Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation. Not addressing these issues is seen as a concession to their validity and addressing them takes the debate down a tangent and away from the actual topic at hand. I think that is precisely what those who oppose reform want and it has quickly spread out of the individual town hall meetings and into the media, blogosphere, and social networking sites. I'm not suggesting that there aren't actual citizens who are showing up at the meetings, writing emails and taking a stand against reform. There are. Unfortunately many of them are misinformed, they are getting angrier, the confrontations are getting violent and there have been at least three (1 2 3) instances of guns being brought to rallies.
I think we desperately need to find a way to engage each other in a meaningful way so that we can deal with this issue that almost everyone agrees must be addressed. David Frum, who was a speech writer for President Bush, is someone who I usually do not agree with on just about anything. However, like Andrew Sullivan I find myself agreeing with Frum. Last week he wrote a piece ruminating on the "cost" of winning . i.e. -- "beat back the president’s proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself."
There is a really good diary over at Talking Points Memo called "I Don't Trust Your Side, and My Side Sickens Me" that captures the difficulties of this situation quite well. The author is a liberal woman who has in her family and circle of friends many people on the other side of the debate. Her post details her frustration with the situation and her attempts to have a civil dialogue with her friends and family. I am most impressed by her desire which is not just to debate her side of the issue, but to view the opposition with compassion and attempt to understand where they are coming from in the hopes of a meaningful dialogue. She writes -The problem is that if we do that… we’ll still have the present healthcare system. Meaning that we’ll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments.
We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.
Not a good outcome.
And I think the final answer is this:I pray that we get the insurance reform that we need so badly, but even more so that we can learn to treat each other with love and respect even when we passionately disagree.I reached out to conservative family and friends with affection and respect.
They responded in kind.
In the final analysis, I don't think we're going to see much meeting of minds in rage-infested town halls or plaquard-bearing public venues of any kind.
Maybe not in private e-mail exchanges, either.
But if we are going to find some sort of way to tackle the gigantic problems that this country faces, then we are going to have to do it one on one, as I did, with the people who know us, love us, and trust us--at least, on matters unrelated to politics.
Maybe, in that way, we can begin to put some sort of salve on the open burning wounds of hate-rhetoric that flies around both sides of the aisle.
And if all we do, in the long run, is agree to disagree, then if it is done with love and respect, then maybe that is one less Democrat for them to hate or one less Republican for us to hate.
And if that's not civil discourse, I don't know what is.
No comments:
Post a Comment