And now, finally, we've almost got it. We've waited, what, 100 years? But health care legislation looks to be a go. It's a fabulously historic moment for sure. It isn't the bill that liberal Democrats most wanted (no public option) but it's a huge step forward. It provides affordable coverage to 32 million Americans who have no insurance; it keeps insurance companies from denying coverage -- or hiking rates-- to sick people who most need it. It lowers drug costs for seniors, it promotes preventive care, and miracle of miracles, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it even reduces the national debt.
But what struck me again this morning is the fact that the fight over health care legislation has in the last year become such a flashpoint for vicious left/right debate. An article in The Washington Post suggests that by passing the bill, Democrats ramp up ideological warfare like few bills that have come before.
Republicans, painting the bill as "Obamacare," call it a socialist plot. According to the Post, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich (seemingly forgetting about the far more "socialized" experiment now known as "Medicare") called the health care bill "the most radical social experiment . . . in modern times."
Of course, passing legislation that gives insurance to millions of Americans who don't have it and preventing medical bankruptcies for millions more who have lousy insurance could very well work in the Democrat's favor.
But whatever the political fallout, the Post points out what all of us -- no matter if we tune into Fox News or MSNBC -- already know: that the health-care battle has deepened the ideological divide in this country. It was evident last summer in the emergence of the Tea Party movement. It was evident yesterday in DC when Tea Party members protesting the health care bill on the steps of the Capitol spit (literally and figuratively) racial and other slurs at black and gay members of Congress.
As the Post points out, "partisanship and political polarization are measurably worse today."
Yeah. That's for sure. And the question is, is there any cure for that?
It's not like our modern media is poised to help the situation. If anything, the rise of the blogosphere, and the emergence -- and huge popularity -- of the most strident voices of radio talk shows and radical television pundits is just amping up the vicious vitriol of the "debate." A Fox News channel that tries to pass itself off as journalism, but is anything but impartial, only exacerbates the situation. And the folks on the left don't always help either. Sometimes Keith Obermann's tone and those searing dark eyes of his scare me almost much as do the total crazies on the right.
Moderation seems more and more out of reach. The media, always angling to hype the conflict, the horse race, the war, inevitably feeds the anger on both sides. What comes with that is just more anger.
We can take pride as a nation in the fact that by passing health care reform, we are at last joining the rest of the modern industrialized world that attends to the health needs of its citizens. Yes, it is finally happening, but we have to ask, where do go from here?
As a nation we need desperately to turn down the heat, and to find ways if not to work together, at least to speak to each other in civil discourse.
At a moment in history when Congress is attending to the health of the nation through reconciliation measures, it is urgent that we bring to the fore a serious discuss about how to foster conciliation. How to heal. The message that filled Obama's manifesto, The Audacity of Hope, was that we as a nation need to build bridges, to find common ground between differences. That message helped to elect him. Obama sought to hold that posture -- seeking bipartisanship, avoiding confrontation -- on health care all last year, and in the end, legislation stalled.
It wasn't until he was willing to push the Dems to go it alone that the health care bill gained momentum.
Which leads to the question, can we hope to make real change in this country and at the same time do what Obama suggested was possible during the election, bridge the ideological divide?
It can be argued that as the benefits of real reform begin to manifest themselves -- i.e., when millions of ordinary people can finally see a doctor when they need to -- then there will be more widespread momentum to rally together behind common goals.
I'd like to believe that this is true, at least, we need this as a goal to lead us forward.
Follow Claudia Ricci on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RicciCJ
Yes, there is ideological debates going in the country, but it is on policy process differences - the republicans still want to CONTROL THE PROCESS WITH THEIR IDEAS. Take the HCR, it's not a liberal/progressive bill. It is the same as Romney(R) instituted in MA. Same ideals that Nixon, Eisenhower wanted to do. As they say the progressive/liberas wanted a New Deal bill with 'single payer or public option or Medicare buy-in'. But that did not happen - we got a conservative bill.
