Ann Davidow

There’s a surrealistic tinge to the politics of today, an almost insurmountable hurdle that subverts any possibility of reaching viable solutions for the troubling issues that confront us. It is we the people’s business our elected officials are chosen to conduct. Regrettably, the means to deliver on that mandate is often stymied by opportunistic propaganda and partisan contempt for truthful dialogue and the corruption of meaningful process.

The president delivered a message to school children encouraging them to make the most of their school experience - - do their homework, read, pay attention in class, be careful what they post on Face Book. But some parents, ‘enlightened’ no doubt by those strange eerie voices on the right, objected to their kids hearing what they claimed would be a radical rant. “I don’t want my kids being taught to become little socialists” one woman declared. In fact there was nothing radical about the speech as anyone who cared to listen can affirm. But what’s the cure for stupid? And how does one go about prying open the closed minds of those who listen without hearing?

When Dorothy famously said to her dog “We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto” she was off on her fantasy trip in the Land of Oz. There she would learn some important lessons about courage, compassion and intellect with a few friends she meets along the way. Why is it that in the very real world of today representatives from some states speak with such loud voices and assume their home-state rules should be normative for an entire nation? Washington DC becomes their home away from home, but nothing seems to broaden their narrowly conceived world vision.

While the Constitution provides for equal numbers of senators regardless of population they often represent fewer people than many of the larger states and the arrogance that invigorates their rhetoric attracts far too much attention from the media and their party. Oklahoma’s Inhofe insists global warming is a hoax as chunks of the polar ice cap break off and float away. And he is proud to say there are no gays in his family, and adamant that the institution of marriage is threatened by gay unions and that “family values” define the Republican vision, despite numerous graceless departures from moral rectitude by members of the party.

The much touted collegial atmosphere in the Senate has become a battleground of partisan gotcha politics in which the concept of working together means acquiescing to minority talking points and lame alternatives to health-care proposals that promise nothing much except to offer the ability to obtain insurance across state lines, enact tort reform and promote medical savings plans. While those proposals have some merit they would be only minimally effective in curing the ills of the present system. The idea, for example, that health savings accounts would protect ordinary people from catastrophic medical debt is an absurdity. And the largest insurance providers control much of the market here, there and everywhere.

Guess who was talking about “the nobility of public service” on This Week last weekend. Why it was Liz Cheney paying tribute once again to her father’s efforts on behalf of the nation, accomplishments that leave many of us in something less than a celebratory frame of mind.

The discussion of the moment turned on Attorney General Holder’s decision to appoint a special prosecutor to examine possible CIA misconduct in the interrogation of terrorist suspects. The questions that have been raised over the issue aren’t just about the methods used by subordinates but rather more importantly, who authorized them and to what purpose. Ms. Cheney stuck to the party line as do her father and his allies that vital information was derived, lives saved, plots thwarted and the nation kept safe because of Bush policies. And, oh yes, she was quite certain that “waterboarding isn’t torture.”

However opinions inside and outside military and intelligence circles differ on whether or not “enhanced interrogation techniques” did in fact produce “actionable intelligence.” Wellsprings of information had already been extracted from suspects, and one has to wonder how relevant additional declarations from them could be after extended periods of incarceration. But logic isn’t one of the Cheney long suits.

As E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post noted, interest in the subject is driven by questions about how far up “the food chain” decisions to employ what most rational people define as torture went. Cheney’s daughter et al maintain that truly criminal acts have already been adjudicated and punishment meted out. And she says the matter had been addressed by career professionals at the Justice Department - - that is the Bush Justice Department and its cadre of compliant advocates. In oddly contradictory positions daughter Cheney said bad actors had been punished, while father Cheney’s appeared to suggest in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox that there were no bad actors, no boundaries, and that ‘stepping over the line’ of normative behavior was okay by him - - a seeming admission that interrogation policies were fixed at the highest levels.

