I went to a forum here in Las Vegas on health care reform last night. I didn't walk in without knowing who'd invited me (local Clark County Democratic Party activists because I'm not on any GOP mailing lists), or who was sponsoring the event (Health Care for America Now, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Organizing for America). And, I went there steadfastly believing that health care for everyone is important and is long overdue in this country. But, despite my belief in the necessity for health care and the knowledge of who was sponsoring the event, I was nonetheless very disappointed.
You see, the notice I received mentioned being "able to ask questions in a dignified setting." When I walked in, a minute or two late, the forum leader was speaking of the necessity of "civil discourse" being the order of the evening. "Civil discourse" was, in fact, a phrase repeated over and over. And, in the end, the evening was so very civil that it was almost coma-inducing. And the questions were "asked" by submitting them on 3x5 index cards.
I hasten to say that I know who the sponsors were and the point of view they tend to represent -- liberal, Democratic, favoring health care reform. I even share their point of view. And, strictly speaking there was discourse. But there was no debate and no need to repeatedly warn people to be civil. Everyone agreed with everyone else. Of course they'd be civil!
Civility is not a bad thing at all. Civility should reign whenever people of opposing viewpoints meet to discuss. It should reign in formal debate, in the halls of Congress, over a game of bridge. But "discourse" -- in the sense of the word as a synonym for "debate" -- was entirely lacking.
The panelists were all passionate in their belief that we need a national health care program (although the brochure they gave out that consisted of "Information from www.whitehouse.gov," and called it health "insurance," not "healthcare" reform). They may have differed on the precise details, but all but one of them was very ardent in that belief. (And that one was still in favor but -- rightly, I believe -- wanted to see what bills about it come out of Congress.) The problem was that everyone there agreed. Everyone who spoke or, even, submitted a written question was preaching to the choir.
Perhaps naively, I went to learn what the opponents of health care reform are thinking. I wanted to hear their objections answered and countered. I wanted to see -- visibly -- some minds changed -- maybe even my mind would be changed -- and, also, to understand what lies under the shouts of the opposition. Instead, I got lots of civility and no discourse unless, of course, "discourse" is a simple question-and-answer session.
We've all heard about the town hall meetings on reform that have made elected officials seem brave merely to face their constituents. We've heard people outshouting the speakers as chaos rules the day. And, we've heard the unprecedented out-loud call of "liar!" as our president spoke before a joint session of Congress.
The one thing we've yet to hear (at least in these parts) is "civil discourse" or, for that matter, much discourse at all.
These forums have turned into (very civil) rallies for one side or the other. And, depending upon which side of the question you choose, it seems that's the side to which you gravitate. On the rare occasion where partisans of both sides of the issue meet face-to-face it is usually outdoors as they march with signs expressing their points of view while shouting slogans at each other.
All this accomplishes almost* nothing. There seems to be no learning curve that sees people approach the issue with a tabula rasa and a willingness to listen to all sides, evaluate and then decide.
I'm not going to get all flag-wavy and talk about founding fathers and the cornerstone of our country that cherishes discourse and, even, debate. Or the First Amendment. I believe in all that. But I also believe we don't need to look any further back than the last couple of months to understand that without listening and being even a tiny bit open to what those who disagree with us think, we're getting nowhere and -- no matter how this ends -- too many people are going be left angry. That cannot be good for anyone.
*Please note: I said this accomplished "almost" nothing. The one thing it has accomplished is to give me a public forum (this one) to shout -- "PEOPLE! 'Preexisting' is not a word! Either something exists or it doesn't. Can we please expunge that word from our language? All those people who say "preexisting" while railing at health insurance companies, should note that the New Oxford American Dictionary defines "preexisting condition" as "a medical condition existing at a time when new insurance is applied for. Typically the cost of its treatment is not covered by the insurance." Thus, it's a meaningless word made up by insurance companies for whom, clearly, the mere word "existing" didn't suffice. And, by the way, it's properly "preventive," not "preventative," too.