Where the problem lies is that the conservatives painted it as such with the media as the echo chamber. Liberals/progressive should be pissed off but ironically it is the dumb down 'tea baggers' following their masters to paint the president as ineffective, as not one of us and like good soldiers they went marching of to the picket lines with their vile, un-american signs becoming the laughing stock of the world. How uneducated, uninformed to show signs that read 'Take the Govt hands of my Medicare'.
Now all these people that hate the bill now, may eventually come to love it as seniors regardless of ideology love medicare, but that doesn't mean they will like the next big government program.
The discourse was civil only words were thrown, one can ask for nothing more in a democracy. To expect those with strong ideological differences however regressive to contain their anger while speaking would only risk them finding a less productive outlet for anger they truly feel.
They got to say their piece. They will get to campaign aggressively against the perceived perpetrators and they will win or lose. That is the beauty of our democracy it allows positive outlets for anger and frustration. One attempts to bottle up such feelings to have a polite PC discourse at their own peril.
Moderation is not out of reach look at the bill that resulted. As center as it gets as politicians tacked between the vitriol of the right and left. Democracy isn't pretty it isn't efficient but despite the strong feelings on both side this debate occured wihtout anything more than hard verbal jabs and roundhouses.
Indeed the passion of the people openly expressed is likely necessary to warn the politicians where no mans land truly is.
Obama will secure yet another victory PR-wise
I try to live my life by treating people the way I want to be treated. I'm embarrassed and saddened by the way the our democratic leaders have behaved over the past year, now that they have the power. I would be livid if the roles were reversed and Republicans acted this way. I think all of you would be too! I would've liked to see democrats set a good example and at least include Republicans in the talks from the beginning. I see no reason to have excluded them except that being the underdogs they had no power so they were an easy target. Republicans (and conservative independents) do represent at least half of our country after all (regardless of whether you want to admit it or not).
"A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes another's" - Jean Paul
And I still don't believe that a corporate welfare package is Health Care Reform.
Democrats, as a party, are a little too earnest, a little too eager to "work together" and do things like that. They don't necessarily even distinguish between themselves and other parties, because they're accustomed to disagreement both within their party and without. They actually talk to Republicans, Independents, Green Party members, and Libertarians, because their are, in many ways, just as ideaslistic and pie-in-the-sky-oriented as ever.
But let's face it. The GOP has not been speaking back, directly to Democrats, with any degree of honesty and recognition of the things which the respective parties have in common. The GOP is absolutely playing for keeps -- not for marginal control, but for absolute domination. Not for cooperation, but for annihilation. And not for truth or honesty, because all that matters is winning.
What's remarkable is what poor sports they are. They are the worst losers seen in centuries.
Here's hoping they get a little more practice at bearing it with good grace. I'm not sure they will, since they've successfully frightened the low-info voter, but I sincerely hope so.
This piece of legislation only passed because of a long list of lies and manipulations. It does not lower costs. It does raise taxes. It will increase the deficit. It does cut Medicare. And it will create a bureaucracy designed to choke insurance companies out of business and grow into a single-payer system in the near future. And the "leaders" of our country are lying about each of these facts today, in triumphant cadence.
To address the author's point, I would have to regretfully say, no, it is unlikely that we will "just get along" anytime soon. There is a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of government and the fiscal irresponsibility. On both these issues, we have gone beyond any "gray areas" that can be negotiated. Of course, legislation like this will bring some benefits to some people. But, it's impact on our suicidal path toward national bankruptcy will quickly show the cost was not worth it.
When an election sweep takes place here, we are really only changing the ideological decor.
One "side" is openly serving vested commercial interests at the expense of all else, the "other" is pretending to serve a broader constituency.
If one side refuses to compromise on any issue, then the only way to gain consensus is for the other side to give in on every issue.
I'd like to hope that this country will bridge the ideological divide and become more bipartisan again, but it is very difficult to achieve, and will require that everybody work together to achieve it.
To anyone touting a "return to bipartisanship" I suggest revisiting the allegory of the scorpion and the frog.