Cheney, the father constantly inveighs against the “dangerous precedent” that is set when an incoming administration questions policy decisions made in a previous White House. Yet he finds it acceptable to accuse President Obama of making the country less safe, an assertion that some suggest gives aid and comfort to our enemies and is hardly the measure of a true patriot. How, in any case, can a nation recover its equilibrium if it fails to at least examine the wrongs in its past?

For his part President Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to move on, not look backward, and he’d obviously prefer not to become embroiled in what might be construed as playing politics with the interrogation issue. But that ship has sailed. And though a determination of criminal conduct may not be the end result of an investigation, the public is entitled to know what its government undertook in its name and whether it was consistent with our national commitment to human rights. All too often government keeps secrets not to fend off enemies but to avoid public scrutiny.

A Bush supporter recently proclaimed Dick Cheney “brilliant” and insisted he had kept the country safe, and that Clinton had “neutered” the CIA. One can take an educated guess as to where such people get their talking points, but it is unsettling to realize they have been so effectively seduced by the voices of unreason. Too bad George Bush and his arrogant entourage ignored Clinton’s admonition that the new administration’s most daunting challenge would be terrorism. Had they taken that warning seriously pre-emptive measures might have averted the 911 attacks. After all, planes had been used as suicide weapons as far back as WWII at Pearl Harbor. That they could be flown into buildings was a total surprise only to Condoleezza Rice and the administration.

Actually the greatest challenge we face today is finding answers to the nation’s most intractable problems. Ideological differences exist of course, but trying to undermine the president as if he were the devil incarnate is an immoral, politics-as-usual exercise that weakens the country and inflames an already disillusioned public. Sowing confusion for political gain may seem a useful gambit to partisans who lust after power, but the harvest is meager and the people are left to inherit the wind.

Democrats tend to strike a defensive posture in attempting to combat hard-right vitriol. They try to deflect critics’ attacks on the president’s plans to reform health-care, address environmental concerns and just about anything he takes on. But his supporters should take a more aggressive, principled stand to offset the simplistic partisanship that plays to the fears and prejudices of a largely uninformed public.

When some nice Republican ladies asked recently “do you like Obama” it was obvious they were just awaiting a reply in the negative. Indeed they were in a place where almost everyone is a well-heeled Republican, overly concerned with taxes and the affront to their sensibilities created by an upstart Democrat in the White House. How is it, one wonders, they could still be so proud of voting for Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin? How are they able to celebrate the failed vision and narrow perspectives of candidates such as those?

Right-wing hunters and gatherers of hardscrabble facts destined for the airwaves and gullible audiences are at it again. Questionable rationales receive media attention, perhaps to provide equal time for idiots. More likely, the networks and cable channels would be unable to fill their time allotments if they excluded unsubstantiated drivel.

That Nazi, Socialism stuff is especially annoying, and while it may serve some useful purpose to turn cameras on poster-wielding nuts and even to allow them occasionally to say ridiculous things into a microphone, they shouldn’t be mistaken for people who have something relevant to say. When a young woman asked Barney Frank how he could support a president who promoted “Nazi policies” he asked her “on what planet do you spend most of your time?” adding that “a conversation with her would be like talking to a dining-room table.” Unaccountably, some have suggested Frank’s retort was overly harsh but it seemed just right; besides it made me laugh.

The voices of unreason keep playing to a legion of dupes. Glenn Beck’s faithful audience, for example, embraces his gaping camera persona and absorbs his rhetorical flights with a desperate eagerness that inoculates them against a larger world vision and the rigors of logical thought. Nevertheless, phantom notions assert a demonic hold on the psyches of cultists and media devotees alike; no ill-conceived notion goes un-remarked or fails to be included in the lexicon of partisan fantasizers.

It grows more difficult all the time to extract what is truly outrageous from what is just devious and perverted. The minority party obstructs and lies about everything the president undertakes. However, by failing to articulate his goals with specificity and ardor, he has provided opponents with an opportunity to just make things up while leaving supporters without the invigorating spirit that drove them to his camp originally. The moral imperative of one’s positions must be constantly and emphatically reaffirmed.

