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

Uncivil Society

Today Politico featured an article discussing the rise in unruly participants at town hall meetings. These sessions have become a more common (or at least more popular) way for politicians to connect with their constituents -- perhaps due in large part to the example set by the Obama administration, which uses this meeting style frequently and to great effect. Yet as Congress turns to the serious and pressing issues of our day, more and more participants in these "once-staid" events have become increasingly vocal, aggressive, and hostile against members of both parties.

Take, for example, the case of Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) and his recent encounter with the so-called "birther" movement. Such behavior, the article implies, is fast becoming the norm at town hall meetings. Even absent knowledge of the true prevalence of this phenomenon, the anecdotal evidence is enough to cause significant concern. The cornerstone of the system of government in the United States is the power of the citizenry to express its views, choose its leaders, and substantially influence the way in which the country is governed. Town hall meetings seem to be a nice distillation of these goals, providing voters with direct, immediate access to their elected officials and allowing both groups to establish a constructive and informative dialogue. The apparent trend of disruptive behavior, ad hominem attacks, and even violence seems to seriously undermine this democratic goal.

Undoubtedly, even boorish individuals have the right to express their views -- even to express them strenuously. It would be unthinkable and contrary to the very notion of liberty to limit the free speech of those who are critical of the government. It is worth questioning, however, if all people have the right to express their views in a way that stymies open discussion and the constructive exchange of ideas. Such an exercise of free speech silences other voices who have just as much right to expression and inclusion. Is free speech in all forms truly free for all people?

When the Obama campaign demonstrated that the internet can be a powerful and effective way to inspire and mobilize supporters, I privately expressed excitement that perhaps the rise of "netroots" movements and the increasing ability to connect through digital media would lead to a new age of town hall meetings online. The improved connectivity provided by technology should be a boon to discussion, debate, and democracy, for an informed and engaged population is undeniably an asset to any self-governing body. The recent occurrences at traditional town halls, however, are enough to give one pause. Hopefully civic discourse can continue to proliferate while remaining civil.