revered national figure to conceal an ill-supported argument is readily apparent. The ongoing campaign of misinformation about healthcare reform does nothing to further the debate about how to actually accomplish it.

Perhaps the opponents to the current proposals would be better served by constructively contributing to the process and developing concrete, workable plans of their own. Confusion and the perversion of facts and events serve only to create fear among those who should be level-headed. And to borrow a quote from another Founding Father:

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it." - John Adams