But what muddies the waters and strains the limits of our entire system is the religious dogma that has become an adjunct of political dialogue. As Jeff Sharlet, author of the book The Family- - the Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power explains, visitors to and inhabitants of “C Street House, the secretive religious enclave on Capitol Hill” are not just religious practitioners; they are essentially lobbyists working to advance political agendas in the name of religion. The same rationale prevailed years ago, for example, when Jerry Falwell, founder of “the moral majority”, seemed as intent on attaining political power as in promoting piety among his followers.

Sharlet, who spent time as a C- Street House insider, got to know its residents, many of whom are members of Congress. Apparently, the organization considered registering as “a lobby for God’s Kingdom” but felt they “could be more effective working personally with politicians.” Curiously, the C-Street house has been granted tax-free status as a religious institution. More secretive than most church groups the hymn “Rock of Ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in thee” could serve as its slightly ironic theme song.

The Stock Market and extremists seem to have become the leading indicators of our nation's future. Lobbyists are waging a successful assault on health-care reform while wild-eyed elders and others with a grudge arrive at political meet-ups to engage in over-wrought diversions far-removed from the topics at hand. Motivated by personal fears and desires, they are invigorated by fire-breathing, right-wing fanatics and supported by every conceivable fringe element.

It was telling that, on a day when the market slowed, four of the largest health-care insurers - - Cigna, United Health, Aetna and Wellpoint - - showed significant gains on hints that the "public option" might be dropped from health-care legislation. Yet, despite that up-tick on Wall Street and Republican delight at the possible collapse of the president's agenda, the very-elder statesman, Senator Grassley, said if he can't get enough members of his party to support reform of any kind, he won't sign on either. That statement proves if further proof were needed, that what the minority has in mind is simply to thwart anything the president proposes no matter what it is.

You can’t be too careful about your information gathering. Wading through conflicting details to arrive at a fact-based rationale for one’s opinions can be a chore.  But without reliable input one is hard pressed to make informed judgments. As computer techies put it, “garbage in, garbage out.” Unfortunately, in today’s heated atmosphere, the facts about health care, the stimulus package, bailouts or national security don’t always seem to matter.  Opposition forces create their own version of the truth and assail anything that doesn’t meet their ideological specifications.

In support of fact-starved partisan agendas conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Erick Erickson, of Redstate.com, explode into loud guffaws during discussions , as if laughter could neutralize the relevance of a question or view - - a response that epitomizes the weak formulations articulated by ideologues with a mike. Buchanan announced on Saturday that his side was ‘winning the war’ with respect to health-care reform, as if that were a worthwhile goal, when the dip in the president’s ratings on the subject represents a triumph of an insensate minority that fails to grasp fault lines in the current system - - a rush not of informed opinion but of non-ideas animated by inchoate anger.

As a guest on Washington Journal, 8/14/09, Mr. Erickson laughed his way past negative comments from callers and stuck to the partisan line that Republican reform should hew more closely to conservative principles. He observed that the vituperative Michelle Malkin’s blog is widely read and said President Bush would have been better off if he been more supportive of Vice President Cheney’s vision. There is hardly a groundswell of support for Cheney despite the efforts of party stalwarts and ubiquitous daughter Liz to burnish his reputation, so it’s curious that Erickson would choose to lionize him.

There is one simple way that would help to make sense of the health-care debate. When opponents of change claim, for example, that most Americans are satisfied with their care, the next question should be, "how about its cost?" Many people receive good care, but for those without adequate insurance, who lack work-related health benefits, aren't poor enough for Medicaid or old enough for Medicare, it isn't about the quality of care that's available, it's about the cost of obtaining it.

When reports indicate that some 70% of bankruptcies are the result of medical expenses, when insurance companies take every opportunity to pare their rolls, the picture isn't so sunny. The film, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman, although fictional, doesn't seem all that different from the way corporations and insurance companies assess risk vis-à-vis profit margins. In the movie, gas tanks in the company's cars explode in accidents, killing or seriously injuring occupants. Caused by a malfunctioning turn-signal, the problem could be corrected by recalling the troubled vehicles. But management is told by its "bean-counters" that it will be cheaper to pay the claims resulting from accidents than to issue a preventative recall.

How can right-wing extremists retain even the smallest shred of credibility when they characterize pre-arranged disruptions of town-hall meetings as legitimate forms of protest? How did hysteria become the norm at a time when only prudent deliberation can make sense of matters that affect the lives and fortunes of main-street Americans? And when did imbecilic rhetoric based on misinformation and deceitful political maneuvering become the standards by which ordinary folks are encouraged to decide their futures?

We had eight years of contrived presidential press conferences and town halls where audiences were pre-selected and dissenters ejected just for wearing opposition political buttons or articles of clothing. But suddenly, we are told it's the Democrats who trample on the first amendment, not the people creating disorder and threatening violence at meetings. Members of the White House staff are accused of trying to stifle free speech by raising questions about comments made by media pundits who say the president is a fascist, un-American or, silliest of all, stupid.

It's bad enough that questions about the president's birth certificate continue to percolate. And Rush Limbaugh's outburst comparing the health-care logo to the Nazi emblem is a deranged talking point that must have taken shape after a long, sleepless night.  For the vast Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck audiences, however, acceptance of far-fetched claptrap is buttressed by an alarmingly limited grasp of history and political movements. If listeners were at all knowledgeable, they would be insulted by the expectation that they could swallow such nonsense. On the subject of fascism, they would realize that the fulminations of their heroes actually bear far greater resemblance to Goebbels' "big lie" propaganda in Hitler's time, than anything that informs the President's philosophy or behavior. But accusing Obama of being stupid, that's the last straw - - best not to project one's own failings onto others.

Meanwhile, political opportunists continue to maintain that their shout-outs are acceptable forms of protest. Attempts to take control of meetings are excused by organizers as justifiable because, gosh darn it, people are upset and free speech shouldn't be denied, a right that doesn't seem to apply when those who have called the meeting try to speak. Why it's probably even a really good idea for attendees to take weapons with them just in case someone needs killing. A lot of these folks are a bit long in the tooth for the call to arms by which they have been summoned, but the vitriol they express is ferocious and, if they can stave off cardiac arrest, they could conceivably continue to succeed in preventing serious discussions from taking place.

Disruptions and mindless assertions have consumed the air in much of the debate about health-care reform, and it isn't easy to combat the torrent of false information that rains down on a frightened and confused public. Sarah Palin says the president's plan is a prelude to euthanizing Down-syndrome babies like hers and others claim he would assemble a death tribunal to make end-of-life decisions; the alarm engendered by such false claims often overwhelms truth and reason.

Families that have had to deal with the suffering of a loved one in their last days have always discussed that person's care with physicians. There is nothing unusual about that process; health-care legislation would just make a physician's time spent in conversation with family and patient reimbursable.  Some patients elect to have every conceivable effort made to prolong their lives, others refuse further treatment, issue orders not to resuscitate, decide not to be hospitalized or opt for care in a hospice. It's all about choice, not government intrusion. Suggesting otherwise is just political hogwash.

It does seem, however, that the proposed legislation is overly complicated, that it attempts to cover too much and should be pared down and made more easily understood. As it stands now, its length and scope allows opponents to zero in on minor elements, turning smaller issues into major talking points and allowing orchestrated protests to assume far greater importance than is warranted. Whatever the reason, whether it is a political ploy or simply reflects a vast reservoir of ignorance, there is no excuse for striking fear into the hearts of susceptible people. Bill Maher may be on to something when he says "we should forget town halls and replace them with study halls."